On the number of words, web-pages, humans ....

Some [not all!] of the readers here might think whether my wordage in my writing is natural. Your suspicion may be right-- I don't and can't speak in the manner that I write here. I have to make ample use of http://www.dictionary.com/ some times to check some words I heard of and which I have forgotten the meaning of [BTW, if a word sounds good, it tends to stay in memory -- how does bamboozle sound? :) ]. Granted, one takes a lot of short-cuts with spoken language or regional versions [ dnt frg8 mbyl SMS]. But it is the written version where the highest conformity or perfection of language rules [syntax for techies, grammar for librarians -- that reminds me -- some girls look so attractive with glasses :-o] can be exercised; it is also the medium of contracts, legal statements, and such. It is the authors, journalists, lawmakers etc. who set the high standards -- if they were to write like the common man, they wouldn't have many jobs. Also, it is a good way to give our minds something to learn-- new words, idioms, slang and so on. Besides, people who write well get respected, are thought to be well educated and [unfortunately] tend to get easily believed as 'experts'! If you think this manner of writing is too showy and dislike it, you may mutter some abuses or laugh at this and navigate away. But otherwise, do stay and read the rest of this post [I don't know why you chose to read this far, but am not complaining, and would be happy to write for you if you told me a topic to focus on..:)].

Also note my use of [] as opposed to () ? It is to make less confusing the use of the little faces -- :) ;) :-o ... which is important to me to reach out to you [ <> doesn't work as the parser(s?) interpret it specially--as a tag?]. Also, I tend to write/blog here as if I am talking to you face to face. Note that I assume or propose somethings or some trends whereas I could have easily checked some facts or figure online. This is because I know you can check it yourself, and I want to deal more with intuition/feelings than facts here [like the hero of Star Wars, Luke Skywalker switches off the computer on his fighter and aims at the evil weapon base manually using his concentration, called 'the force' by director George Lucas-- not that you should do actually something like this in your car/bike/helicopter/plane/.... !]. Or maybe, I am just lazy :(.

Now that we have established some norms of my thought delivery [or 'communication protocol' -- guess who would use that? techies again!], let's move on. People often talk about population growth of the human species. It is also known that the Internet is expanding with data-- terabytes, petabytes.. [then what? must see http://www.wikipedia.com/!]. I think there is a possibility that the number of pages grow at a faster rate today than the number of people on the planet [not Venus or Mars of course ...heh heh one more of my PJs -- Poor Jokes ]. So anyone with an understanding of primary school arithmetic and the knowledge that the Internet is always growing can figure out that pages/person is a metric which is a big number [or at least on the increase even if my contention that page growth rate seems higher than population growth rate is false]. Does it mean anything? Well I guess this is how the thinking of statisticians works. Although playing with numbers is cool to a certain extent, translating it to news headlines can give scary 'facts' [mathematically correct, physically not so much]. For instance, I read recently
something like --' Pedestrians in the beginning of winter / during daylight time change are more likely to be hit by cars than other times of the year'. What is say a student who uses his/her legs more than wheels to get around to do when he/she reads it?

Regarding population growth, if we think like a machine/computer in terms of numbers, say we could assign a fixed value to all of the human species. Then as the population increases, would it not decrease the value of a single organism in the species? Is that why people tend to 'invest' less of everything in every acquaintance they have -- attach less with other people, break up families (cause of wars!)? If this idea is fully believed/endorsed, the person doing it would be thought of as a psychopath/sociopath [ or whatever the correct term is -- refer a psychologist or wikipedia!]. But what if it's tr......................

So many people make complexity of the world systems higher and our mind probably goes insane at least to the extent that it is unable to process the information and the meaning of the situation. Some studies have suggested that a man cannot think realistically about the well being of more than few dozen people (like a close knot tribe/band of monkeys) he recognizes and likes, even if it's a Gandhian figure.Well, we can see that when we litter plastics somwhere, we think not of the trouble added to the habitat of more than 6+ billion other people, but just comprehend that the place of disposal is nowhere close to our home, eh?

Is this what they call dark/black humor? [Great! Have I managed to present THAT?. Spectator putting palm on forehead: "Oh! ah look at that foolish amateur-- acts like a kid" ]