I am a recent CS graduate hired by TCS (Tata Consultancy Services) and am completing a 3 month on-the-job training program in India. I spent 1 month in Trivandrum and am currently residing in Pune.
As someone who has grown up in the US, I have experienced a drastic reduction in the standard of living to which I am accustomed. Even though my salary is many times higher than the average Indian and even though the buying power of the dollar is significantly better than the rupee (a good meal at a nice restaurant is less than $5), I still have difficulty attaining a decent standard of living in this country.
CONS Power goes out for hours on end for no reason Air pollution is unbearable Internet is fairly slow (128-256kbps MAX) and unreliable Prompt service is rare (fast food means about 20mins) Quality electronics equipment is hard to find and very expensive
PROS English is the most commonly spoke language Cost of living is very low Computer books are cheap (1/5 the US MSRP)
Other issues involve significant cultural differences between Indians and Americans. Indians have a take-life-as-it-comes attitude that spills over into every aspect of their life. Urgency, precision, and planning are not familiar concepts to the Indian unstructured lifestyle. This chaotic lifestyle causes frustration to the American who expects the consistency of a structured process.
Something as simple as a FIFO line, whether it be at a grocery store or a red light, is not implemented in India. Indians don't stand in line; they cluster. Also, driving in India is something that has to be experienced to be believed!
These cultural differences are at times perplexing, interesting, and frustrating.
I am enjoying my stay in India, but I am also counting the days until I get back home. The thrid-world lifestyle wears on the pampered American.
Actually, high end GPUs are CPU-limited. My new 7800GTX is only marginally faster than my 6800GT at resolutions below 1600x1200 when bound to my A64 3200+. Even an overclocked FX-57 would limit a 7800GTX SLI setup.
GPU power has been increasing at a much faster rate than the relatively stagnant CPU power.
That is what I thought until I installed the latest version of Xandros Linux. It is the first linux distro with an interface refined enough for anyone to use. Installation of new software is actually easier then with Windows. IMO, Xandros is the holy grail of Linux for the desktop.
Linguistic skills are an accurate indicator to the level of development of one's intellect.
Bullshit. There is no correlation between the grammar and spelling errors in a quickly typed post on Slashdot and the intelligence or insight of the post's author. Did you, in all your wisdom, consider that English may not be the author's first language?
With your post, however, you have revealed yourself to be a pompous, self-absorbed, condescending, pseudo-intellectual jackass. You are so wrapped up in your self-importance and imagined superiority that you do not realize how pathetic you really are.
Yahoo is defending itself from French legal attacks based on the website's content. France is trying to impose anti-free speech laws on an American company. An American website should not be subject to French laws any more than a French site should be subject to American laws.
How exactly does free speech (First Amendment of United States Constitution) "bind" France in any way (freedom gives rights, not takes them away)?
It is France's intolerance to free speech that is causing the problem in this case. France is attempting to violate Americans' freedom of speech by imposing French law on an American website.
The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions in appropriate cases with application of the death penalty.
The death penalty for drug related crimes!? That sound way over the top to me!
Libertarians, on the other hand, realize that drug prohibition laws cause more crime than they prevent.
I don't think a gig of free space is worth the invasion of privacy. Google is only offering this much free storage because they want to read your email.
The US bombed Japan in a war that the US did not start. If you remember, it was the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor that brought the US into the war. The point I am making is that you are attempting to put a "spin" on this event to make it sound like the US nukes countries just because it can.
How can you judge the country on what you think it might do? What evidence do you have that the US has a desire to nuke any country but is being restrained by the threat of retaliation. As I pointed out above, the atomic bombing of Japan is not an example of unprovoked American aggression.
Much of US military action in small countries is in support and by request of groups within the country. During the cold war, when a country was taken by communists, many people within that country had a desire to overthrow the communist government but lacked the means. The US supplied those means at the request of these people. Once again, your theory of unprovoked American aggression is meritless. Can you even give one example of the US attacking a country merely for plunder?
The examples that you point out are indeed historical, but they do not prove your point. Instead, this historical examples demonstrate the relative altruism of the US, and its responsible use of extreme power.
I did read your post before replying. I read it again just now, and I still don't see any reason backing your argument.
I ask you to back your wild claim that the US nukes whoever it pleases, and you call it "patridiocy" reflex conditioning? Why do you assume that I am an American just because I question your claims?
Your original post implied that the US has a history of invading or nuking small countries, but you fail to give any facts. Therefore, your post sounds more like an angry rant than a factual argument.
What you fail to point out is that many of these "invasions" were requested by people within the country invaded. US military action is not usually carried out for primarily self-serving purposes.
I realize this is hard for some to accept, but the US has demonstrated significant altruism throughout its history. Americans pay out billions in aid and military support to various countries every year.
Comparing the US to Nazi Germany(a true facist dictatorship) is ludacris and a poor attempt at sensationalism.
Sarcasm: Thus, adding to the long list of countries the US has nuked!
You say the US is the "bad guy", but can't give one sensible reason why you beleive this (aside from America's tendancy to nuke other countries, of course). I think that you are the one that is brainwashed.
Re:This is necessary
on
Weapons in Space
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Well, that's true of Americans. But just because it's true of you, doesn't mean it's true everywhere in the world.
I know I'm going to get slated for saying this, but in many countries in Europe the people are not violent by nature.
The original poster shows ingnorance both of European history (world history for that matter) and human nature. What militarily-strong countries throughout history have not been involved in war?
The original poster was referring to a human tendancy, not a tendancy of any specific country. Therefore, the cheap shot on the US was unwarranted.
Unlike every other superpower country throughout history (Italy, Greece, UK, Russia, Germany, etc), the US has never had the reputation as an invading aggressor. The US has always shown a great deal of responsibility with the power it weilds.
Maybe you could give specific examples of this rampant US aggressive of which you speak.
I think that the US is often judged on a different standard than the rest of the world. Is the US perfect? No! But neither is any other country. If you keep things in perspective you will realize that the US isn't so bad after all.
This post will probably get modded down due to the anti-American sentiment on Slashdot.
"conditions in India are far better than in the USA"
I really doubt my quality of living would increase if I were to move from the US to India. I am not saying that the conditions in the US are perfect, but given the choice between the US and India, I would choose the US any day.
If I were to move overseas for a job, I would prefer working in a more wealthy, European country. India would be near the bottom of my list of places to live. Maybe I'm just spoiled, but I've grown accustomed to a high standard of living.
I guess I was referring to the interpretation of the word "liberal" as it is used today. I'll admit that I don't know much about "traditional liberal philosophy".
In a way, anarchism and libertarianism are similar. Both desire self-government over centralized government. However, anarchism is generally considered more extreme.
I think the original poster was referring to liberal philosphy, not a specific political party.
What causes violence?
(A): violent video games, guns, society
(B): human nature, hate, greed
(A) represents liberal philosophy - blame is applied to everyone and everything except the individual.
(B) represents libertarian philosphy - empasizes personal responsibilty by placing all the blame on the individual.
The religous conservatives want the games banned because they feel the games are morally wrong.
OTOH, liberals want the games banned because they beleive that games cause violence. It is a liberal mentality that suggests that society, not the individual, should accept responsibilty for an individual's actions. These same people believe that guns cause violence.
The extremists on both ends of the political spectrum are the ones trying to ban the games.
I have been playing violent fps games since my early teen years when Doom first came out. I also own a variety of real guns. According to some, I am a potential mass murderer.
This is another example of the lack of personal responsibility found in the US today. Most people don't realize that responsibility is necessary for liberty. When people do not take responsibilty for themselves, their freedoms will be revoked (games banned, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
I am a recent CS graduate hired by TCS (Tata Consultancy Services) and am completing a 3 month on-the-job training program in India. I spent 1 month in Trivandrum and am currently residing in Pune.
As someone who has grown up in the US, I have experienced a drastic reduction in the standard of living to which I am accustomed. Even though my salary is many times higher than the average Indian and even though the buying power of the dollar is significantly better than the rupee (a good meal at a nice restaurant is less than $5), I still have difficulty attaining a decent standard of living in this country.
CONS
Power goes out for hours on end for no reason
Air pollution is unbearable
Internet is fairly slow (128-256kbps MAX) and unreliable
Prompt service is rare (fast food means about 20mins)
Quality electronics equipment is hard to find and very expensive
PROS
English is the most commonly spoke language
Cost of living is very low
Computer books are cheap (1/5 the US MSRP)
Other issues involve significant cultural differences between Indians and Americans. Indians have a take-life-as-it-comes attitude that spills over into every aspect of their life. Urgency, precision, and planning are not familiar concepts to the Indian unstructured lifestyle. This chaotic lifestyle causes frustration to the American who expects the consistency of a structured process.
Something as simple as a FIFO line, whether it be at a grocery store or a red light, is not implemented in India. Indians don't stand in line; they cluster. Also, driving in India is something that has to be experienced to be believed!
These cultural differences are at times perplexing, interesting, and frustrating.
I am enjoying my stay in India, but I am also counting the days until I get back home. The thrid-world lifestyle wears on the pampered American.
Actually, high end GPUs are CPU-limited. My new 7800GTX is only marginally faster than my 6800GT at resolutions below 1600x1200 when bound to my A64 3200+. Even an overclocked FX-57 would limit a 7800GTX SLI setup.
GPU power has been increasing at a much faster rate than the relatively stagnant CPU power.
That is what I thought until I installed the latest version of Xandros Linux. It is the first linux distro with an interface refined enough for anyone to use. Installation of new software is actually easier then with Windows. IMO, Xandros is the holy grail of Linux for the desktop.
Linguistic skills are an accurate indicator to the level of development of one's intellect.
Bullshit. There is no correlation between the grammar and spelling errors in a quickly typed post on Slashdot and the intelligence or insight of the post's author. Did you, in all your wisdom, consider that English may not be the author's first language?
With your post, however, you have revealed yourself to be a pompous, self-absorbed, condescending, pseudo-intellectual jackass. You are so wrapped up in your self-importance and imagined superiority that you do not realize how pathetic you really are.
Maybe you misundertood the article...
Yahoo is defending itself from French legal attacks based on the website's content. France is trying to impose anti-free speech laws on an American company. An American website should not be subject to French laws any more than a French site should be subject to American laws.
How exactly does free speech (First Amendment of United States Constitution) "bind" France in any way (freedom gives rights, not takes them away)?
It is France's intolerance to free speech that is causing the problem in this case. France is attempting to violate Americans' freedom of speech by imposing French law on an American website.
Considering the numerous gun laws in the US, defining a rocket as a gun would invite even further regulation.
The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions in appropriate cases with application of the death penalty.
The death penalty for drug related crimes!? That sound way over the top to me!
Libertarians, on the other hand, realize that drug prohibition laws cause more crime than they prevent.
I don't think a gig of free space is worth the invasion of privacy. Google is only offering this much free storage because they want to read your email.
Mailblocks uses IMAP access and gives more storage space per dollar than Yahoo.
15MB for $10
100MB for $25
They also have some great spam blocking features (they give you multiple temporary email addresses).
The US bombed Japan in a war that the US did not start. If you remember, it was the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor that brought the US into the war. The point I am making is that you are attempting to put a "spin" on this event to make it sound like the US nukes countries just because it can.
How can you judge the country on what you think it might do? What evidence do you have that the US has a desire to nuke any country but is being restrained by the threat of retaliation. As I pointed out above, the atomic bombing of Japan is not an example of unprovoked American aggression.
Much of US military action in small countries is in support and by request of groups within the country. During the cold war, when a country was taken by communists, many people within that country had a desire to overthrow the communist government but lacked the means. The US supplied those means at the request of these people. Once again, your theory of unprovoked American aggression is meritless. Can you even give one example of the US attacking a country merely for plunder?
The examples that you point out are indeed historical, but they do not prove your point. Instead, this historical examples demonstrate the relative altruism of the US, and its responsible use of extreme power.
I did read your post before replying. I read it again just now, and I still don't see any reason backing your argument.
I ask you to back your wild claim that the US nukes whoever it pleases, and you call it "patridiocy" reflex conditioning? Why do you assume that I am an American just because I question your claims?
Your original post implied that the US has a history of invading or nuking small countries, but you fail to give any facts. Therefore, your post sounds more like an angry rant than a factual argument.
What you fail to point out is that many of these "invasions" were requested by people within the country invaded. US military action is not usually carried out for primarily self-serving purposes.
I realize this is hard for some to accept, but the US has demonstrated significant altruism throughout its history. Americans pay out billions in aid and military support to various countries every year.
Comparing the US to Nazi Germany(a true facist dictatorship) is ludacris and a poor attempt at sensationalism.
US will nuke another country because it can
Sarcasm: Thus, adding to the long list of countries the US has nuked!
You say the US is the "bad guy", but can't give one sensible reason why you beleive this (aside from America's tendancy to nuke other countries, of course). I think that you are the one that is brainwashed.
Well, that's true of Americans. But just because it's true of you, doesn't mean it's true everywhere in the world.
I know I'm going to get slated for saying this, but in many countries in Europe the people are not violent by nature.
The original poster shows ingnorance both of European history (world history for that matter) and human nature. What militarily-strong countries throughout history have not been involved in war?
The original poster was referring to a human tendancy, not a tendancy of any specific country. Therefore, the cheap shot on the US was unwarranted.
Unlike every other superpower country throughout history (Italy, Greece, UK, Russia, Germany, etc), the US has never had the reputation as an invading aggressor. The US has always shown a great deal of responsibility with the power it weilds.
Maybe you could give specific examples of this rampant US aggressive of which you speak.
I think that the US is often judged on a different standard than the rest of the world. Is the US perfect? No! But neither is any other country. If you keep things in perspective you will realize that the US isn't so bad after all.
This post will probably get modded down due to the anti-American sentiment on Slashdot.
"conditions in India are far better than in the USA"
I really doubt my quality of living would increase if I were to move from the US to India. I am not saying that the conditions in the US are perfect, but given the choice between the US and India, I would choose the US any day.
If I were to move overseas for a job, I would prefer working in a more wealthy, European country. India would be near the bottom of my list of places to live. Maybe I'm just spoiled, but I've grown accustomed to a high standard of living.
I wouldn't mind working in Switzerland, but India...
"But programming being programming, you don't need to be able to speak fluent english to do it."
As long as none of their code ever needs to be used by anyone in the US. The code would be difficult to use if none of the comments were in English.
We don't edukate our kids.
I couldn't agree more!
I guess I was referring to the interpretation of the word "liberal" as it is used today. I'll admit that I don't know much about "traditional liberal philosophy".
In a way, anarchism and libertarianism are similar. Both desire self-government over centralized government. However, anarchism is generally considered more extreme.
I think the original poster was referring to liberal philosphy, not a specific political party.
What causes violence?
(A): violent video games, guns, society
(B): human nature, hate, greed
(A) represents liberal philosophy - blame is applied to everyone and everything except the individual.
(B) represents libertarian philosphy - empasizes personal responsibilty by placing all the blame on the individual.
Some of those games deserved to be banned
They don't deserved to be banned in the US! Ever hear of the First Amendment?
If you won't protect the freedom of speech of someone with whom you disagree, then you don't believe in free speech.
The religous conservatives want the games banned because they feel the games are morally wrong.
OTOH, liberals want the games banned because they beleive that games cause violence. It is a liberal mentality that suggests that society, not the individual, should accept responsibilty for an individual's actions. These same people believe that guns cause violence.
The extremists on both ends of the political spectrum are the ones trying to ban the games.
I have been playing violent fps games since my early teen years when Doom first came out. I also own a variety of real guns. According to some, I am a potential mass murderer.
This is another example of the lack of personal responsibility found in the US today. Most people don't realize that responsibility is necessary for liberty. When people do not take responsibilty for themselves, their freedoms will be revoked (games banned, etc).