In the case of oil, for example, they are securing their own oil fields and supplies so they will be largely immune to an oil boycott, which has been a weapon of choice by the U.S. in the past.
It can still be used.
China has no credible naval power (no aircraft carrier). By blockading the shipping routes in the Indian ocean, the US and India can starve China of all the oil supplies they are securing.
That might change in the years to come, but for now China is *very* vulnerable to a naval blockade.
If they hold him back and force him to "be his age", it will most likely severly hurt his intellectual growth.
But what's even more important is are his parents forcing him to achieve more? Read this. Read that. Stop doing that and focus on the string theory.
They're stifling his social and emotional growth. There are tons of things to be learned by your self as a child that do shape what you turn out to be as an adult. It decides if you can or can't talk to a woman without staring at her shoes. It determines whether you can speak in front of a group of potentially hostile people without wetting your pants.
He's going to be emotionally and socially stunted. Too bad for him.
Having her blog linked in this comment, was a huge risk (-:.
My friend, if she can sketch like that, I'd say it wasn't a risk at all. My regards to her.
Creators do depend on income through their work if they do it fulltime.
And if they don't do it full time, we won't have the body of artistic work that we have today. If someone is talented / good at something, I would want that person doing that thing for as many hours of the day as that person can spare. Which means (s)he will have to be compensated for the time invested in art. Now if Shakespeare weren't compensated for the plays he wrote, would he have written them or rather become a grocer?
I was more thinking in the line of commercial music with musicians who are great performers, but are not creative at all them selve to be able to create their own material. Some people who are great in creating material however, should not be allowed to perform since they for example can not sing or act.
Most of the commercial music today caters to fads which pass on in a few months time and then these musicians have to keep re-inventing themselves (note - themselves, not their music) because let's face it, people buy Britney Spears' crap because she's hot, not because she sings well. Contrast this with the likes of Mozart and Beethoven - they re-invented their music over and over, but they were the same musicians - they didn't have to re-invent themselves. Beethoven didn't go in for dreadlocks, nor did he publicly pledge to maintain his virginity till his wedding night.
Most of these so called musicians of today don't deserve any more money than what a prostitute charges. But as they say, better a thousand thiefs feasting than a single genius starving.
Anyway, for now reading a complete novell of a screen pretty much sucks, and printing it is more expensive then just buying the book. And for music: When I like something, I buy the CD/DVD, even when I already own the mp3s of it.
I totally agree with you on all these counts. You can read a book on a hill after a hike. You can read a book on a boat during a voyage. And it's easier on the eyes than staring at a screen for hours on end.
Of course, the library does not prevent me from scanning a book if I take it home, but that is something that will be missed in the hype around it. I am not sure how they could prevent this.
They can't prevent it if you do it one or twice or fifteen times. But if you scan all the books you can lay your hands on and then publicise the fact that you have done so, they'll sic their lawyers on you.
Just because someone isn't preventing you from doing something doesn't mean it's legal or ethical.
Creativity does not by definition depend on money. Why would there be thousands of art blogs, musicians, and writers who just publish it all for free.
Creativity may not depend on money, but the creator does. You can't write a page, let alone a novel on an empty stomach.
As for the art blogs, musicians and writers who give away all of their creations for free, well, they're crap quality and I wouldn't waste five minutes reading them.
If you have the talent, you will harness it to make money (unless you happen to be a millionaire). If you don't have talent but do possess a burning desire (and think you have talent), you'll give your work away for free.
I've seen your wife's blog - she's a talented artist. Please don't take this personally.
To say the iPod sucess springs from marketing is to ignore a very valuable lession in human behaviour.
To ignore the effect of marketing in inducing word of mouth publicity is to ignore a very valuable lesson in marketing itself. Word of mouth comes from good marketing AND a good product, not just one of the two.
And in case you haven't noticed, MARKETING IS ALL ABOUT HUMAN BEHAVIOUR.
Google's market cap is just barely under $100 billion
Market cap is one of the worst indicators you could use to judge a company's health and ability to withstand trying times because the first hint of trouble (or tough times) leads to a crash in market cap. Market cap is an illusion - it is money the company cannot touch (unless they sell more of their equity, which MS could buy off the market and then OWN google). What matters is the pile of cash they're sitting on (seen in the balance sheets). And MS definitely beats Google hands down in that regard.
If a hypothetical recession strikes the world economy tomorrow, both MS and Google's market cap will tank. But considering the amount of cash MS sits on right now, their market cap will tank less than Google's.
Nowhere in my post did I mention that they need to be extended till the end of the world. I would say 28 years (the amount of time a person would normally work, give or take a few years) is perfectly reasonable.
Why should an estate get control of copyrights once the original creator is dead?
By this same argument, why should a person's legal heirs get his physical property once he is dead? Why not make the property (house, land, whatever) public domain and let everyone use it? Because most civilised governments recognise the right to private property (to an extent). In this case, the ownership of the work created by A lies with A and should pass on to his children / heirs until time runs out (28 years or whatever reasonable period of time). Would you make the same argument if the owner of the copyright passed it on to a charity? Would it be morally ok to take the cashflow generated by this away from the charity?
Why should corporations get any rights at all (I mean, they aren't even alive as such)?
Because if they don't, they will not pay the original holders of the copyright. Which will mean the original holder won't make as much money, which will diminish the creator's desire to create (you can't create something if you have to work 16 hours a day on something else). Michaelangelo wouldn't be able to create the fresco on the Sistine Chappell if the church weren't paying him for it.
Some of this stuff wouldn't even be an issue except for the perception that corporations should be granted some kind of ridiculous personhood status.
Personhood be damned. Unless they have an incentive to make money from something, they will not spend money on it.
It makes sense to me that a potentially immortal entity wants continuing control of it's perceived property.
It isn't perceived property. That property is granted to them legally. Maybe you should address the legal aspects as opposed to the moral aspects because the moral aspects do not count. Sad, but true.
You also know that these "persons" also want to do nonsense like patent formatting techniques like "frames" on the internet. I mean, how stupid is that?
Very stupid. But that is not the same as writing a book.
And see, this is where it starts to get hard to explain why any ideas deserve protection while others do not.
You are correct! Only, it isn't just the idea that is being protected. It is also the effort taken in transcribing the idea and a whole story around it. Otherwise, plotlines would be protected (thankfully they aren't) and we would never have a Shakespeare.
You would protect authorship of a book - and many would agree with you; but protecting a formatting technique for the display of webpages does seem a little over the top doesn't it?
Yes, it does.
Where do you draw the line? You would seem to want to protect something as utilitarian as typesetting.
First, I don't have to draw the line. The law does it. Second, don't assume things about me. My comments refer to this particular situation only and should not be extrapolated to other issues.
But they are not the only people that matter because very few works are acts of such originality that they do not derive from culture as a whole
It's not just about originality, you arrogant ass, it's also about the effort taken to write the damned novel. Have you ever written anything that went beyond 200 pages? Your comment doesn't indicate that.
Shakespeare wasn't original as far as his plots go. But he was pretty original as far as his treatment of those plots went.
And I can turn that most books are derivatives of culture argument on its head. What is culture? Can you define it precisely? Can you show me the boundaries of culture? Where it begins and where it ends? What makes it up? Here's a hint.
The literature and art of a period make up the culture of the period. And this culture influences works of literature and art. It's cyclic. So you can't say whether literature comes from culture or vice versa. It's a chicken and egg problem and can't be solved. So stop moaning about originality and how it is the be all and end all of everything useful. Originality may be important, but the effort taken to translate that original thought into a novel is much more important when it comes to this issue of copyrights.
The author has taken a lot of effort on writing the book. The editor has taken a lot of effort in correcting the manuscript and the publisher has taken an effort in typesetting it, getting the cover designed and in printing it. All these efforts deserve compensation. And it is not your prerogative to decide what their compensation should be.
Google indexing book contents is a major step forward in everyone's ability to find the right content. It does, however, affect the market:
1) The general public can now (more) easily find content; and thus
2) Editors' role in the publishing chain might get diminished.
Yes, let's sack all the editors and just publish all the manuscripts (that's what they are until they are edited) on the net. That way, all the books will contain literature of the quality found on slashdot. Wonderful. Thanks, but I'd rather have the editors there working on each and every books before it is published.
The real problem is that people such as GWB and other leaders instantly bring out the terrorists factor to help them in the elections (even indirect elections). How much is Dr. Kalam doing that? I honestly do not know.
Actually, Dr. Kalam does not have to worry about elections. He is not elected by the people, but rather by members of parliament. Hence, he is not under any obligation to do the popular thing (unlike GWB). And frankly, this is the first time I've heard him refer to terrorists. Most of his time is spent in trying to further the cause of education and specifically science. Among his other achievements (Missiles etc.) is also a heart stent he designed and developed with a doctor. The man isn't the sort of person who would touch politicians with a 10 foot pole.
Why is it, that leaders everywhere invoke the terrorists notion, and almost always it is during an election or when they want something that is not related? It is becoming like the hitler thread.
You don't have any idea about the post of the President of India, how he is elected, what legal powers he has and who the gentleman in question is, do you?
The President of India is a head of state but is not directly elected. His legal powers are severely limited (like the Queen of Great Britain, but slightly less powers than hers). The man in question (Dr. Abdul Kalam) used to be a scientist and is widely credited with the development of India's missile systems.
And with all due respect to your statement and your nation, India does face threats from terrorism in two major regions, the state of Jammu and Kashmir, and the north-eastern states of Assam, Mizoram, Tripura, Manipur, Nagaland and West Bengal. Both these terrorist threats are known to be funded by the Pakistani ISI. These are the sort of threats which are bleeding the populace of the states dry, each and every day. The threat we face is very real. I believe it was Henry Kissinger who said that India lives in a very tough neighbourhood (while he was justifying India's nuclear weapons programme on CNN).
Re:Presidents that work for terrorists
on
Google Terror Threat
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
The worst presidents (and other heads of governments) are those that continuously state that terrorists are a threat, and that everything that could possibly help a terrorist has to be taken down.
Obviously you have no idea who you're talking about. I'm an Indian, and I can say without doubt that this person is the best President India has ever had. You could go here and read his profile before you start off with your rant about how any head of state who talks about terrorism is bad.
We have been dealing with terrorism since the 1980s (1947 if you count the Pakistan-backed and Pakistan-trained tribals who infiltrated into Kashmir alongwith the Pakistan Army). And no, this is not the sort of terrorism you're used to, which is one flashy event in five years. This is the sort of terrorism which bleeds the state, which bleeds the populace it targets, every single day.
The terrorist threat to your nation may be a boogeyman. The one to mine isn't. I suggest you take a look at the following pages. Or search for "Kashmir Militancy" and judge for yourself. But don't rely on one source.
As I understand in India there is or at least has historically been a very strong taboo on divorce.
No offence meant, but divorce has been taboo in most other civilisations too (including western ones). The difference is, in western civ, until a couple of hundred years back, the groom could divorce the bride and not feel any consequences. The bride's life was pretty much ruined.
At least the taboos in India weren't gender biased.
A 13-year old betrothed to a 60-year old cannot actually be thought to have the same opportunity for divorce as a rich Manhattan female attorney.
This statement of yours makes me think you're trolling. These sort of marriages don't take place except in one-off situations. Even in rural areas, no parent in their right minds would let their daughter marry someone so old.
The only cases where I've heard of age gaps so large involve rich old Arab Sheikhs who come to India, bribe the girl's aunt / some other female relative, who does a lot of propoganda and gets the girl married to the old bastard. Usually, the girls aren't 13 (as you noted) but nearer 18. And most of the times, these guys get caught and jailed.
It makes me sick to hear such ignorance spouted at forums such as these. You compare the values of the western world in the 21st century with those of Medieval India and try and sound insightful.
My son doesn't have any kids his age to play with in the neighborhood.
Get your kid involved in some sport. My dad faced the same problem when I was a kid. So he enrolled me for tennis at a private academy. I played the game for a couple of hours, every day, for eleven years. Made quite a few friends there. Started socialising even more. And tennis babes are HOT!!:)
In Soviet Russia, the warm climate lives in you! Err, In Soviet Russia, the warm climate lives in the homeless. Wait... In Soviet Russia, the homeless usually live in the warm climate in you!!
Yeah, that's it!
" Do you not buy a magazine because it has too many?"
No. I buy them. The main difference between a magazine which has ads and a website which has flash ads is the fact that I don't pay for seeing the ads in magazines, but I have to pay for the the flash ads (which, unless I block them, are downloaded onto my PC). My broadband connection has a download limit. If I pass that limit, I have to pay a certain amount per MB. So these ads on webpages cost me money. Ads in magazines don't cost me money because
If I buy the magazine at the news stand, the weight of the ads isn't significant enough to cause any noticable energy expenditure on my behalf.
If the magazine is delivered to my house, I don't have to pay extra for the ads.
Magazines shouldn't have any. If a magazine costs 20 bucks a month, why should they have to use ads?
Because unlike publshing on the net, publishing on paper requires that you employ a lot of people (typesetters, editors, contributors, graphics designers etc. etc.) full time.
See the trend? That explains why Googld Ads is so successful.
I would have to disagree with that.
Google Ads are successful / popular amongst those who publish them. I don't see visitors to websites / blogs jumping with glee at the sight of google ads. Especially in the case of blogs, the relevance of ads to the page they are published on is very low. Additionally, very few people actually give a shit about those ads. If people don't give a shit, they won't be clicking on those ads. In that case a banner ad will achieve more by passing on its message instantaneously, whereas the small font on the google ads means people won't bother reading them. Ofcourse, whether or not the banner ad will achieve recall amongst the viewers is debatable.
I can imagine that future historian would love such a rich data source on how people lived their lives, what they have in their surroundings, etc.
I can imagine the poor fucker wailing about having to wade through all the useless bits of information to get the snippets of useful information he wants. Indexing is far from perfect.
Slashdot Mirror
I only pointed to the physical possibility, nothing else. Every action has repercussions.
In the case of oil, for example, they are securing their own oil fields and supplies so they will be largely immune to an oil boycott, which has been a weapon of choice by the U.S. in the past.
It can still be used.
China has no credible naval power (no aircraft carrier).
By blockading the shipping routes in the Indian ocean, the US and India can starve China of all the oil supplies they are securing.
That might change in the years to come, but for now China is *very* vulnerable to a naval blockade.
If they hold him back and force him to "be his age", it will most likely severly hurt his intellectual growth.
But what's even more important is are his parents forcing him to achieve more? Read this. Read that. Stop doing that and focus on the string theory.
They're stifling his social and emotional growth.
There are tons of things to be learned by your self as a child that do shape what you turn out to be as an adult. It decides if you can or can't talk to a woman without staring at her shoes. It determines whether you can speak in front of a group of potentially hostile people without wetting your pants.
He's going to be emotionally and socially stunted. Too bad for him.
Having her blog linked in this comment, was a huge risk (-:.
My friend, if she can sketch like that, I'd say it wasn't a risk at all. My regards to her.
Creators do depend on income through their work if they do it fulltime.
And if they don't do it full time, we won't have the body of artistic work that we have today. If someone is talented / good at something, I would want that person doing that thing for as many hours of the day as that person can spare. Which means (s)he will have to be compensated for the time invested in art. Now if Shakespeare weren't compensated for the plays he wrote, would he have written them or rather become a grocer?
I was more thinking in the line of commercial music with musicians who are great performers, but are not creative at all them selve to be able to create their own material. Some people who are great in creating material however, should not be allowed to perform since they for example can not sing or act.
Most of the commercial music today caters to fads which pass on in a few months time and then these musicians have to keep re-inventing themselves (note - themselves, not their music) because let's face it, people buy Britney Spears' crap because she's hot, not because she sings well.
Contrast this with the likes of Mozart and Beethoven - they re-invented their music over and over, but they were the same musicians - they didn't have to re-invent themselves. Beethoven didn't go in for dreadlocks, nor did he publicly pledge to maintain his virginity till his wedding night.
Most of these so called musicians of today don't deserve any more money than what a prostitute charges. But as they say, better a thousand thiefs feasting than a single genius starving.
Anyway, for now reading a complete novell of a screen pretty much sucks, and printing it is more expensive then just buying the book. And for music: When I like something, I buy the CD/DVD, even when I already own the mp3s of it.
I totally agree with you on all these counts. You can read a book on a hill after a hike. You can read a book on a boat during a voyage. And it's easier on the eyes than staring at a screen for hours on end.
Anyone who says that librarians are "the enemy" does not require any additional refutation of their credibility.
It's not about their credibility. It's about their arguments.
Discuss and attack the merits (or lack of merits) of her arguments. It's irrelevant if she's a paid shrill or not.
Of course, the library does not prevent me from scanning a book if I take it home, but that is something that will be missed in the hype around it. I am not sure how they could prevent this.
They can't prevent it if you do it one or twice or fifteen times. But if you scan all the books you can lay your hands on and then publicise the fact that you have done so, they'll sic their lawyers on you.
Just because someone isn't preventing you from doing something doesn't mean it's legal or ethical.
Creativity does not by definition depend on money. Why would there be thousands of art blogs, musicians, and writers who just publish it all for free.
Creativity may not depend on money, but the creator does.
You can't write a page, let alone a novel on an empty stomach.
As for the art blogs, musicians and writers who give away all of their creations for free, well, they're crap quality and I wouldn't waste five minutes reading them.
If you have the talent, you will harness it to make money (unless you happen to be a millionaire). If you don't have talent but do possess a burning desire (and think you have talent), you'll give your work away for free.
I've seen your wife's blog - she's a talented artist. Please don't take this personally.
To say the iPod sucess springs from marketing is to ignore a very valuable lession in human behaviour.
To ignore the effect of marketing in inducing word of mouth publicity is to ignore a very valuable lesson in marketing itself.
Word of mouth comes from good marketing AND a good product, not just one of the two.
And in case you haven't noticed, MARKETING IS ALL ABOUT HUMAN BEHAVIOUR.
Google's market cap is just barely under $100 billion
Market cap is one of the worst indicators you could use to judge a company's health and ability to withstand trying times because the first hint of trouble (or tough times) leads to a crash in market cap. Market cap is an illusion - it is money the company cannot touch (unless they sell more of their equity, which MS could buy off the market and then OWN google). What matters is the pile of cash they're sitting on (seen in the balance sheets). And MS definitely beats Google hands down in that regard.
If a hypothetical recession strikes the world economy tomorrow, both MS and Google's market cap will tank. But considering the amount of cash MS sits on right now, their market cap will tank less than Google's.
But they're all things that catch up to something that was already top dog.
You know the best part about playing catch-up to someone who's innovating?
The innovator only has to make one mistake which the other guy identifies and avoids and then they're side by side.
Don't count MS out of it. They have the resources, the will power and business sense (read dirty tactics) honed over twenty years of sharking around.
Why should copyrights extend practically forever?
Nowhere in my post did I mention that they need to be extended till the end of the world. I would say 28 years (the amount of time a person would normally work, give or take a few years) is perfectly reasonable.
Why should an estate get control of copyrights once the original creator is dead?
By this same argument, why should a person's legal heirs get his physical property once he is dead? Why not make the property (house, land, whatever) public domain and let everyone use it? Because most civilised governments recognise the right to private property (to an extent). In this case, the ownership of the work created by A lies with A and should pass on to his children / heirs until time runs out (28 years or whatever reasonable period of time).
Would you make the same argument if the owner of the copyright passed it on to a charity? Would it be morally ok to take the cashflow generated by this away from the charity?
Why should corporations get any rights at all (I mean, they aren't even alive as such)?
Because if they don't, they will not pay the original holders of the copyright. Which will mean the original holder won't make as much money, which will diminish the creator's desire to create (you can't create something if you have to work 16 hours a day on something else). Michaelangelo wouldn't be able to create the fresco on the Sistine Chappell if the church weren't paying him for it.
Some of this stuff wouldn't even be an issue except for the perception that corporations should be granted some kind of ridiculous personhood status.
Personhood be damned. Unless they have an incentive to make money from something, they will not spend money on it.
It makes sense to me that a potentially immortal entity wants continuing control of it's perceived property.
It isn't perceived property. That property is granted to them legally. Maybe you should address the legal aspects as opposed to the moral aspects because the moral aspects do not count. Sad, but true.
You also know that these "persons" also want to do nonsense like patent formatting techniques like "frames" on the internet. I mean, how stupid is that?
Very stupid. But that is not the same as writing a book.
And see, this is where it starts to get hard to explain why any ideas deserve protection while others do not.
You are correct! Only, it isn't just the idea that is being protected. It is also the effort taken in transcribing the idea and a whole story around it. Otherwise, plotlines would be protected (thankfully they aren't) and we would never have a Shakespeare.
You would protect authorship of a book - and many would agree with you; but protecting a formatting technique for the display of webpages does seem a little over the top doesn't it?
Yes, it does.
Where do you draw the line? You would seem to want to protect something as utilitarian as typesetting.
First, I don't have to draw the line. The law does it. Second, don't assume things about me. My comments refer to this particular situation only and should not be extrapolated to other issues.
But they are not the only people that matter because very few works are acts of such originality that they do not derive from culture as a whole
It's not just about originality, you arrogant ass, it's also about the effort taken to write the damned novel.
Have you ever written anything that went beyond 200 pages? Your comment doesn't indicate that.
Shakespeare wasn't original as far as his plots go. But he was pretty original as far as his treatment of those plots went.
And I can turn that most books are derivatives of culture argument on its head. What is culture? Can you define it precisely? Can you show me the boundaries of culture? Where it begins and where it ends? What makes it up? Here's a hint.
The literature and art of a period make up the culture of the period. And this culture influences works of literature and art. It's cyclic. So you can't say whether literature comes from culture or vice versa. It's a chicken and egg problem and can't be solved. So stop moaning about originality and how it is the be all and end all of everything useful. Originality may be important, but the effort taken to translate that original thought into a novel is much more important when it comes to this issue of copyrights.
The author has taken a lot of effort on writing the book. The editor has taken a lot of effort in correcting the manuscript and the publisher has taken an effort in typesetting it, getting the cover designed and in printing it. All these efforts deserve compensation. And it is not your prerogative to decide what their compensation should be.
Google indexing book contents is a major step forward in everyone's ability to find the right content. It does, however, affect the market: 1) The general public can now (more) easily find content; and thus 2) Editors' role in the publishing chain might get diminished.
Yes, let's sack all the editors and just publish all the manuscripts (that's what they are until they are edited) on the net. That way, all the books will contain literature of the quality found on slashdot. Wonderful. Thanks, but I'd rather have the editors there working on each and every books before it is published.
The real problem is that people such as GWB and other leaders instantly bring out the terrorists factor to help them in the elections (even indirect elections). How much is Dr. Kalam doing that? I honestly do not know.
Actually, Dr. Kalam does not have to worry about elections. He is not elected by the people, but rather by members of parliament. Hence, he is not under any obligation to do the popular thing (unlike GWB). And frankly, this is the first time I've heard him refer to terrorists. Most of his time is spent in trying to further the cause of education and specifically science. Among his other achievements (Missiles etc.) is also a heart stent he designed and developed with a doctor. The man isn't the sort of person who would touch politicians with a 10 foot pole.
Why is it, that leaders everywhere invoke the terrorists notion, and almost always it is during an election or when they want something that is not related? It is becoming like the hitler thread.
You don't have any idea about the post of the President of India, how he is elected, what legal powers he has and who the gentleman in question is, do you?
The President of India is a head of state but is not directly elected. His legal powers are severely limited (like the Queen of Great Britain, but slightly less powers than hers). The man in question (Dr. Abdul Kalam) used to be a scientist and is widely credited with the development of India's missile systems.
And with all due respect to your statement and your nation, India does face threats from terrorism in two major regions, the state of Jammu and Kashmir, and the north-eastern states of Assam, Mizoram, Tripura, Manipur, Nagaland and West Bengal. Both these terrorist threats are known to be funded by the Pakistani ISI. These are the sort of threats which are bleeding the populace of the states dry, each and every day. The threat we face is very real. I believe it was Henry Kissinger who said that India lives in a very tough neighbourhood (while he was justifying India's nuclear weapons programme on CNN).
The worst presidents (and other heads of governments) are those that continuously state that terrorists are a threat, and that everything that could possibly help a terrorist has to be taken down.
Obviously you have no idea who you're talking about. I'm an Indian, and I can say without doubt that this person is the best President India has ever had. You could go here and read his profile before you start off with your rant about how any head of state who talks about terrorism is bad.
We have been dealing with terrorism since the 1980s (1947 if you count the Pakistan-backed and Pakistan-trained tribals who infiltrated into Kashmir alongwith the Pakistan Army). And no, this is not the sort of terrorism you're used to, which is one flashy event in five years. This is the sort of terrorism which bleeds the state, which bleeds the populace it targets, every single day.
The terrorist threat to your nation may be a boogeyman. The one to mine isn't.
I suggest you take a look at the following pages. Or search for "Kashmir Militancy" and judge for yourself. But don't rely on one source.
Pakistan's role in terrorism in Kashmir
Auschwitz in Kashmir by Pak-backed terrorists
The legal documents pertaining to the accession of the Independent Kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir to the Republic of India
Additionally, thanks to Bangladesh and the Pakistani ISI, we now have had a terrorist threat to the north east of the country, predominantly in the states of Assam, Manipur, Nagaland and the rural areas of West Bengal.
As I understand in India there is or at least has historically been a very strong taboo on divorce.
No offence meant, but divorce has been taboo in most other civilisations too (including western ones). The difference is, in western civ, until a couple of hundred years back, the groom could divorce the bride and not feel any consequences. The bride's life was pretty much ruined.
At least the taboos in India weren't gender biased.
A 13-year old betrothed to a 60-year old cannot actually be thought to have the same opportunity for divorce as a rich Manhattan female attorney.
This statement of yours makes me think you're trolling. These sort of marriages don't take place except in one-off situations. Even in rural areas, no parent in their right minds would let their daughter marry someone so old.
The only cases where I've heard of age gaps so large involve rich old Arab Sheikhs who come to India, bribe the girl's aunt / some other female relative, who does a lot of propoganda and gets the girl married to the old bastard. Usually, the girls aren't 13 (as you noted) but nearer 18. And most of the times, these guys get caught and jailed.
It makes me sick to hear such ignorance spouted at forums such as these. You compare the values of the western world in the 21st century with those of Medieval India and try and sound insightful.
So go back under your bridge and stop trolling.
My son doesn't have any kids his age to play with in the neighborhood.
:)
Get your kid involved in some sport. My dad faced the same problem when I was a kid. So he enrolled me for tennis at a private academy. I played the game for a couple of hours, every day, for eleven years. Made quite a few friends there. Started socialising even more.
And tennis babes are HOT!!
There's a lot of soft core porn out there where the man puts the woman on a pedastel and respects her while he makes love to her.
I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
The homeless usually live in warm climates.
How do you explain Soviet Russia?
In Soviet Russia, the warm climate lives in you!
Err, In Soviet Russia, the warm climate lives in the homeless.
Wait...
In Soviet Russia, the homeless usually live in the warm climate in you!!
Yeah, that's it!
U.S. Literacy: 97%
Have they lowered the standards?
No. I buy them. The main difference between a magazine which has ads and a website which has flash ads is the fact that I don't pay for seeing the ads in magazines, but I have to pay for the the flash ads (which, unless I block them, are downloaded onto my PC). My broadband connection has a download limit. If I pass that limit, I have to pay a certain amount per MB. So these ads on webpages cost me money. Ads in magazines don't cost me money because
Magazines shouldn't have any. If a magazine costs 20 bucks a month, why should they have to use ads?
Because unlike publshing on the net, publishing on paper requires that you employ a lot of people (typesetters, editors, contributors, graphics designers etc. etc.) full time.
3. Most ads are irrelevant.
See the trend? That explains why Googld Ads is so successful.
I would have to disagree with that. Google Ads are successful / popular amongst those who publish them. I don't see visitors to websites / blogs jumping with glee at the sight of google ads. Especially in the case of blogs, the relevance of ads to the page they are published on is very low. Additionally, very few people actually give a shit about those ads. If people don't give a shit, they won't be clicking on those ads. In that case a banner ad will achieve more by passing on its message instantaneously, whereas the small font on the google ads means people won't bother reading them. Ofcourse, whether or not the banner ad will achieve recall amongst the viewers is debatable.
Long story short: Ads suck!
I can imagine that future historian would love such a rich data source on how people lived their lives, what they have in their surroundings, etc.
I can imagine the poor fucker wailing about having to wade through all the useless bits of information to get the snippets of useful information he wants. Indexing is far from perfect.