change section to subsection in blog5

- correct title of blog8

3 files changed, 5 insertions, 8 deletions

diff --git a/Logbook.toc b/Logbook.toc
index 9c21b9a..bd7a613 100644
--- a/Logbook.toc
+++ b/Logbook.toc
@@ -234,13 +234,10 @@
 \select@language {english}
 \select@language {english}
 \select@language {english}
-\contentsline {section}{\numberline {4.1}Me and my writings}{181}{section.4.1}
 \select@language {english}
 \select@language {english}
-\contentsline {section}{\numberline {4.2}Novelty, publishing and more}{183}{section.4.2}
 \select@language {english}
 \select@language {malayalam}
-\contentsline {section}{\numberline {4.3}Half baked analysis and Questions!}{185}{section.4.3}
 \select@language {malayalam}
 \contentsline {section}{Hospital Log 6}{186}{section*.62}
 \select@language {english}
@@ -248,6 +245,6 @@
 \contentsline {section}{Hospital Log 7}{187}{section*.63}
 \select@language {english}
 \select@language {malayalam}
-\contentsline {section}{Hospital Log 7}{189}{section*.64}
+\contentsline {section}{Hospital Log 8}{189}{section*.64}
 \select@language {english}
 \select@language {malayalam}
diff --git a/blog5.tex b/blog5.tex
index 1ba81b6..a5e4b5b 100644
--- a/blog5.tex
+++ b/blog5.tex
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ I don't know why I want to write novel stuff. I know that most of the things I h
 
 The content I wrote so far was read by a doctor. He told me that it is in line with a normal cancer patient's thoughts. So, is there any justice in me seeking novelty? Or is there any good if the content I create ends up being just another cliché because I am a cancer patient? The fact is, I haven't written a single thing in any of these pages which was not there in my mind for the past few years. At certain places, I used the latest evidences or proof of concepts I had. Then some realizations or understandings which I scribbled down and analyzed, those  which have got nothing to do with me being a cancer patient. Because that is something which I all the time. But still, whatever I write from hospital or during the course of my treatment will have the label of, "notes of a cancer patient". It is again the system which I refer to always. The one in which our minds and that too by large in society, like to put people into boxes to understand them better. Though my expressions are not just my reactions to the current situation, people like to see it so since its easy to analyze and ignore them that way.
 
-\section{Me and my writings}
+\subsection*{Me and my writings}
 
 What I write is by no means a creative content. It never contains any decorative remarks or in-depth detailing. It is more or less an analysis, or my perspectives on issues, or my responses or reactions. Some of it are pure explanations of my experiments (as papers) or trouble shooting (blog posts). None of that has place for much creativity. Those follow a standard format like, presenting the problem, my views and logic, and analysis done. I applied the same format in these notes as well. Nothing more. First one was regarding my thoughts on some common question I get, its analysis and my perspective. Next one was on my family and friends, a detailed analysis and retrospection of how good my social assets are. The third one was again my thoughts about me, how my life has contrasting elements and how my existence defies certain odds, which, I think is thoroughly selfish but in no way anything creative. May be it includes retrospection, but the thing is, I've already done these retrospection a long time ago itself.
 
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ I do have my own perspectives and opinions on many subjects. These are formed on
 
 So, my writings are simply nothing more than the most realistic (in my perspective) explanations to scenarios considering trivial factors. It is a little different because I am aware of my audience too. Other than that, there aren't much novel thoughts and ideas created by me. Yeah, I do channel thoughts of my readers to some other streams than the obvious one. But it is never any new channel. It is always through some path which were ignored by mainstream analysts or media because of their affiliations or biases. I just do what any honest critique or commentator does. Make the field balanced and in the process, very rarely do I have to be innovative, thanks to the inverted logics in the prejudices of our society.
 
-\section{Novelty, publishing and more}
+\subsection*{Novelty, publishing and more}
 
 I started the note talking about novelty and my quest for novelty in the content. But after a retrospection of my writings, my approach to problems and the logics I apply, it seems, my writings are not so novel. My only novel contribution in it is putting it together. I should say, I am doing the role of a packager than creator/developer. At least in case of the kind of stuff I write, I believe there is no claim for creation of novel content. May be there is space for a novelty factor in packaging it all together. This is quite similar to the novelty factor I get for applying techniques from other domains in my own. The novelty in that process is actually for the thought to use the technology in a different domain, by being able to see some underlying similarities between the different domains. Anyway, I am not sure how novel it is when you point out the trivial facts in some problems. :) 
 
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ Their concern, as they put it was, ``survival of the original content generators
 
 I used to believe that there is novelty involved in content generated. But, when I think about it now after a retrospection of the content I generated so far, there is not much which I can call as my own. Most of it is someone else's. My novel contribution most of the time is, the packaging. It might be different for creative work. If the argument is, reward is for the thought and initiative to packaging in the way I did, I am skeptical so as to how they ensure the cut of original content owners were served. Or is it like, only the packaging that is worth a reward and not the content as such? The answer, and quite truly too is that, it is practically impossible to always reward the content generators the way they are supposed to (or the way system claim it will). Then why all the fuss about rewarding novelty? Reward according to their worth. New methods to evaluate the worthiness may have to be developed, but I believe that is quite necessary in a business which is not ready to get out of their profit making ways back from 1800s and seeks legal protection for that citing the novelty factor and plight of content generators.   
 
-\section{Half baked analysis and Questions!}
+\subsection*{Half baked analysis and Questions!}
 
 I do accept that analysing only my writings won't be the best method to trash the entire idea of generation of novel content. But, it is quite true that new ideas are hard to come by. Most of the times, ideas tagged new are just repackaged versions of existing ones. Still it is quite true that some 20 articles I have written should not be the base for the conclusion that there is no novelty in content. But I do believe it is quite right to raise the question, "How much of it is novel". On top, "while you reward packagers, what is the plan for original content generators?", should be examined as well. Another question is of effectively tapping into the new markets and opportunities in distribution, brought forth by advancements in technology.
 \end{english}
diff --git a/blog8.tex b/blog8.tex
index c1ffdc7..b10b0fa 100644
--- a/blog8.tex
+++ b/blog8.tex
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-\secstar{Hospital Log 7}
+\secstar{Hospital Log 8}
 \vskip 2pt
 \begin{english}