> a unique burden that Maharashtrians have to bear.
Hey, if the burden of being in the Indian Union is too much for you, secede. Or try to. It'll be fun watching the tanks march into Bombay.
Or maybe you could get Article 370 imposed on Bombay city. Except-- then the BJP will have a problem come election time because their regular bleat about Article 370 in Kashmir will sound a bit hollow, won't it?
Frankly, Bombayites amuse me no end. You got a ready-made port city handed down to you by the British. Instead of making a Singapore out of it, you let it fester into some of the worst slums in Asia, thanks to inept (nonexistent?) city planning and a corrupt political class. You made no effort to build comparable urban centers across Maharashtra to offset Bombay's load. And then you complain about your unique burden?
News flash: every major city in the world has to deal with immigrant inflows. Most do it better than Bombay.
Stop blaming India's poor for your elected representatives' incompetence, because instead of solving your *real* problems, they think it's a worthwhile use of their time vandalizing net cafes and writing software to censor the internet (which apparently works by blocking anything that says "I hate...").
> but they have done a lot to emancipate the poor in Maharashtra
Fascism has spread throughout history under a populist garb. The Nazis were supposed to help restore German pride, Mussolini was supposed to make the trains run on time, and so on. Similarly, Scientology has done a lot of good with its anti-drug outreach programs. Ditto the RSS, which is often first on the scene with relief during natural disasters. (So do Christian missionaries, something the RSS is quick to criticize since they have "ulterior motives". Okay. So what's the RSS' ulterior motive?)
None of these good deeds take away an iota of the Sena's or the RSS' intellectual bankruptcy, nor the fact that they are in fact poison for India. If the RSS spent as much energy on eliminating caste as it does tilting at Communist+Islam+Christian windmills, it could be a force for good. Instead, it and its Sena friends are a bunch of stick-in-the-mud traditionalists who missed the memo about Hindu reformation.
So please spare me the litany about how much good the Sena has done. Its fascist tactics speak quite well for themselves.
- Flash doesn't work despite reinstalling the flash player. This might actually be a feature. - Took 100MB of RAM (as reported by Task Manager) to render some tab groups. - OTOH, it's very fast to start: faster than Firefox, IE and even Opera. - Crashes on some non-Latin font pages (IE, Firefox don't on the same system) - Fonts look great on my LCD. Arial actually looks decent, unlike Windows' default elongated look.
I don't believe that religion is stupid, merely wrong on a number of levels. Religion is one of mankind's oldest attempts at social engineering, at creating social value-systems. To that extent it is useful. However, when religion seeks to explain the world it is at its weakest, because dogma always comes in the way.
And anyone who accepts (or rejects) faith because of someone else's choices (whether that someone else is Einstein or the Pope) is being silly, IMHO. One's faith, or lack of it, or degree of lack of it, is deeply personal.
That said, I do understand where you're going with non-mainstream faith. A human who is not awed by something, who does not feel the touch of the numinous, is probably a machine at heart. Personally speaking, what awes me is the notion that we may never know what lies outside the boundary of our Universe (if it is indeed a closed system), nor why it exists in the first place, whether it was created by some other entity, and so on. In my case, I need to at least consider the existence of a creator, but I know other atheists _can_ feel the numinous, can appreciate the aesthetic beauty of nature, etc, without needing to credit a divine agency for it.
> As for intelligent design, to play devils advocate, who says just one side or the other has to be right?
It sounds like a pretty binary question to me. Either some portion of the universe is ID'd or it isn't. Where's the middle ground?
As for ID -- it well be right, but the evidence presented doesn't hold water. If the Universe is intelligently designed (say a watchmaker-type God who designed the Universe and set it in motion, or a God who seeded the Universe with panspermia) then it is at a level more subtle than designing an eye or designing man or creating a tree. We don't have the evidence to prove it right or wrong, so it remains an unprovable hypothesis right along with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
> I've seen things where you have to stop and wonder if something wasn't giving events a bit of a nudge in a certain direction.
The human mind often forms patterns when there is none. Lots of things happen at random, and also simply because of things we don't know about. Consider the guy who learned Icelandic in a week -- his smarts apparently came after a childhood epileptic attack. Even today, that sounds miraculous. But a miracle is really something you don't know enough about-- if you did, it wouldn't be a miracle, just as heart transplants would sound like sorcery to a caveman.
> Sometimes after the statistically impossible happens and you're still standing instead of being in a hole in the ground, you think about what just happened, chuckle, say "thank you,"
Actually, that's survivorship bias. If you were blasted away, could you have said thank you? Again, you give far too much credit to randomness. Also, statistically impossible != impossible.
Actually, I'm not criticizing India. I'm criticizing incoherent blabbermouths like you who give India a bad name and spoil her chances at becoming a developed, modern country. But of course, your ego has developed to the point where you think you speak for all of India, that anyone who disagrees with you is un-Indian. An excellent demonstration of fascism in the making.
> there are many many places where people dont speak english
Yes, but that is no excuse for you writing like a 6-year old. If you wrote Hindi, or Tamil, or Marathi, and wrote like this, you'd face the same opprobrium.
And oh, the Japanese success didn't come overnight. Japan was poorer than India for a very long time. They made their language and culture what it is today by working very hard and creating a world-class economy that is rich enough to support higher education and technical work in Japanese.
And oh, Japanese extensively borrows English words, especially for technical and Western concepts, whether it is Ingarisu Mafin (English muffins, note that the Japanese language tends to avoid Ls and combined consonants) or garufurendo (girlfriend) or cheez-uh (cheese, spoken when taking a photograph), to give just 3 of countless examples. That's the biggest difference between the Japanese and you: they're not afraid of change or other cultures, and take from other cultures to enrich their own. Whereas you are actually have an inferiority complex about your own culture and hide behind a semi-Nazi tradition of "cultural purity".
> many pro-english assholes like u who think english is a "necessary" thing for, say, development.
A lot of "assholes" are pro-English because it's something that unites India. What should Indians speak instead as a lingua franca? Hindi? Why? I know a lot of Tamils and Bengalis who'd object (I know the Shiv Sena already has an anti-South Indian campaign on in Bombay, perhaps they could start against Bengalis too -- in fact why don't they start against every Indian who doesn't speak Marathi, that way you'd have a pure Marathi-speaking India).
Or, if you really feel bad about English, why don't you try and enrich an Indian language of your choice to the level where high-level technical work (to give just one example) can be done with it. I'm sure lots of Marathas or Tamils would love to study Engineering or Computer Science in Marathi or Tamil. Oh wait, in reality they aren't -- most of them are clamouring for English education to the point where every one of the political leaders children go to English-medium schools. Why? For that matter, did you do your Bachelors degree in English? If so, why? Did you perhaps feel that your growth would adversely affected if you didn't? Why then do you seek to deny others the same advantage?
Yup, the "ground reality" definitely is that India is full of people like you, who can't form a coherent argument to save their lives, and who instead resort to foul language and violence to compensate for their impotence. India is doomed to remain a third-world hell-hole thanks to such brilliant minds as you.
Thanks for taking the trouble to reply to this basket-case. Frankly this guy's intellectual bankruptcy doesn't surprise me -- it's pretty much a reflection of the intellectual bankruptcy of the RSS and friends, and the political class in general.
Great quote! That's exactly the reason I think Richard Dawkins is a bit over the top with his missionary-atheism approach. A world where everything could be explained would be a very boring world indeed (not to mention currently impossible -- we know too little).
However, the problem is that too many religious nutcases take these stories to be the literal truth. That's how you get creationism and ID. And in Hinduism's case, it's how it got a rigid caste system, Suttee and the beef-taboo.
> most of the European countries, and perhaps USA as well, restricts the "denial of holocaust" by law.
Get your facts right before you argue. The US does NOT restrict "the denial" of holocaust. Neither do all countries in Europe have laws against Holocaust denial -- some do, and it's wrong of them to have such laws.
But it's very interesting that a rabid Hindu chauvinist like you seeks inspiration from Islamic radicals and Ahmadinejad. Shows what you really are better than anything I could say.
> Here on this forum, ppl hardly care about perfection of English. Sometimes, even editors have been pointed out of making mistakes while posting some article on Shashdot.
Yes, and they're ridiculed mercilessly for their mistakes. Unlike most other forums, this one cares A LOT about good English. I only wish you had a +5 rating so that more people saw your comment and told you exactly what they thought of it. Of course, typing "u" and "r" isn't about good English, is it. It's more about whether you've the mental maturity of a 13-year-old. And going by the arguments in your comments, you don't even have that.
> Try to understand the core issue of a comment instead of following only words
Here's the problem. Your argument has no core. You're essentially saying your justification for creating trouble where none created before is that other people are doing worse things elsewhere. (If that is the case, go there and fight the problem, don't create new troubles.) And oh, we're asking you (nicely!) to improve your writing because your words are pretty hard to follow! (So much for the "Indians speak good English" myth.)
And oh, you talk about "efficiency"? If writing proper English is such an effort to you, then you ought to be really concerned about your future in the workplace. Unless of course, your job is being webmaster for the Shiv Sena.
Here's your greatest hits, btw:
* It seems that u r having more violent character than those "so called" Shiv Sena type people * If u r referring to someone else's comment which is violent in nature, is equivalent to the fact that ur nature synchronize with that of the link. * No, I would not be calling for ur head. Instead, I would have been telling u personally to keep ur head cool down and with ur cool-head * It did nothing but confirmed my guess about ur shitheadness. * Just think of a situation...someone comes to u in ur office and uses slangs against u....what will u do? * some ppl use shortened words, like "u" instead of "you", to fasten their speed * However, what my understanding is, is using "u" instead of "u" or "r" instead of "are" r well perceived by the people and therefore should not be pointed out specifically. * Better you look at the fact that why humans are better than machines
Thanks for the entertainment! I really did think that people who spoke like Apu were an American TV stereotype. Thanks for showing me they are real!
> Where was this Indian Media when 2 million Hindus were slaughtered by the Pakistani government in 1971?
Here's the thing. What Idi Amin and co did are a matter of the historical record. Which is why the world has a word for them -- psychotic monsters. It does NOT excuse what Thackeray is doing now, because he's not helping solve the problem in any way... he's just creating new ones.
> And that justifies killing them en masse, does it Mr Aurangzeb?
If your reply to everything is "they're killing Hindus, so we can retaliate any way we can", you're more brainwashed with RSS propaganda than I thought. First, some facts: Hindus aren't facing an existential threat in India. They're doing just fine. But even if they were, then the solution would be to go and fight where there really is a problem, not go about creating trouble where there is none.
> Look at the caste systems in Soviet Russia, Communist China, and autocratic North Korea.
With that you've crossed into the land of the delusional. All societies have _class_ systems. India's problem is a rigid _caste_ system.
> The RSS is one of the largest anti-Caste volunteer groups in India.
I know about the RSS' anti-caste work. What's more, I support it. But it doesn't seem to have much effect, does it? Even the BJP doesn't have an anti-caste political manifesto. Here's why: Hindus are not worried about your imagined Islamic+Communist threats. Says a lot about your fears, doesn't it? They're more fearful about what people of other castes -- other Hindus -- will do to them.
That, in a nutshell, gives the lie to the RSS' painting of Islam+Communists as "the enemy". From my posting history you can see I don't like either radical Muslims or Communists of any sort very much. But neither do I like radical Hindus. The RSS *could* have taken the opportunity to become a positive force for change and campaign to end the caste system. Instead it chose to exaggerate threats for cheap political ends.
Let me get this straight. You're comparing World War 2 and the Pakistani persecution of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) with some Orkut forums?
Wow. Just... wow. Of course. I see it now: someone has established a HindusSuckBalls group, so let's bring out those nukes and bomb whoever's responsible. Oh we can't? Alright, we'll beat up cafe owners to send a message.
Honestly, can we forget about WW2 and focus on how violence in justified in this case? Any right-thinking person would see: it's not. The fact that you don't shows just how fanaticism can addle the brain.
Really? The chappies who trashed Valentines Day couples must have been figments of the Indian media's collective imagination. Oh wait, don't tell me-- it was also part of the vast Communist-Christian-Muslim conspiracy against Hinduism. Ditto the nice people who chop off Muslims' heads en masse in riots. Oh wait, they are provoked. They have no choice but to ignore the rule of law and become animals.
With attitudes like that, you dream of becoming a world intellectual leader ("vishwaguru")? Fat chance.
Btw, all of your lessons in Hindu history pale into insignificance because you forget one thing: there is no one Hindu society. Hindu society is fractured into caste and subcaste. Take a look at what's happening in Rajasthan. First set your own house in order. Get rid of ignorance and superstition. Go to the villages and non-major cities and drive away the evils of caste. Then people might take you a little more seriously.
There's a lot of good in Vedic Hinduism, except that no one in the country really follows it. They're too entranced by a monkey god and a chap who drove his wife away on the word of a washerman*. And of course there are snakes and rats to worship.
> it doesn't matter what ur link points to or whether it is ur original or u have copied it from somewhere else, but, what it does indicate is a violent character hidden inside u.
You really need that reading comprehension. The fact that folk can quote something because they want to laugh at it (especially with all the 'fucking kill you' jokes Ballmer spawned) is beyond you. But then being religious can take away your sense of humor, so I won't hold that against you.
> It may b an anti-hinduism group, may b an anti-muslim group, or whatever else....what's wrong with it.
Because your constitution promises free speech. Because India is supposed to be ruled by law, and religions are not above the law. Your leaders might treat the freedom to speak like toilet paper to be tossed away whenever an angry mob assembles, but in most of the civilized world that doesn't work. You need to ask yourself whether mob-rule is what you want.
In fact, on the same principle I support Thackeray when he spouts his anti-Moslem bile, because he has a right to say it. It's ironic that Thackeray sees himself at liberty to denounce Moslems, but his supporters gets worked up when Hindus are mocked. This is by no means fair.
> let me clarify the fact that I morally support their campaign
Oh right. (This sounds exactly like Pakistan's line on terrorism in Kashmir -- "we support them morally only".) You support their campaign but not the violence? Let me give you a clue: when the campaign is violent, you are effectively supporting violence by not condemning it.
> Do u realize how many mistakes r there in ur comment??
Do tell. I make mistakes all the time, but I try and fix them when told about it.
If you can't tell that the signature is quoting something very funny that someone else said (that hyperlink thing, you know), you need reading comprehension class.
> but ur comment does deserve a mod-down.
Sure, mod me down because I've hurt your feelings. If I were physically present, you'd probably be calling for my head. See where the fascist tendencies come from?
> Status of Shivaji is not going to be changed
No, but it will change thanks to neo-Nazis like the Shiv Sena and this Internet-cafe-bashing organization. Just like St George became the mascot for quite a few racist English bigots. Frankly the Shiv Sena (and their friend Narendra Modi in Gujarat) are doing a much better job besmirching Indian culture than anyone else ever can.
> And to tell u, if someone supports a campaign protecting one's culture, it doesn't necessarily mean that the individual use to have a negative thinking.
Vandalizing others' property and/or terrorizing others != protecting your culture. Don't pretend to teach me what Hinduism is. I've actually read the Vedas and know my heritage better than you do.
And oh, writing "u" all the time makes you look like an idiot. Try and refrain.
> Do you honestly think these people care more about looking good than about doing the will of their gods?
Except that Hinduism's Gods have never exactly encouraged wanton violence. And there are enough tales of the Gods themselves playing pranks and turning each other into various odd forms -- including, famously, giving Shiva's son an elephant head. So it's not that they lack a sense of humor either. Nope, these things aren't masterminded by religious leaders, they're masterminded by cynical semi-fascist political leaders with goons at their command.
Any Shiv Sena types reading this -- you guys are a disgrace to Hinduism. In a country where caste wars are still going on, where caste is big political business two *generations* after untouchability was abolished, you have nothing better to do than get your dhotis in a bunch because someone is laughing at you? Yeah, behaving like Neo-Nazi goons will really help. Assholes.
Please take your Chhatrapati Shivaji statue and shaft yourself in the rectum with it.
> If they re-implemented perl in java and could decisively show that "most perl benchmarks are faster in jperl than perl" then I would be interested.
I believe they implemented Python in.NET (IronPython) and it's faster than Python for Win32 for a number of tasks. The authors do agree that there's room for lots of improvement, however. Their new v2.0 release should be interesting.
... (and that includes a pretty big swathe of Unix software) runs on the Mac, I'd have to say those who pay for their Mac software are aware there are cheaper ways to do things, but their time==money and they can't be bothered. They probably got a Mac to get away from the get-your-hands-dirty PC world. I even know people with both Macs and PCs, and their Macs typically tend to be less cluttered with tools and utilities, because they work more and experiment less there.
It's not pejorative, it's funny. But yeah, even you sound like your sacred cows haven't been gored in some time, you commie-lovin' dirty GNU hippie:-)
Re:The GPL is not a usage license
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
We're talking about the AGPL, not the GPL here. Take the trouble to read. What I'm trying to say is that for use across a web server, use is pretty much equal to distribution. If you have specifics of what the AGPL does, why not type them here instead of telling us all (again) the well-worn facts about what Lessig and co believe.
My understanding of this is that when you are talking about ASP distribution, putting it up on a web server == distribution. Because that's all you need to do to distribute the program. I'm not sure how the AGPL precisely defines distribution, though, and am too tired to find out now.
Thanks for the link. Would you know if merely putting a AGPL-licensed program on a webserver is tantamount to "distribution"? Or do you have to formally open it up for the public in some way?
> 'RMS fanboys' might be angry with you because you repeatedly call them names
Heh, the whole idea is to anger them, there's nothing more fun than to watch an idealist's righteous indignation.:-)
Although I ought to clarify that I don't think they're knowingly pandering to IBM/Google, they're simply treating folk who contribute to OSS with respect. Nothing wrong with that, but given that the FSF is so holier-than-thou it does sort of invite the "shill" accusation.
It isn't so (AFAIK, but I'm pretty sure on this), margins on software products are quite a bit higher than software services. Especially since the Indian software providers got into the game (Wipro charged GE $15/hr for a mainframe app maintenance project, apparently) margins on software services are nowhere what they used to be. Compare this to a dollar of revenue that say Notes brings in for IBM -- it's almost pure profit, Notes recouped its sunk cost years ago (even counting acquisition costs).
It does however become a numbers game where your revenues go up almost predictably in response to the sales pipe and the number of warm bodies you have. Hence the huge rush to go to India/China/Chile/wherever to add as many warm bodies as possible (even Indian companies are going to China/Chile because they know their need for warm bodies cannot be satisfied by Indian developers alone).
Re:The "ASP loophole"?
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 5, Informative
ASP loophole = the fact that the GPL doesn't cover programs you use over a network.
As an AC reply noted (thanks, AC!), there's something called the Affero GPL, and you can (if I'm reading the draft right, I could be wrong) distribute GPL3 code under the Affero GPL. If you do that then anyone installing the program on a network (e.g. a web server) will have to make the source available to its users.
> Dude, at one place you say voting is good (for our political bosses), and then in another you say voting is bad (workplaces). Which is it going to be?
It boggles the mind that you even ask that question. Voting is a good way to choose your leaders. Voting is bad in workplaces. Workplaces do not exist to solely provide employment, they exist to profit their owners. If the owners are employees (e.g. small cooperatives), voting is quite possible, but that's a very special case. In the general case, voting to decide workplace matters is a lousy way to do things because not everyone is equally qualified to take decisions and not everyone's vote is worth the same. This is the same reason why Linus -- or Mozilla, or any serious software maintainer -- doesn't run a software project as a democracy.
> You can't argue, logically, voting in one area, and not the other.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Trying to be consistent across very different domains only makes you look foolish.
> Anyway, because of that leap of illogic, plus the other rubbish you posted about representative democracy, I've dismissed most of what you said.
Oh you're welcome to. But as I noted it was not illogical and you probably need to quit smoking whatever it is you are smoking. Also, I wonder if you can back up *why* you think my points are rubbish. Do you really think a 350M country can be ruled via direct participatory democracy? Nothing would ever get done! Or do you have a problem with term limits on legislators? If so, why?
> You talk about dictatorships, and yet seem to support capitalism...
Yes, democracy+capitalism (plus guaranteed free speech and the separation of church from state) are the best way to prevent dictatorships. I am not at all apologetic about that. The record of the left has so far been an abysmal one bringing nothing but misery and authoritarianism for its citizens. My other posts have outlined why I think communism is defective by design (short answer: because it assumes man can form an egalitarian society).
Slashdot Mirror
> a unique burden that Maharashtrians have to bear.
Hey, if the burden of being in the Indian Union is too much for you, secede. Or try to. It'll be fun watching the tanks march into Bombay.
Or maybe you could get Article 370 imposed on Bombay city. Except-- then the BJP will have a problem come election time because their regular bleat about Article 370 in Kashmir will sound a bit hollow, won't it?
Frankly, Bombayites amuse me no end. You got a ready-made port city handed down to you by the British. Instead of making a Singapore out of it, you let it fester into some of the worst slums in Asia, thanks to inept (nonexistent?) city planning and a corrupt political class. You made no effort to build comparable urban centers across Maharashtra to offset Bombay's load. And then you complain about your unique burden?
News flash: every major city in the world has to deal with immigrant inflows. Most do it better than Bombay.
Stop blaming India's poor for your elected representatives' incompetence, because instead of solving your *real* problems, they think it's a worthwhile use of their time vandalizing net cafes and writing software to censor the internet (which apparently works by blocking anything that says "I hate...").
> but they have done a lot to emancipate the poor in Maharashtra
Fascism has spread throughout history under a populist garb. The Nazis were supposed to help restore German pride, Mussolini was supposed to make the trains run on time, and so on. Similarly, Scientology has done a lot of good with its anti-drug outreach programs. Ditto the RSS, which is often first on the scene with relief during natural disasters. (So do Christian missionaries, something the RSS is quick to criticize since they have "ulterior motives". Okay. So what's the RSS' ulterior motive?)
None of these good deeds take away an iota of the Sena's or the RSS' intellectual bankruptcy, nor the fact that they are in fact poison for India. If the RSS spent as much energy on eliminating caste as it does tilting at Communist+Islam+Christian windmills, it could be a force for good. Instead, it and its Sena friends are a bunch of stick-in-the-mud traditionalists who missed the memo about Hindu reformation.
So please spare me the litany about how much good the Sena has done. Its fascist tactics speak quite well for themselves.
- Flash doesn't work despite reinstalling the flash player. This might actually be a feature.
- Took 100MB of RAM (as reported by Task Manager) to render some tab groups.
- OTOH, it's very fast to start: faster than Firefox, IE and even Opera.
- Crashes on some non-Latin font pages (IE, Firefox don't on the same system)
- Fonts look great on my LCD. Arial actually looks decent, unlike Windows' default elongated look.
I don't believe that religion is stupid, merely wrong on a number of levels. Religion is one of mankind's oldest attempts at social engineering, at creating social value-systems. To that extent it is useful. However, when religion seeks to explain the world it is at its weakest, because dogma always comes in the way.
And anyone who accepts (or rejects) faith because of someone else's choices (whether that someone else is Einstein or the Pope) is being silly, IMHO. One's faith, or lack of it, or degree of lack of it, is deeply personal.
That said, I do understand where you're going with non-mainstream faith. A human who is not awed by something, who does not feel the touch of the numinous, is probably a machine at heart. Personally speaking, what awes me is the notion that we may never know what lies outside the boundary of our Universe (if it is indeed a closed system), nor why it exists in the first place, whether it was created by some other entity, and so on. In my case, I need to at least consider the existence of a creator, but I know other atheists _can_ feel the numinous, can appreciate the aesthetic beauty of nature, etc, without needing to credit a divine agency for it.
> As for intelligent design, to play devils advocate, who says just one side or the other has to be right?
It sounds like a pretty binary question to me. Either some portion of the universe is ID'd or it isn't. Where's the middle ground?
As for ID -- it well be right, but the evidence presented doesn't hold water. If the Universe is intelligently designed (say a watchmaker-type God who designed the Universe and set it in motion, or a God who seeded the Universe with panspermia) then it is at a level more subtle than designing an eye or designing man or creating a tree. We don't have the evidence to prove it right or wrong, so it remains an unprovable hypothesis right along with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
> I've seen things where you have to stop and wonder if something wasn't giving events a bit of a nudge in a certain direction.
The human mind often forms patterns when there is none. Lots of things happen at random, and also simply because of things we don't know about. Consider the guy who learned Icelandic in a week -- his smarts apparently came after a childhood epileptic attack. Even today, that sounds miraculous. But a miracle is really something you don't know enough about-- if you did, it wouldn't be a miracle, just as heart transplants would sound like sorcery to a caveman.
> Sometimes after the statistically impossible happens and you're still standing instead of being in a hole in the ground, you think about what just happened, chuckle, say "thank you,"
Actually, that's survivorship bias. If you were blasted away, could you have said thank you? Again, you give far too much credit to randomness. Also, statistically impossible != impossible.
Actually, I'm not criticizing India. I'm criticizing incoherent blabbermouths like you who give India a bad name and spoil her chances at becoming a developed, modern country. But of course, your ego has developed to the point where you think you speak for all of India, that anyone who disagrees with you is un-Indian. An excellent demonstration of fascism in the making.
> there are many many places where people dont speak english
Yes, but that is no excuse for you writing like a 6-year old. If you wrote Hindi, or Tamil, or Marathi, and wrote like this, you'd face the same opprobrium.
And oh, the Japanese success didn't come overnight. Japan was poorer than India for a very long time. They made their language and culture what it is today by working very hard and creating a world-class economy that is rich enough to support higher education and technical work in Japanese.
And oh, Japanese extensively borrows English words, especially for technical and Western concepts, whether it is Ingarisu Mafin (English muffins, note that the Japanese language tends to avoid Ls and combined consonants) or garufurendo (girlfriend) or cheez-uh (cheese, spoken when taking a photograph), to give just 3 of countless examples. That's the biggest difference between the Japanese and you: they're not afraid of change or other cultures, and take from other cultures to enrich their own. Whereas you are actually have an inferiority complex about your own culture and hide behind a semi-Nazi tradition of "cultural purity".
> many pro-english assholes like u who think english is a "necessary" thing for, say, development.
A lot of "assholes" are pro-English because it's something that unites India. What should Indians speak instead as a lingua franca? Hindi? Why? I know a lot of Tamils and Bengalis who'd object (I know the Shiv Sena already has an anti-South Indian campaign on in Bombay, perhaps they could start against Bengalis too -- in fact why don't they start against every Indian who doesn't speak Marathi, that way you'd have a pure Marathi-speaking India).
Or, if you really feel bad about English, why don't you try and enrich an Indian language of your choice to the level where high-level technical work (to give just one example) can be done with it. I'm sure lots of Marathas or Tamils would love to study Engineering or Computer Science in Marathi or Tamil. Oh wait, in reality they aren't -- most of them are clamouring for English education to the point where every one of the political leaders children go to English-medium schools. Why? For that matter, did you do your Bachelors degree in English? If so, why? Did you perhaps feel that your growth would adversely affected if you didn't? Why then do you seek to deny others the same advantage?
Yup, the "ground reality" definitely is that India is full of people like you, who can't form a coherent argument to save their lives, and who instead resort to foul language and violence to compensate for their impotence. India is doomed to remain a third-world hell-hole thanks to such brilliant minds as you.
Thanks for taking the trouble to reply to this basket-case. Frankly this guy's intellectual bankruptcy doesn't surprise me -- it's pretty much a reflection of the intellectual bankruptcy of the RSS and friends, and the political class in general.
Great quote! That's exactly the reason I think Richard Dawkins is a bit over the top with his missionary-atheism approach. A world where everything could be explained would be a very boring world indeed (not to mention currently impossible -- we know too little).
However, the problem is that too many religious nutcases take these stories to be the literal truth. That's how you get creationism and ID. And in Hinduism's case, it's how it got a rigid caste system, Suttee and the beef-taboo.
> most of the European countries, and perhaps USA as well, restricts the "denial of holocaust" by law.
Get your facts right before you argue. The US does NOT restrict "the denial" of holocaust. Neither do all countries in Europe have laws against Holocaust denial -- some do, and it's wrong of them to have such laws.
But it's very interesting that a rabid Hindu chauvinist like you seeks inspiration from Islamic radicals and Ahmadinejad. Shows what you really are better than anything I could say.
> Here on this forum, ppl hardly care about perfection of English. Sometimes, even editors have been pointed out of making mistakes while posting some article on Shashdot.
Yes, and they're ridiculed mercilessly for their mistakes. Unlike most other forums, this one cares A LOT about good English. I only wish you had a +5 rating so that more people saw your comment and told you exactly what they thought of it. Of course, typing "u" and "r" isn't about good English, is it. It's more about whether you've the mental maturity of a 13-year-old. And going by the arguments in your comments, you don't even have that.
> Try to understand the core issue of a comment instead of following only words
Here's the problem. Your argument has no core. You're essentially saying your justification for creating trouble where none created before is that other people are doing worse things elsewhere. (If that is the case, go there and fight the problem, don't create new troubles.) And oh, we're asking you (nicely!) to improve your writing because your words are pretty hard to follow! (So much for the "Indians speak good English" myth.)
And oh, you talk about "efficiency"? If writing proper English is such an effort to you, then you ought to be really concerned about your future in the workplace. Unless of course, your job is being webmaster for the Shiv Sena.
Here's your greatest hits, btw:
* It seems that u r having more violent character than those "so called" Shiv Sena type people
* If u r referring to someone else's comment which is violent in nature, is equivalent to the fact that ur nature synchronize with that of the link.
* No, I would not be calling for ur head. Instead, I would have been telling u personally to keep ur head cool down and with ur cool-head
* It did nothing but confirmed my guess about ur shitheadness.
* Just think of a situation...someone comes to u in ur office and uses slangs against u....what will u do?
* some ppl use shortened words, like "u" instead of "you", to fasten their speed
* However, what my understanding is, is using "u" instead of "u" or "r" instead of "are" r well perceived by the people and therefore should not be pointed out specifically.
* Better you look at the fact that why humans are better than machines
Thanks for the entertainment! I really did think that people who spoke like Apu were an American TV stereotype. Thanks for showing me they are real!
> Where was this Indian Media when 2 million Hindus were slaughtered by the Pakistani government in 1971?
... he's just creating new ones.
Here's the thing. What Idi Amin and co did are a matter of the historical record. Which is why the world has a word for them -- psychotic monsters. It does NOT excuse what Thackeray is doing now, because he's not helping solve the problem in any way
> And that justifies killing them en masse, does it Mr Aurangzeb?
If your reply to everything is "they're killing Hindus, so we can retaliate any way we can", you're more brainwashed with RSS propaganda than I thought. First, some facts: Hindus aren't facing an existential threat in India. They're doing just fine. But even if they were, then the solution would be to go and fight where there really is a problem, not go about creating trouble where there is none.
> Look at the caste systems in Soviet Russia, Communist China, and autocratic North Korea.
With that you've crossed into the land of the delusional. All societies have _class_ systems. India's problem is a rigid _caste_ system.
> The RSS is one of the largest anti-Caste volunteer groups in India.
I know about the RSS' anti-caste work. What's more, I support it. But it doesn't seem to have much effect, does it? Even the BJP doesn't have an anti-caste political manifesto. Here's why: Hindus are not worried about your imagined Islamic+Communist threats. Says a lot about your fears, doesn't it? They're more fearful about what people of other castes -- other Hindus -- will do to them.
That, in a nutshell, gives the lie to the RSS' painting of Islam+Communists as "the enemy". From my posting history you can see I don't like either radical Muslims or Communists of any sort very much. But neither do I like radical Hindus. The RSS *could* have taken the opportunity to become a positive force for change and campaign to end the caste system. Instead it chose to exaggerate threats for cheap political ends.
Let me get this straight. You're comparing World War 2 and the Pakistani persecution of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) with some Orkut forums?
... wow. Of course. I see it now: someone has established a HindusSuckBalls group, so let's bring out those nukes and bomb whoever's responsible. Oh we can't? Alright, we'll beat up cafe owners to send a message.
Wow. Just
Honestly, can we forget about WW2 and focus on how violence in justified in this case? Any right-thinking person would see: it's not. The fact that you don't shows just how fanaticism can addle the brain.
> Besides, there are no "Hindu Fanatics".
Really? The chappies who trashed Valentines Day couples must have been figments of the Indian media's collective imagination. Oh wait, don't tell me-- it was also part of the vast Communist-Christian-Muslim conspiracy against Hinduism. Ditto the nice people who chop off Muslims' heads en masse in riots. Oh wait, they are provoked. They have no choice but to ignore the rule of law and become animals.
With attitudes like that, you dream of becoming a world intellectual leader ("vishwaguru")? Fat chance.
Btw, all of your lessons in Hindu history pale into insignificance because you forget one thing: there is no one Hindu society. Hindu society is fractured into caste and subcaste. Take a look at what's happening in Rajasthan. First set your own house in order. Get rid of ignorance and superstition. Go to the villages and non-major cities and drive away the evils of caste. Then people might take you a little more seriously.
There's a lot of good in Vedic Hinduism, except that no one in the country really follows it. They're too entranced by a monkey god and a chap who drove his wife away on the word of a washerman*. And of course there are snakes and rats to worship.
* That's Hinduism's so-called "ideal person", Rama.
> it doesn't matter what ur link points to or whether it is ur original or u have copied it from somewhere else, but, what it does indicate is a violent character hidden inside u.
You really need that reading comprehension. The fact that folk can quote something because they want to laugh at it (especially with all the 'fucking kill you' jokes Ballmer spawned) is beyond you. But then being religious can take away your sense of humor, so I won't hold that against you.
> It may b an anti-hinduism group, may b an anti-muslim group, or whatever else....what's wrong with it.
Because your constitution promises free speech. Because India is supposed to be ruled by law, and religions are not above the law. Your leaders might treat the freedom to speak like toilet paper to be tossed away whenever an angry mob assembles, but in most of the civilized world that doesn't work. You need to ask yourself whether mob-rule is what you want.
In fact, on the same principle I support Thackeray when he spouts his anti-Moslem bile, because he has a right to say it. It's ironic that Thackeray sees himself at liberty to denounce Moslems, but his supporters gets worked up when Hindus are mocked. This is by no means fair.
> let me clarify the fact that I morally support their campaign
Oh right. (This sounds exactly like Pakistan's line on terrorism in Kashmir -- "we support them morally only".) You support their campaign but not the violence? Let me give you a clue: when the campaign is violent, you are effectively supporting violence by not condemning it.
> Do u realize how many mistakes r there in ur comment??
Do tell. I make mistakes all the time, but I try and fix them when told about it.
> as well as ur signature
If you can't tell that the signature is quoting something very funny that someone else said (that hyperlink thing, you know), you need reading comprehension class.
> but ur comment does deserve a mod-down.
Sure, mod me down because I've hurt your feelings. If I were physically present, you'd probably be calling for my head. See where the fascist tendencies come from?
> Status of Shivaji is not going to be changed
No, but it will change thanks to neo-Nazis like the Shiv Sena and this Internet-cafe-bashing organization. Just like St George became the mascot for quite a few racist English bigots. Frankly the Shiv Sena (and their friend Narendra Modi in Gujarat) are doing a much better job besmirching Indian culture than anyone else ever can.
> And to tell u, if someone supports a campaign protecting one's culture, it doesn't necessarily mean that the individual use to have a negative thinking.
Vandalizing others' property and/or terrorizing others != protecting your culture. Don't pretend to teach me what Hinduism is. I've actually read the Vedas and know my heritage better than you do.
And oh, writing "u" all the time makes you look like an idiot. Try and refrain.
> Do you honestly think these people care more about looking good than about doing the will of their gods?
Except that Hinduism's Gods have never exactly encouraged wanton violence. And there are enough tales of the Gods themselves playing pranks and turning each other into various odd forms -- including, famously, giving Shiva's son an elephant head. So it's not that they lack a sense of humor either. Nope, these things aren't masterminded by religious leaders, they're masterminded by cynical semi-fascist political leaders with goons at their command.
Any Shiv Sena types reading this -- you guys are a disgrace to Hinduism. In a country where caste wars are still going on, where caste is big political business two *generations* after untouchability was abolished, you have nothing better to do than get your dhotis in a bunch because someone is laughing at you? Yeah, behaving like Neo-Nazi goons will really help. Assholes.
Please take your Chhatrapati Shivaji statue and shaft yourself in the rectum with it.
> If they re-implemented perl in java and could decisively show that "most perl benchmarks are faster in jperl than perl" then I would be interested.
.NET (IronPython) and it's faster than Python for Win32 for a number of tasks. The authors do agree that there's room for lots of improvement, however. Their new v2.0 release should be interesting.
I believe they implemented Python in
... (and that includes a pretty big swathe of Unix software) runs on the Mac, I'd have to say those who pay for their Mac software are aware there are cheaper ways to do things, but their time==money and they can't be bothered. They probably got a Mac to get away from the get-your-hands-dirty PC world. I even know people with both Macs and PCs, and their Macs typically tend to be less cluttered with tools and utilities, because they work more and experiment less there.
It's not pejorative, it's funny. But yeah, even you sound like your sacred cows haven't been gored in some time, you commie-lovin' dirty GNU hippie :-)
We're talking about the AGPL, not the GPL here. Take the trouble to read. What I'm trying to say is that for use across a web server, use is pretty much equal to distribution. If you have specifics of what the AGPL does, why not type them here instead of telling us all (again) the well-worn facts about what Lessig and co believe.
My understanding of this is that when you are talking about ASP distribution, putting it up on a web server == distribution. Because that's all you need to do to distribute the program. I'm not sure how the AGPL precisely defines distribution, though, and am too tired to find out now.
Thanks for the link. Would you know if merely putting a AGPL-licensed program on a webserver is tantamount to "distribution"? Or do you have to formally open it up for the public in some way?
:-)
> 'RMS fanboys' might be angry with you because you repeatedly call them names
Heh, the whole idea is to anger them, there's nothing more fun than to watch an idealist's righteous indignation.
Although I ought to clarify that I don't think they're knowingly pandering to IBM/Google, they're simply treating folk who contribute to OSS with respect. Nothing wrong with that, but given that the FSF is so holier-than-thou it does sort of invite the "shill" accusation.
It isn't so (AFAIK, but I'm pretty sure on this), margins on software products are quite a bit higher than software services. Especially since the Indian software providers got into the game (Wipro charged GE $15/hr for a mainframe app maintenance project, apparently) margins on software services are nowhere what they used to be. Compare this to a dollar of revenue that say Notes brings in for IBM -- it's almost pure profit, Notes recouped its sunk cost years ago (even counting acquisition costs).
It does however become a numbers game where your revenues go up almost predictably in response to the sales pipe and the number of warm bodies you have. Hence the huge rush to go to India/China/Chile/wherever to add as many warm bodies as possible (even Indian companies are going to China/Chile because they know their need for warm bodies cannot be satisfied by Indian developers alone).
ASP loophole = the fact that the GPL doesn't cover programs you use over a network.
As an AC reply noted (thanks, AC!), there's something called the Affero GPL, and you can (if I'm reading the draft right, I could be wrong) distribute GPL3 code under the Affero GPL. If you do that then anyone installing the program on a network (e.g. a web server) will have to make the source available to its users.
> Dude, at one place you say voting is good (for our political bosses), and then in another you say voting is bad (workplaces). Which is it going to be?
It boggles the mind that you even ask that question. Voting is a good way to choose your leaders. Voting is bad in workplaces. Workplaces do not exist to solely provide employment, they exist to profit their owners. If the owners are employees (e.g. small cooperatives), voting is quite possible, but that's a very special case. In the general case, voting to decide workplace matters is a lousy way to do things because not everyone is equally qualified to take decisions and not everyone's vote is worth the same. This is the same reason why Linus -- or Mozilla, or any serious software maintainer -- doesn't run a software project as a democracy.
> You can't argue, logically, voting in one area, and not the other.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Trying to be consistent across very different domains only makes you look foolish.
> Anyway, because of that leap of illogic, plus the other rubbish you posted about representative democracy, I've dismissed most of what you said.
Oh you're welcome to. But as I noted it was not illogical and you probably need to quit smoking whatever it is you are smoking. Also, I wonder if you can back up *why* you think my points are rubbish. Do you really think a 350M country can be ruled via direct participatory democracy? Nothing would ever get done! Or do you have a problem with term limits on legislators? If so, why?
> You talk about dictatorships, and yet seem to support capitalism...
Yes, democracy+capitalism (plus guaranteed free speech and the separation of church from state) are the best way to prevent dictatorships. I am not at all apologetic about that. The record of the left has so far been an abysmal one bringing nothing but misery and authoritarianism for its citizens. My other posts have outlined why I think communism is defective by design (short answer: because it assumes man can form an egalitarian society).