A Parlour Trick Explained, and An Interesting Development

Dear reader,

Not very long ago, I received an email forward from a good friend. It was an email which challenged you to take a quiz, follow the instructions, and if you were truthful, the questions (posed by a waiter, presumably) would figure out what your age is, and not only that, but also the integer that you selected. The thing is that the email claimed that the quiz (and its magic) would work only this year -- 2008.

Now, I know how to make it work in 2009 (with some small adjustments). Or, if you still remember by then, it can also work in 2010, 2011, 2012.... Or even in 1989 if you can go back in time. Well, here is the email:

This is too cool.
YOUR AGE BY EATING OUT

Don't tell me your age; you probably would tell a falsehood anyway-but your waiter may know!

YOUR AGE BY DINER & RESTAURANT MATH

DON'T CHEAT BY SCROLLING DOWN FIRST!

It takes less than a minute. Work this out as you read

Be sure you don't read the bottom until you've worked it out!

This is not one of those waste of time things, it's fun.

1. First of all, pick the number of times a week that you would like to go out to eat. (more than once but less than 10)

2. Multiply this number by 2 (just to be bold)

3. Add 5

4. Multiply it by 50

5. If you have already had your birthday this year add 1758... If you haven't, add 1757.

6. Now subtract the four digit year that you were born.


You should have a three digit number

The first digit of this was your original number. (I.e., How many times you want to go out to restaurants in a week.)

The next two numbers are YOUR AGE ! ------ (Oh YES, it is!)

THIS IS THE ONLY YEAR (2008) IT WILL EVER WORK, SO SPREAD IT AROUND WHILE IT LASTS

So, I gave it a sample run.

For starters, a week has only 7 days. So I selected "4" as my magic number. (In fact, eating out 4 times a week can put a strain on your finances, if you ain't careful). Then I ran it through the various steps. Boom boom dang dang.... I came up with the following number: 429. Whoa! It works! But of course, I would like to know why it works. And how it works. So, I pulled up metapad (I use it all the time) and typed out some notes.

Here's what I came up with.

[2A+5](50) + B - C = 100A + D

A=arbitrary number between 1 to 9
B=arbitrary number (1757 if you haven't had your birthday, 1758 if you have)
C=year of birth
D=age


50(2A+5) = 100A + 250

Which means that
250 + B - C = D

Which means....
250 + B = C + D

And B = 1758,
meaning
C + D = 2008 (the present year)


Let's see.... Your age plus the year of your birth adds up to 2008.
Is that a fact? It may be. But it would not be that magical, yes?
Whereas, the above little "parlour trick" would get you a nice opening line.

Why does this trick work? Would it work in another year? The way I see it, you would need to change the value of "B".

B = (C + D) - 250
and (C + D) is the present year -- whatever that number may be.

In 2009, (C+D) will be 2009, and B will be 1759.

So, now you see how *you*, dear reader, can go ahead and pull the same trick? Next year, change that magic number "1758" to "1759" and it will work.


++++++ End Of Post About Parlour Trick ++++++

Actually there's more relevant material for you to read. In the newspapers, they usually append such "related developments" to news stories by such devices: "In an unrelated development..." or "In a related development...." or even "In Kedah...." But today there seems to be quite a hot matter brewing up.

Ahmad Ismail (Encik or Datuk? I'm not sure), Division Chairman of UMNO Bukit Bendera has issued his response to the "hot coverage" that the media had been giving him recently, following his purportedly seditious statement. The division chairman had recently been quoted in a Chinese language daily as having uttered seditious words, prompting various quarters from MCA and Gerakan to lodge police reports. Members of opposition party DAP also lodged police reports.

As a result, Deputy Prime Minister YAB Dato' Seri Mohd Najib bin Tun Abdul Razak (also deputy president of UMNO) apologised for his fellow party member's faux pas. In a surprising turn of events, the embattled UMNO division chairman issued a statement that he had been quoted out of context, and that he does not owe anyone an apology.

Here is your reading assignment for today:

• Penang Umno backs Ahmad, snubs Pak Lah - Malaysiakini.com, 5th September 2008
• Ahmad Ismail's statement - Malaysiakini.com, 5th September 2008
• Najib: Umno apologises - The Star Online, 3rd September 2008
• 周連瓊：堅持不悔改‧法辦阿末起警惕作用 - Sin Chiew Online, 4th September 2008

To sum up the matter, Ahmad Ismail states that his earlier statement must be looked at in context. He was addressing a crowd which profile was mostly Malay. (page 4) His statement referred to the Chinese in pre-Independence context. (page 10) The reporter twisted his words. (page 11) "The reporter is racist, not me." (page 11) He maintains that the Chinese were "penumpang" (passengers) before Independence. (page 12) He says Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon is using the issue to explain Barisan Nasional's recent loss in Permatang Pauh. (page 13) He asks UMNO leaders not to apologise and hurt the Malay community's feelings. (page 15)

If there was one sentence that needed to be edited in that statement of his, I think it would be: "Dalam perlembagaan parti kita tidak ada termaktub bahawa kita kena berjuang untuk orang Cina." (Translation: "In our party constitution, it is not stated that we have to fight for Chinese people.")

To be fair, UMNO is a race-based party. There is no way I can be a member and change its constitution. It was founded out of a race-based struggle. The major partners in the ruling coalition are to a large extent, also race-based. MCA is the Malaysian Chinese Association while MIC is the Malaysian Indian Congress. Yet it is clear that we are all one nation.

Fifty years down the road after Merdeka, and yet we are racially aligned. Many have suggested that we should move away from race-based politics to one that addresses the issues that all communities face: poverty, education, human rights, economic, cultural and social right, etc. Yet, as long as the "Big Brother" in the ruling coalition insists on playing the racial card, can you blame the other parties for responding to that tack? Why is it, the chairman of our ruling coalition said "Don't Be Racial" and yet his underlings in his party insist on being racial? (Reference: Pak Lah: Don't Be Racial, The Star Online, 12th February 2008)

Talk is cheap. The ruling government would do well to institute measures to prevent racial slurs and encourage fair competition, for example setting in place: a non-discrimination statute; a fair competition law; and entrenching the above in the Federal Constitution. In Barisan Nasional itself, there should be a Code of Conduct for its various politicians, to ensure that they do not run out of line. A supreme committee comprising the chairmen of all component parties should be formed to deal with transgressions against such a Code (if ever they do set up such a Code). Every member of that committee should have one (1) equal vote. There should never be any veto rights otherwise you will have problems, just like those faced by the Security Council of United Nations.