This happened to a friend of mine. My friend (techie) and his colleague (doing sales) were trying to snag a Systems Integration order with a holiday resort. They presented a great case, with pretty pictures, facts and figures and a quote that gave a neat detailed breakdown of various phases/components of the project.
The would-be client had hired a Pompous Technical consultant (paid big bucks too) to go over and see the deal through. This "guru" looked over the proposal and then, with a gleam in his eyes (kinda look you'd have if you were a sadistic motorist with a deer caught in your headlights) and the following conversation followed:
HPC (Highly paid consultant) -- "I noticed that you have mentioned Hardware cabling costs -- but what about the software cabling hmm...? Are we going to do something about that?!?"
Techie -- "But Sir...there's..." interrupted by the Sales Guy who cut him short -- "Perhaps I can deal with that"...
Sales Guy -- "Er...the software cabling is a complementary service that we provide with all our systems intergration projects!"
[[[It can be unreadable, but that doesn't mean that it is. Code can be good for lots of reasons- not just legibility:)]]]
Incomprehensive code can at least be offset by well commented code. If you wanna show a "clever hack", at least comment it so that the next person who's looking at it will know what the magic is all about...
[[["You can use your Google account to store an unlimited number of credit cards and addresses. The service allows you to track all your orders and shipping in one place,"]]]
I like Google and it's services. But I don't think I'll trust anyone/anything online with this kind of information, without guarantees from the vendor that they'll "fix anything that goes wrong" -- meaning , my identity/financial information gets stolen -- google would have to be legally bound to compensate me for that before agreeing to store any of that with Google.
Having this kind of information online (especially in an intermediary service as is being proposed) will simply open everyone else up to abuse (this imho).
I guess the point I was trying to make was this:
1) The advantages of perl are plentiful
2) There are several obvious shortcomings as well (at least to "not-yet-perl-god" like users such as myself -- folks who are trying and learning perl as they go along (and I've been doing this for over 6 years now)) -- improvising as required. We need the language to become easier and smarter -- with the syntax becoming easier to comprehend (terse regex patterns might give a great sense of satisfaction to match, but when you're in a time crunch, it's the kind of stuff one could do well without).
But I guess at the end of the day, the newer the language, the better the odds of it being more refined/advanced that it's older predecessor are.
1) The power of perl is irrefutable -- it helps slap together quick and clean solutions to irritating admin problems. The flip-side of being a perl jockey I guess is that one tends to try and create a solution to many a problem that already has a solution - because searching CPAN can be a pain at times.
2) Use of the more flexible features of the languages (such as Hashes, hash of hashes etc) data/number munging and organization becomes more manageable.
3) Using Perl's almost endless modules, a lot of relatively complicated tasks can be simplified.
4) Annoyance factor of numerous tasks (especially Administrative and reporting) can be reduced drastically with the help of Perl.
Beefs =====
1) The beef I guess is that unlike Python or Perl's other competitors, Perl modules don't come tightly integrated with the core distro. Agreed that Perl probably has a lot more modules than any of those other languages do, but a larger than ordinary de facto distribution (why not include important modules like Digest::MD5, Crypt modules, SSH modules etc?) would be desirable (especially in those situations where you don't have access to the internet directly from within corporate networks and can't install the modules with the "perl -MCPAN -e shell" option) . There might be those Perl veterans who would say -- "build your own distro with your custom modules already packaged" -- and while that might be a very smart thing to do, many a time (when one keeps moving from one environment to another -- some call it job hopping, it helps to be able to download one single perl distro package or rpm or the source+compile and have basic administrative scripts work -- especially those that rely on centralized automation (ssh-based trusts, copies across the network, etc).
2) Also, perl's syntax can be terse and difficult for noobies to understand (or even older perl-hands for that matter -- when someone has written code without appropriate comments, etc).
3) Tinkering with Python recently, I found it's simplicity refreshing and it's syntax easier to comprehend (especially when compared with Perl's (imho) complicated "scoping" requirements, etc).
4) Sometimes (and I guess it depends on the person writing the code) Perl tends to over-complicate things that can be easily handled via Shell scripts.
[[[Can somebody please explain this one to me? First off, 'fix' implies that it used to be good, it broke, and now we have to get it back there. But it was never this mythical 'good' that you seem to think it was. There's always different species (cultures, ideals, memes, whatever) on the rise, and others on the fall. Are you proposing some kind of perfect balance where it's eternally stable? About the only way that you get stability is to get rid of life.]]]
Indeed -- Fix does mean that it used to be good before...well at least used to be better. Didn't have all the fancy new-killer toys to obliterate entire populations at the very least. The perfect balance isn't something that is so unusual -- see, the whole universe is dancing a dance of balance. The paradox is that though everything is trying to attain "harmony" (there's nothing wrong with that word -- wasn't in 1969 either) through the various machinations (which we happen to look at through the tunnel vision of our limited knowledge call them varyingly Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, etc), the reason why the strive to attain equillibrium is due to the imbalance.
My equation of mankind to Cancer wasn't done with the purpose of eliciting "troll alerts" or whatever else -- it is a reality. Think about it -- unless we are arrogant enough to say that only the "Superior" being (namely Human beings) are "allowed" to survive and proliferate, we would see that the Cancer analogy is alarmingly truthful. What we disbalance through our efforts at "living and procreating", nature will strive to balance out (Earthquakes, Wars, famines, Tsunamis). And no, I'm not trying to paint a "Doomsday" picture here -- it is just what the reality is.
So, Dr. Hawkings' call to venture out to the great vast beyond seems to indicate that he has given up hope of us ever remedying the problems we created in less than two centuries of our "Glorious" scientific society.
Unfortunately, the Human race has a mode of existence akin to Cancer cells (if there were to be a creature much larger than us -- as we are compared to cancer cells -- we'd look like cancer cells to them).
Sure, go into space and spread the disease of greed, over-consumption, mindless materialism -- instead of trying to fix things and harmonize with nature (right here on Earth first)!:\
The Holographic model of Data Storage isn't really that "un-tested". While we might not know how it works (the under-the-hood understanding of it) -- we knmow that it does -- the Human Brain stores memory in a holographic model (read the Holographic model of the brain as proposed by Dr. Karl Pribram) and infact a renowned physicist by the name of David Bohm suggested such a medium for the whole of the universe itself.
But that aside -- the beauty of a hologram is in it's ability to retain all of the data it stores even though the physical medium itself might be disrupted/reduced somehow.
IIRC, the concept goes like this -- you can cut a hologram into smaller pieces -- but each of these would retain the whole image. There is possibly a certain level of "differentiation" that needs to happen before the validity of the data gets compromised...
To get a job as a cab driver in India, you have to learn how to "negotiate" through mind-boggling variety of traffic, controlled chaos and utter lack of traffic rules. If you are one of those who don't live in India, I'd recommend you give up this futile dream -- you just aren't trained enough...
On the otherhand, you might want to first practice in your own neighborhood streets -- yeah, those four-way junctions without stop signs. It takes special courage and faith to hurl oneself into the flow of chaos and flow with instinct.;)
[[[I'd say India's main problems have been matters of economics, and politics...not population. Fact is...India's space program saves lives, helps farmers produce more food, more than likely helps them with their environmental issues, and helps educate their people....so I'd say it's a pretty damn benefitial program.]]]
Right on! India's problem was Socialism and a pseudo-communism bullcrap that kept everyone down and the politicians ruling (which (socialism) is intrinsically anti-thetical to the Indian psyche in the first place). With the "opening" up of India's economy in the early 1990s, the effects of globalization are evident (and I do not refer to the paltry few million jobs that got outsourced/are getting outsourced). The key to everything was information -- with information flowing back and forth freely (between India and the rest of the world), it was only a matter of time before things got back on track. India today (similar to the US) is a net exporter of Food. And India too, produces more than it consumes (so consider the magnitude of agricultural production). And a lot of mistakes that were made in the West (in the heydays of Industrialization) are not being repeated in India.
First -- A History lesson:
There is a popular myth about the productivity deficit of "Third world agricultural practices" vs "First-world practices". It is infact untrue, and in India, with the traditional knowledge systems being revived, it is only a matter of time before agriculture is again returned to it's rightful and honored position at the top of priorities. The British indulged in large scale conversion of Indian agriculture (the aftermath of which we still see today) -- in changing the staple foodcrops (that were farmed before) being replaced by "Cash crops" (like cotton and jute). Historically speaking, by changing the complete "Physiology" of the farming world in India, the Brits created a situation of deficit, and famine. Indian Cotton was used to manufature clothes in England and sold back to the Indians at exorbitant prices.
Agricultural canals (that were created throughout the Indian countryside were neglected and "Railroads" were developed as the new "saviour of the Indian savages"). As this age-old irrigation system fell into neglect, abuse and eventually disuse, they clogged. A lot of the open "sewers" one might see in India today are remnants of these irrigation canals...
So, coming back to the topic now -- while there has been political negligence in getting this excess food to the poor people and providing adequate infrastructure to help these people step out from behind the poverty-line; there have been efforts started by the previous government (of India) to build infrastructure, recreate/revive the old irrigation systems, etc.
I couldn't resist.
[[[The real problem is that India is way, way, WAAAAY too overpopulated. All the capitalism is the world won't save a country doubling in size every thirty years. Poverty can't be reined in when the majority of the population is teenaged, underemployed, and competing for ever-tighter resources. Trees? Almost gone. Burned for fuel. Wildlife, doomed. Political unrest? With half a billion teenagers? Guaranteed]]]
Have you ever stopped to consider the fact that the old bastions of "Civilization" -- viz. Europe and the West are dying nations -- declining populations and negative growth rates (of population and of economy). What maintains the balance? The reason you see such a stark difference between what Indian population was before 1947 and after is because before Independence, the Brits had manufactured an environment of famine and poverty in India. India used to be 50% of the World economy before the Brits descended down on it like locusts. When the Brits left and their oppressive policies starving and stifling people went with them, the Indian population thrived; it began to grow, the average life span increased. This was a natural and good thing to happen -- where humanity is on a decline somewhere, it is on re-ascendance elsewhere. That is the way nature balances itself out. If you and I are alive in 50 years, we'll probably see someone on slashdot.in posting about the "oppressive and rotting cities of the West" and how the West destroyed all the resources of the world in it's all-consuming frenzy to Industrialize and "modernize"...:\
[[[Seems to be the only other choices. Private industry, since globalization and commodity coding offshore, has no place for old programmers anymore. They cost too much in salary and benefits in comparison to a young person just out of college, preferably India Institute of Technology, where they train the next generation of yes men.]]]
The problem I see with "Old programmers" is that they are too fixed in their ways (of course there are exceptions) to adapt. The bottomline for survival is adaptability. Although at 40, one really shouldn't consider himself/herself old. Fifty maybe...not forty. Anyhow, I've had my share of carrying deadweight of 45-pluses. Of course there were those exceptional old fogies whose programming skills were like an art form. These are classic editions and only grow more expensive and valued as they age.
And your comment about the IIT grads couldn't be farther from the truth. I've known a few and can assure you they'd outperform, outthink and out-talk-back most of your red-blooded non-IIT developers! That said, there are always exceptions to the rule.
You are impudent aren't you? When you are done feeling full of yourself and want to learn something -- drop me a few lines. I'll hook you up with somethings that goes beyond Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty and Romila Thapar.
But even if it is all metaphorical - the religious act of a priest pouring ghee into the fire is likened to a father ejaculating inside his daughter...??
You sir are very wrong. The significance of the "priest pouring ghee into the fire" is the process of fuelling Agni -- which is considered a messenger and a ritualistic purifier.
Let me simply address your questions with a possible 'out of the box' perspective. Do these mean that Indra and his followers are off to do battle, and take away cows and other riches from the "dark ones"? Who are these "dark ones"?
The battle between the "Arya" and "Dasyu" is not an account of a historical struggle between two groups of people. Arya here represents Illumination of Truth and Vidya and Dasyu represents avidya/darkness of ignorance. It is easy to pick a few verses from here and there, do a literal translation and then wax eloquent about one's "Veda" prowess. This is precisely what scholars like Wendy Doniger, Romila Thapar, etc are guilty of. Rig Vedic sanskrit works at many levels (same as the Chinese I Ching or Tao te Ching). To each person's level (intellectual and spiritual) the interpretation. You really should read Sri Aurobindo's interpretation/take on this.
You can mail me at rudra01 at geemail dot com if you want to pursue this discussion further. There's a right forum for these discussions -- slashdot is not.
Your point is well taken. You should also read some of the RISA'esque scholarships' rendition of Indic Civilization and cultural nuances -- loaded with extinct Freudian insinuations. They say "A dirty mind always thinks dirty thoughts..."
AC,
Here's the deal. You have studied sanskrit for 5 years -- and read some very rudimentary translations of the Rig. I suggest you read Sri Aurobindo's book "The Secrets of the Veda". Rig Vedic Sanskrit by rights should actually be called Proto-Sanskrit and a lot of translations of it thereof aren't accurate. For example (you've prbly come across this before) -- The word "Gau" -- is translated as "Cow" but it also means "Light". I don't have the patience or the time to go into detailed contests with everyone who challenges me. Here's a good site for your education:
If you want to read more on the topic of indology -- go to http://www.sulekha.com/ and look at the Indology section there. You'll find some essays and a lot of discussion threads on this topic. As far as genetic evidence goes -- the excavations at the Sarasvati Sites don't show any difference in bone structure etc from that of present day India.
Let's give you one little piece to chew on. It is called the Nasadiya Sukta (Rig Veda 10:129) (the philosophical musing about the beginning of everything). Do you want the Sanskrit or just the English translation?
At first was neither Being nor Nonbeing. There was not air nor yet sky beyond. What was wrapping? Where? In whose protection? Was Water there, unfathomable deep?
There was no death then, nor yet deathlessness; of night or day there was not any sign. The One breathed without breath by its own impulse. Other than that was nothing at all.
Darkness was there, all wrapped around by darkness, and all was Water indiscriminate, Then that which was hidden by Void, that One, emerging, stirring, through power of Ardor, came to be.
In the beginning Love arose, which was primal germ cell of mind. The Seers, searching in their hearts with wisdom, discovered the connection of Being in Nonbeing.
A crosswise line cut Being from Nonbeing. What was described above it, what below? Bearers of seed there were and mighty forces, thrust from below and forward move above.
Who really knows? Who can presume to tell it? Whence was it born? Whence issued this creation? Even the Gods came after its emergence. Then who can tell from whence it came to be?
That out of which creation has arisen, whether it held it firm or it did not, He who surveys it in the highest heaven, He surely knows - or maybe even He does not!
Do you want more detail? Or want to mull over it for a few days?
For the record -- I am not a Hindu Fundie. I am merely trying to provide an alternate (more plausible) perspective into a much "butchered" field of knowledge. Your friend CRCulver prbly read what he posted in his undergrad days in school. There is an entire field of Research and scholarship that is unfortunately based on some very biased and suspect scholarship from the 19th Century even today. The Aryan Invasion/Migration myths, the Aryan-Dravidian divide myth...etc. The British and other Europeans had the ulterior motives to create the field of Indology that they did. While it might be true that modern-day scholars might not have such ulterior motives, their beginning premise and foundation of their scholarship is flawed. As a result, very much contestable.
One only has to have an open mind to be able to evaluate the veracity of one paradigm over the other. But both need to be studied first.
This theory is not very well esteemed in the academy. It is upheld mostly by Indians with little linguistic training who have sinister goals linked to nationalism or religious fundamentalism. I'd rather trust scholars a couple of continents away who have no real agenda other than a love of language and the changes it goes through.
Everything that you have posted unfortunately (for you) reflects your ignorance. You claim linguistics but you probably have read only translations upon translations of Max Mueller's 19th Century philological Christian opinion on the Indic history. You claim that the Vedas are theological texts -- I say that it is more than that. It is a recorded account of the way of life of the people of that time. You might suggest "sinister motives" but the truth is far from it. What are your linguistic credentials? Who are these "We" you quote?
The replacement of indigenous Dravidian languages in the north by an Indo-European dialect brought from an Anatolian or North Pontic urheimat is upheld by nearly all reputable scholars. Now, it's not certain that the speakers of Proto-Indic came with the sword, there instead could have been a more gradual cultural influence, so "Aryan invasion" is a poor choice of terminology.
First of all -- there is absolutely no proof that proto-Dravidian was the only indigeneous lanaguage of the Indian subcontinent 7000 years ago. So there is also an alternate theory that proto-dravidian was also proto-sanskrit.
Given the European penchant for Racial "Supremacist theories", it is obvious from archaelogical and genetic records in the subcontinent that there never really was a major displacement of a "dark-skinned Dravidian speaking race" from up North to down south. While, there is overwhelming evidence (based on the Vedic narratives), that what was considered to be an Indigeneous Dravidian civilization (What most of your Western Indologists (and their brown acolytes) will call the Harappan Civilization) was actually the Rig-Vedic civilization, flourishing along the banks of River Sarasvati and Indus (Sindhu). The various excavation sites starting from Mehrgarh to Mohenjo-daro and Harappa indicate just that -- a continually evolving Vedic Civilization.
What you might want to know is that an important part of the Iran/Iraq (Persia) pre-islamic civilization was an offshoot of this Indigenous Vedic people (from the Indian Subcontinent). There might have been an Aryan Migration, but more likely than not, it was from India outward, rather than the other way round.
Slashdot Mirror
This happened to a friend of mine. My friend (techie) and his colleague (doing sales) were trying to snag a Systems Integration order with a holiday resort. They presented a great case, with pretty pictures, facts and figures and a quote that gave a neat detailed breakdown of various phases/components of the project.
...
System reqs:
1)hardware -- x$
2)os licensing -- y$
3) application software --
Networking reqs:
1) hardware cabling
2) lan equipment
The would-be client had hired a Pompous Technical consultant (paid big bucks too) to go over and see the deal through. This "guru" looked over the proposal and then, with a gleam in his eyes (kinda look you'd have if you were a sadistic motorist with a deer caught in your headlights) and the following conversation followed:
HPC (Highly paid consultant) -- "I noticed that you have mentioned Hardware cabling costs -- but what about the software cabling hmm...? Are we going to do something about that?!?"
Techie -- "But Sir...there's..."
interrupted by the Sales Guy who cut him short -- "Perhaps I can deal with that"...
Sales Guy -- "Er...the software cabling is a complementary service that we provide with all our systems intergration projects!"
[[[It can be unreadable, but that doesn't mean that it is. Code can be good for lots of reasons- not just legibility :)]]]
Incomprehensive code can at least be offset by well commented code. If you wanna show a "clever hack", at least comment it so that the next person who's looking at it will know what the magic is all about...
[[["You can use your Google account to store an unlimited number of credit cards and addresses. The service allows you to track all your orders and shipping in one place,"]]]
I like Google and it's services. But I don't think I'll trust anyone/anything online with this kind of information, without guarantees from the vendor that they'll "fix anything that goes wrong" -- meaning , my identity/financial information gets stolen -- google would have to be legally bound to compensate me for that before agreeing to store any of that with Google.
Having this kind of information online (especially in an intermediary service as is being proposed) will simply open everyone else up to abuse (this imho).
I guess the point I was trying to make was this: 1) The advantages of perl are plentiful 2) There are several obvious shortcomings as well (at least to "not-yet-perl-god" like users such as myself -- folks who are trying and learning perl as they go along (and I've been doing this for over 6 years now)) -- improvising as required. We need the language to become easier and smarter -- with the syntax becoming easier to comprehend (terse regex patterns might give a great sense of satisfaction to match, but when you're in a time crunch, it's the kind of stuff one could do well without). But I guess at the end of the day, the newer the language, the better the odds of it being more refined/advanced that it's older predecessor are.
A humble Perl user's thoughts on this brouhaha --
Praise
=======
1) The power of perl is irrefutable -- it helps slap together quick and clean solutions to irritating admin problems. The flip-side of being a perl jockey I guess is that one tends to try and create a solution to many a problem that already has a solution - because searching CPAN can be a pain at times.
2) Use of the more flexible features of the languages (such as Hashes, hash of hashes etc) data/number munging and organization becomes more manageable.
3) Using Perl's almost endless modules, a lot of relatively complicated tasks can be simplified.
4) Annoyance factor of numerous tasks (especially Administrative and reporting) can be reduced drastically with the help of Perl.
Beefs
=====
1) The beef I guess is that unlike Python or Perl's other competitors, Perl modules don't come tightly integrated with the core distro. Agreed that Perl probably has a lot more modules than any of those other languages do, but a larger than ordinary de facto distribution (why not include important modules like Digest::MD5, Crypt modules, SSH modules etc?) would be desirable (especially in those situations where you don't have access to the internet directly from within corporate networks and can't install the modules with the "perl -MCPAN -e shell" option) . There might be those Perl veterans who would say -- "build your own distro with your custom modules already packaged" -- and while that might be a very smart thing to do, many a time (when one keeps moving from one environment to another -- some call it job hopping, it helps to be able to download one single perl distro package or rpm or the source+compile and have basic administrative scripts work -- especially those that rely on centralized automation (ssh-based trusts, copies across the network, etc).
2) Also, perl's syntax can be terse and difficult for noobies to understand (or even older perl-hands for that matter -- when someone has written code without appropriate comments, etc).
3) Tinkering with Python recently, I found it's simplicity refreshing and it's syntax easier to comprehend (especially when compared with Perl's (imho) complicated "scoping" requirements, etc).
4) Sometimes (and I guess it depends on the person writing the code) Perl tends to over-complicate things that can be easily handled via Shell scripts.
[[[Can somebody please explain this one to me? First off, 'fix' implies that it used to be good, it broke, and now we have to get it back there. But it was never this mythical 'good' that you seem to think it was. There's always different species (cultures, ideals, memes, whatever) on the rise, and others on the fall. Are you proposing some kind of perfect balance where it's eternally stable? About the only way that you get stability is to get rid of life.]]]
Indeed -- Fix does mean that it used to be good before...well at least used to be better. Didn't have all the fancy new-killer toys to obliterate entire populations at the very least. The perfect balance isn't something that is so unusual -- see, the whole universe is dancing a dance of balance. The paradox is that though everything is trying to attain "harmony" (there's nothing wrong with that word -- wasn't in 1969 either) through the various machinations (which we happen to look at through the tunnel vision of our limited knowledge call them varyingly Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, etc), the reason why the strive to attain equillibrium is due to the imbalance.
My equation of mankind to Cancer wasn't done with the purpose of eliciting "troll alerts" or whatever else -- it is a reality. Think about it -- unless we are arrogant enough to say that only the "Superior" being (namely Human beings) are "allowed" to survive and proliferate, we would see that the Cancer analogy is alarmingly truthful. What we disbalance through our efforts at "living and procreating", nature will strive to balance out (Earthquakes, Wars, famines, Tsunamis). And no, I'm not trying to paint a "Doomsday" picture here -- it is just what the reality is.
So, Dr. Hawkings' call to venture out to the great vast beyond seems to indicate that he has given up hope of us ever remedying the problems we created in less than two centuries of our "Glorious" scientific society.
Unfortunately, the Human race has a mode of existence akin to Cancer cells (if there were to be a creature much larger than us -- as we are compared to cancer cells -- we'd look like cancer cells to them).
:\
Sure, go into space and spread the disease of greed, over-consumption, mindless materialism -- instead of trying to fix things and harmonize with nature (right here on Earth first)!
The Holographic model of Data Storage isn't really that "un-tested". While we might not know how it works (the under-the-hood understanding of it) -- we knmow that it does -- the Human Brain stores memory in a holographic model (read the Holographic model of the brain as proposed by Dr. Karl Pribram) and infact a renowned physicist by the name of David Bohm suggested such a medium for the whole of the universe itself. But that aside -- the beauty of a hologram is in it's ability to retain all of the data it stores even though the physical medium itself might be disrupted/reduced somehow. IIRC, the concept goes like this -- you can cut a hologram into smaller pieces -- but each of these would retain the whole image. There is possibly a certain level of "differentiation" that needs to happen before the validity of the data gets compromised...
To get a job as a cab driver in India, you have to learn how to "negotiate" through mind-boggling variety of traffic, controlled chaos and utter lack of traffic rules. If you are one of those who don't live in India, I'd recommend you give up this futile dream -- you just aren't trained enough... On the otherhand, you might want to first practice in your own neighborhood streets -- yeah, those four-way junctions without stop signs. It takes special courage and faith to hurl oneself into the flow of chaos and flow with instinct. ;)
[[[I'd say India's main problems have been matters of economics, and politics...not population. Fact is...India's space program saves lives, helps farmers produce more food, more than likely helps them with their environmental issues, and helps educate their people....so I'd say it's a pretty damn benefitial program.]]]
Right on! India's problem was Socialism and a pseudo-communism bullcrap that kept everyone down and the politicians ruling (which (socialism) is intrinsically anti-thetical to the Indian psyche in the first place). With the "opening" up of India's economy in the early 1990s, the effects of globalization are evident (and I do not refer to the paltry few million jobs that got outsourced/are getting outsourced). The key to everything was information -- with information flowing back and forth freely (between India and the rest of the world), it was only a matter of time before things got back on track. India today (similar to the US) is a net exporter of Food. And India too, produces more than it consumes (so consider the magnitude of agricultural production). And a lot of mistakes that were made in the West (in the heydays of Industrialization) are not being repeated in India.
First -- A History lesson:
There is a popular myth about the productivity deficit of "Third world agricultural practices" vs "First-world practices". It is infact untrue, and in India, with the traditional knowledge systems being revived, it is only a matter of time before agriculture is again returned to it's rightful and honored position at the top of priorities. The British indulged in large scale conversion of Indian agriculture (the aftermath of which we still see today) -- in changing the staple foodcrops (that were farmed before) being replaced by "Cash crops" (like cotton and jute).
Historically speaking, by changing the complete "Physiology" of the farming world in India, the Brits created a situation of deficit, and famine. Indian Cotton was used to manufature clothes in England and sold back to the Indians at exorbitant prices.
Agricultural canals (that were created throughout the Indian countryside were neglected and "Railroads" were developed as the new "saviour of the Indian savages"). As this age-old irrigation system fell into neglect, abuse and eventually disuse, they clogged. A lot of the open "sewers" one might see in India today are remnants of these irrigation canals...
So, coming back to the topic now --
while there has been political negligence in getting this excess food to the poor people and providing adequate infrastructure to help these people step out from behind the poverty-line; there have been efforts started by the previous government (of India) to build infrastructure, recreate/revive the old irrigation systems, etc.
I couldn't resist. [[[The real problem is that India is way, way, WAAAAY too overpopulated. All the capitalism is the world won't save a country doubling in size every thirty years. Poverty can't be reined in when the majority of the population is teenaged, underemployed, and competing for ever-tighter resources. Trees? Almost gone. Burned for fuel. Wildlife, doomed. Political unrest? With half a billion teenagers? Guaranteed]]] Have you ever stopped to consider the fact that the old bastions of "Civilization" -- viz. Europe and the West are dying nations -- declining populations and negative growth rates (of population and of economy). What maintains the balance? The reason you see such a stark difference between what Indian population was before 1947 and after is because before Independence, the Brits had manufactured an environment of famine and poverty in India. India used to be 50% of the World economy before the Brits descended down on it like locusts. When the Brits left and their oppressive policies starving and stifling people went with them, the Indian population thrived; it began to grow, the average life span increased. This was a natural and good thing to happen -- where humanity is on a decline somewhere, it is on re-ascendance elsewhere. That is the way nature balances itself out. If you and I are alive in 50 years, we'll probably see someone on slashdot.in posting about the "oppressive and rotting cities of the West" and how the West destroyed all the resources of the world in it's all-consuming frenzy to Industrialize and "modernize"... :\
[[[Seems to be the only other choices. Private industry, since globalization and commodity coding offshore, has no place for old programmers anymore. They cost too much in salary and benefits in comparison to a young person just out of college, preferably India Institute of Technology, where they train the next generation of yes men.]]]
The problem I see with "Old programmers" is that they are too fixed in their ways (of course there are exceptions) to adapt. The bottomline for survival is adaptability. Although at 40, one really shouldn't consider himself/herself old. Fifty maybe...not forty. Anyhow, I've had my share of carrying deadweight of 45-pluses. Of course there were those exceptional old fogies whose programming skills were like an art form. These are classic editions and only grow more expensive and valued as they age.
And your comment about the IIT grads couldn't be farther from the truth. I've known a few and can assure you they'd outperform, outthink and out-talk-back most of your red-blooded non-IIT developers! That said, there are always exceptions to the rule.
You are impudent aren't you?
When you are done feeling full of yourself and want to learn something -- drop me a few lines. I'll hook you up with somethings that goes beyond Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty and Romila Thapar.
Happy New year...
But even if it is all metaphorical - the religious act of a priest pouring ghee into the fire is likened to a father ejaculating inside his daughter...??
You sir are very wrong. The significance of the "priest pouring ghee into the fire" is the process of fuelling Agni -- which is considered a messenger and a ritualistic purifier.
Let me simply address your questions with a possible 'out of the box' perspective.
Do these mean that Indra and his followers are off to do battle, and take away cows and other riches from the "dark ones"? Who are these "dark ones"?
The battle between the "Arya" and "Dasyu" is not an account of a historical struggle between two groups of people. Arya here represents Illumination of Truth and Vidya and Dasyu represents avidya/darkness of ignorance. It is easy to pick a few verses from here and there, do a literal translation and then wax eloquent about one's "Veda" prowess. This is precisely what scholars like Wendy Doniger, Romila Thapar, etc are guilty of. Rig Vedic sanskrit works at many levels (same as the Chinese I Ching or Tao te Ching). To each person's level (intellectual and spiritual) the interpretation. You really should read Sri Aurobindo's interpretation/take on this.
You can mail me at rudra01 at geemail dot com if you want to pursue this discussion further. There's a right forum for these discussions -- slashdot is not.
Viliath,
Your point is well taken. You should also read some of the RISA'esque scholarships' rendition of Indic Civilization and cultural nuances -- loaded with extinct Freudian insinuations. They say "A dirty mind always thinks dirty thoughts..."
AC,
Here's the deal. You have studied sanskrit for 5 years -- and read some very rudimentary translations of the Rig. I suggest you read Sri Aurobindo's book "The Secrets of the Veda". Rig Vedic Sanskrit by rights should actually be called Proto-Sanskrit and a lot of translations of it thereof aren't accurate. For example (you've prbly come across this before) -- The word "Gau" -- is translated as "Cow" but it also means "Light". I don't have the patience or the time to go into detailed contests with everyone who challenges me. Here's a good site for your education:
http://infinityfoundation.com/ (look at the various options at the Mandalas)...
If you want to read more on the topic of indology -- go to http://www.sulekha.com/ and look at the Indology section there. You'll find some essays and a lot of discussion threads on this topic. As far as genetic evidence goes -- the excavations at the Sarasvati Sites don't show any difference in bone structure etc from that of present day India.
Regards,
TT
Let's give you one little piece to chew on. It is called the Nasadiya Sukta (Rig Veda 10:129) (the philosophical musing about the beginning of everything). Do you want the Sanskrit or just the English translation?
At first was neither Being nor Nonbeing.
There was not air nor yet sky beyond.
What was wrapping? Where? In whose protection?
Was Water there, unfathomable deep?
There was no death then, nor yet deathlessness;
of night or day there was not any sign.
The One breathed without breath by its own impulse.
Other than that was nothing at all.
Darkness was there, all wrapped around by darkness,
and all was Water indiscriminate, Then
that which was hidden by Void, that One, emerging,
stirring, through power of Ardor, came to be.
In the beginning Love arose,
which was primal germ cell of mind.
The Seers, searching in their hearts with wisdom,
discovered the connection of Being in Nonbeing.
A crosswise line cut Being from Nonbeing.
What was described above it, what below?
Bearers of seed there were and mighty forces,
thrust from below and forward move above.
Who really knows? Who can presume to tell it?
Whence was it born? Whence issued this creation?
Even the Gods came after its emergence.
Then who can tell from whence it came to be?
That out of which creation has arisen,
whether it held it firm or it did not,
He who surveys it in the highest heaven,
He surely knows - or maybe even He does not!
Do you want more detail? Or want to mull over it for a few days?
For the record -- I am not a Hindu Fundie. I am merely trying to provide an alternate (more plausible) perspective into a much "butchered" field of knowledge. Your friend CRCulver prbly read what he posted in his undergrad days in school. There is an entire field of Research and scholarship that is unfortunately based on some very biased and suspect scholarship from the 19th Century even today. The Aryan Invasion/Migration myths, the Aryan-Dravidian divide myth...etc. The British and other Europeans had the ulterior motives to create the field of Indology that they did. While it might be true that modern-day scholars might not have such ulterior motives, their beginning premise and foundation of their scholarship is flawed. As a result, very much contestable.
One only has to have an open mind to be able to evaluate the veracity of one paradigm over the other. But both need to be studied first.
This theory is not very well esteemed in the academy. It is upheld mostly by Indians with little linguistic training who have sinister goals linked to nationalism or religious fundamentalism. I'd rather trust scholars a couple of continents away who have no real agenda other than a love of language and the changes it goes through.
Everything that you have posted unfortunately (for you) reflects your ignorance. You claim linguistics but you probably have read only translations upon translations of Max Mueller's 19th Century philological Christian opinion on the Indic history. You claim that the Vedas are theological texts -- I say that it is more than that. It is a recorded account of the way of life of the people of that time. You might suggest "sinister motives" but the truth is far from it.
What are your linguistic credentials? Who are these "We" you quote?
The replacement of indigenous Dravidian languages in the north by an Indo-European dialect brought from an Anatolian or North Pontic urheimat is upheld by nearly all reputable scholars. Now, it's not certain that the speakers of Proto-Indic came with the sword, there instead could have been a more gradual cultural influence, so "Aryan invasion" is a poor choice of terminology.
First of all -- there is absolutely no proof that proto-Dravidian was the only indigeneous lanaguage of the Indian subcontinent 7000 years ago. So there is also an alternate theory that proto-dravidian was also proto-sanskrit.
Given the European penchant for Racial "Supremacist theories", it is obvious from archaelogical and genetic records in the subcontinent that there never really was a major displacement of a "dark-skinned Dravidian speaking race" from up North to down south. While, there is overwhelming evidence (based on the Vedic narratives), that what was considered to be an Indigeneous Dravidian civilization (What most of your Western Indologists (and their brown acolytes) will call the Harappan Civilization) was actually the Rig-Vedic civilization, flourishing along the banks of River Sarasvati and Indus (Sindhu). The various excavation sites starting from Mehrgarh to Mohenjo-daro and Harappa indicate just that -- a continually evolving Vedic Civilization.
What you might want to know is that an important part of the Iran/Iraq (Persia) pre-islamic civilization was an offshoot of this Indigenous Vedic people (from the Indian Subcontinent). There might have been an Aryan Migration, but more likely than not, it was from India outward, rather than the other way round.