Re: [silk] Fwd: [jivika] Fwd: [indiathinkersnet] Bangalore: The risingdivorce rate in the IT sector
2007/8/5, shiv sastry [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Monday 06 Aug 2007 2:06 am, Radhika, Y. wrote: We Indians are highly goal focused rather than process oreinted-I suspect that old fashioned contempt for dating also has to do with intolerance for ambiguity and low risk tolerance ather than mere morality Control of male and female sexuality is important for the preservation of family wealth. When wealth becomes relatively assured, such control of sexuality becomes redundant. But, as Eugen has pointed out, birth rates have fallen in such societies for various reasons. I am guessing that birth rates will fall among the subset of Indians who belong to the IT sector but continue to remain high among others. In other words, the IT sector is likely to become synonymous with long hours, high salary, no family - unless something changes. shiv
Re: [silk] Fwd: [jivika] Fwd: [indiathinkersnet] Bangalore: The risingdivorce rate in the IT sector
I agree that ensuring family wealth is a big factor in societies keeping . And here I am speculating but I see the mergence of both a narrowing and a broadening of the term family. Being outside the IT world but having spent many an afternoon eavesdropping on IT professionals on Brigade Road while living in Bangalore in 2005, I observed that on the one hand there is the large IT family, where many people understand the stresses as well as the opportunities so within the peer group it is acceptabe to have an out such as divorce or a midlife crisis. At the same time, the family has come to mean a smaller and smaller unit, until it is down to the individual. This is not to say that marriage is not an institution worth preserving. in the old days, a marriage might have been the merging of two identities, but to day it is more like a Venn diagram representing intersection! All of this is only serving to make me nostalgic for the great 70s film, Kramer vs. Kramer... 2007/8/5, Radhika, Y. [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 2007/8/5, shiv sastry [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Monday 06 Aug 2007 2:06 am, Radhika, Y. wrote: We Indians are highly goal focused rather than process oreinted-I suspect that old fashioned contempt for dating also has to do with intolerance for ambiguity and low risk tolerance ather than mere morality Control of male and female sexuality is important for the preservation of family wealth. When wealth becomes relatively assured, such control of sexuality becomes redundant. But, as Eugen has pointed out, birth rates have fallen in such societies for various reasons. I am guessing that birth rates will fall among the subset of Indians who belong to the IT sector but continue to remain high among others. In other words, the IT sector is likely to become synonymous with long hours, high salary, no family - unless something changes. shiv
Re: [silk] Reputation for Wikipedia
Udhay, http://trust.cse.ucsc.edu/ I'd be especially interested in comments from Vip and Rishab. Do you mind if I chip in? I think any automated device to measure reputation, reliabilty or trust is dangerously stupid. It would be so anyhow. To make things worse, the criteria in this case are such as to reward behaviors that are unrelated to quality (they could easily do the opposite.) Another messy mistake in Wikipedia is somethig called a GDFL licence which is based on software concepts unfit for writing, art etcetera. It's causing a number of ridiculous problems. I am generally on the side of opensource, I like Wikipedia and I often find it quite useful. I understand that an open encyclopedia can contain nonsense, but it happens with all sorts of sources (Sturgeon's Law?) That is *not*, imho, the problem that we are discussing. The issue here, as I see it, is that technobureaucrats can mess things up by enforcing stupid rules and automatic nonsensical definitions. Cheers, Giancarlo
[silk] Ethics in big Indian companies
On an egroup that I moderate, we have been having discussions about the business ethics,Ior lack thereof, in large Indian companies. t started with our rating of various Internet Service Providers and went on to mobile phone companies. Several names were, of course mentioned, but I am not bringing them in herebut I thought I would like to share this analysis and the solutions suggested by this friend of mine from Riyadh: Why things are so bad even in Big companies: 1) Popular feeling among both the elite and common man that we can't change things as they are. (imagine if Mahatma Gandhi had felt the same way) 2) Lack of competition (of good service providers) 3) Public not giving incentives (e.g. tips- this is not bribe- don't we tip the waiter in 5 star hotels) to good service providers like e.g BSNL staff. 4) Active consumer forums (a person I know- now in his seventies and severely ill) still runs an active consumer forum in Chennai. He does not have much support. 5) Lack of cooperation from Mass media dependent on advertising (but internet offers a e-solution via blogs, I think some of us can start one) 6) Tendency of big companies (at mid levels) to discriminate from Big and important clients who follow up and common man clients- who do nothave the time, energy, or money to keep up the protest. Solutions: 1) Support neutral (and paid for by subscription) Product and service Rating agencies (not just credit but also quality- service etc) 2) Express more often such complaints in public as you have all just done. My wife( in chennai )every week complains to me about one or other equipment or service, as even after paying for it she never gets a satisfactory level of quality or service. (This is still the big difference between such mundane matters of day to day living abroad and in India) 3) Ask companies to have double tier service- a) premium service and b) standard service where in premium they would actually hear and attend to complaints. 4) Ask several technical people to comment on common problems. E.g. my wife had great difficulty to install connect a wifi connetion to laptop (after it has been installed- it typically cuts of after 40 seconds as Raj Nair's daughter experienced). She tried several technicians including from BSNL and then obscure technician from one of the suburbs fixed it in 2 minutes. 5) Publicize good performers and help them grow. 6) Suggest a course curricula which can be included in IIMs and all graduate degrees on Quality- why it matters to you and me. May be one of the several hundred educational institutions may even adopt it. Let us not forget that IIMA is better because it stuck to such quality considerations. P.B.Varadharajan from Riyadh What do you think...especially about his suggestion on incentives? Deepa.
Re: [silk] Ethics in big Indian companies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Deepa Mohan wrote: [interesting exercise I must admit] Why things are so bad even in Big companies: 1) Popular feeling among both the elite and common man that we can't change things as they are. (imagine if Mahatma Gandhi had felt the same way) Well in this case given the fact that in most of the cases it resembles the transition from frying pan to flame there is not much choice for the consumer to seek relief by boycotting services from Provider1 in lieu of services from Provider2 (the point below) 2) Lack of competition (of good service providers) 3) Public not giving incentives (e.g. tips- this is not bribe- don't we tip the waiter in 5 star hotels) to good service providers like e.g BSNL staff. This bit is kind of a new one. The incentive for pushing quality of service upwards for a Provider would be ensuring that the consumer base does not reduce. Providing incentives for providing service that's already part of an SLA reads like an expensive proposition 4) Active consumer forums (a person I know- now in his seventies and severely ill) still runs an active consumer forum in Chennai. He does not have much support. There's not an organized consumer movement based on forums and guidance. 5) Lack of cooperation from Mass media dependent on advertising (but internet offers a e-solution via blogs, I think some of us can start one) The power of a blog is directly proportional to the number of aggregators it hits or some such. 6) Tendency of big companies (at mid levels) to discriminate from Big and important clients who follow up and common man clients- who do nothave the time, energy, or money to keep up the protest. Airtel, ICICI and Dell (usage of the corporate and individual accounts provide an unique experience) :Sankarshan - -- You see things; and you say 'Why?'; But I dream things that never were; and I say 'Why not?' - George Bernard Shaw -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGtuq6XQZpNTcrCzMRAvJiAJ9wSvAWfgpShE/lSR+U6Ng/t82gRgCfQNx/ 2pkd6E1Q6474uj0td/Zw4Cw= =UEN/ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [silk] Fwd: [jivika] Fwd: [indiathinkersnet] Bangalore: The rising divorce rate in the IT sector
--- ashok _ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: anymore. I have a couple of cousins who are slaving like fools to save money for their daughters marriage (their daughters are less than 10 years old now...)... in some misplaced belief that 15 years hence, their kids will actually listen to them. Two words: College. Fund. cheers, Divya
Re: [silk] Global Warming Alarmists?
--- Gautam John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Newsweek Disgrace: 'Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine' By Noel Sheppard | August 5, 2007 - 13:43 ET I find it interesting that this article appears to be more critical of the politics behind the position than the actual science. I do agree that attributing scepticism to bad science or bad intentions is deplorable. The interesting thing to ask, IMHO, is: what does the majority scientific community position on (a) is the climate changing? (b) is it probable that the climate change is attributable to human interference ? AFAIK, there is a very broad consensus on (a), with some dissenters suggesting global cooling rather than global warming, and much more variance on (b), with opinions ranging across - yes, we can and should so something to correct it - yes, but nothing we do will change things enough - maybe, we should get more data to be sure - maybe, but the human factor only accelerates something that nature already started - no, nature is responsible Good science means all these hypotheses can and should be examined and tested. As of now, the majority of the scientific community does seem to believe that human intervention is at least a significant contributor to global climate change. Given that we all have a significant stake in maintaining decent living conditions on the planet, wouldn't the pragmatic view be to act as though that were true, until and unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary? cheers, Divya
Re: [silk] Global Warming Alarmists?
I do agree that attributing scepticism to bad science or bad intentions is deplorable. The interesting thing to ask, IMHO, is: what does the majority scientific community position on (a) is the climate changing? (b) is it probable that the climate change is attributable to human interference ? AFAIK, there is a very broad consensus on (a), Not sure I'd accept consensus as an argument. Normally, consensus would be based on facts, and these are the facts that I'd use to judge the issues involved. The arguments used to disprove the conclusions of the Flat Earth Society[1] are based on hard incontrovertible evidence, even though the consensus would be more complete here. I don't believe the proponents of global warming need to provide hard evidence for every aspect of their theories. But I'd expect them to explain some basic questions like, if CO2 is what drives the increase in temperature, why are the cause and effect reversed, with an 800-year lag between temperature increase and the corresponding increase in atmospheric CO2. I'm yet to come across a convincing answer. RealClimate has an explanation[2] which is not very convincing: Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. There could be better explanations - I just haven't come across them yet. And this is just one of the many questions I still have about the anthropogenic global warming theories. Given that we all have a significant stake in maintaining decent living conditions on the planet, wouldn't the pragmatic view be to act as though that were true, until and unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary? Sure, though it sounds awfully like Pascal's Wager. The measures I'd support are the same as the one I'd support irrespective of whether global warming turned out to be anthropogenic or not - reducing emissions and fuel consumption of vehicles, replacing incandescent bulbs with CFLs, harnessing solar energy, etc. The only problem with accepting the current global warming theory without debate and more research is that we could end up scaring ourselves enough to lose perspective. Bjorn Lomborg's TED talk[3] does a good job of addressing this. Venky. References: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society [2] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13 [3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs
Re: [silk] Rapture
On 8/5/07, shiv sastry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Similarly in America, it would be easy for people raised as Hindus to raise children outside of traditional Hindu culture if they so desired. Would such children be considered Hindu by Indians? What if the parents changed their names and the children spoke only colloquial American English, complete with California accents? Are they Hindu? Hindus rarely move abroad in isolation. They take at least a wife, or they return for a wife. In turn they produce Hindu children. Hindus (and Sikhs, and Jains) who move abroad take with them a cultural photograph of life as they knew it when they left and take greater pains than the average Hindu in India to preserve what they recall as their culture. Their attitudes, social mores and fervor remain stuck in a time warp while the culture in India moves on. Interviews with grown up children of Indian Americans who are sent to India to soak up Indian culture testify to this fact. Girls get sent to India with the advice that In India girls wear modest clothes and do not wantonly mix with boys. The Indian American girl comes to India expecting that and is surprised to find that her parents got it all wrong, and were referring to 30 years ago. In my mother's generation it was important for a young lady to learn Carnatic classical music or dance. For me, living in India, it is no longer considered necessary for a girl of my daughter's generation to do that. However, for my brother's children, born in the US, it has been made necessary for them to retain Hindu culture by training girls in classical music and dance. The result is that you get to hear of Indian college girls studying engineering, while it is the Indian-American girls who are doing their Arangetram. The (Arangetram being a kind of formalized first public performance of dance indicating that the girl is now a fully trained bharatanatyam dancer.) Sure, but what I think you're saying is that it's possible, maybe even easy, for Hindus that move abroad to preserve their culture if they want to. I'm asking a different question - what if they *don't* want to? What if a couple, born of Hindu parents, decides for some unknown reason that they completely reject Hinduism, don't want any part of it. Assume for the moment, they move away to some non-Hindu country, cut off all contact with Hindus, change their names, and deliberately raise their children to have no Hindu culture, ignorant of their history, enthusiastically embracing modern secular culture and rejecting religion. Would these children be considered Hindu? Their grandparents were full on Hindus in any sense of the word. Their parents were raised in Hindu culture, but rejected it. They however, were not raised in a Hindu culture, have no knowledge of Hindu tradition or practice, and they don't believe any of it. Are they Hindu? If so, what is it that makes them Hindu? It would seem that the only possible answer is if you are born of Hindu parents you are a Hindu. Period. Their parents are Hindu, therefore they are Hindu. If that is not sufficiently clear, what about the hypothetical case of a Hindu infant, adopted by secular non-believers and raised in a non-Hindu culture. Is that child still Hindu? Ignore for the moment how unlikely this is to actually occur, I'm trying to get at what it is that determines Hinduness. It seems pretty clear that neither belief nor practice are either necessary or sufficient. So what is? I can answer that question for Jew, Christian, or Muslim including a discussion about the various controversies, but I can't do it for Hindu. -- Charles
Re: [silk] Rapture
On Tuesday 07 Aug 2007 5:11 am, Charles Haynes wrote: If that is not sufficiently clear, what about the hypothetical case of a Hindu infant, adopted by secular non-believers and raised in a non-Hindu culture. Is that child still Hindu? Ignore for the moment how unlikely this is to actually occur, I'm trying to get at what it is that determines Hinduness. It seems pretty clear that neither belief nor practice are either necessary or sufficient. That child can in no way behave or appear Hindu and will not be recognised as one. There is nothing sticky about Hinduism that comes bundled with genes. I believe that Hinudism is merely a function of geography, physical appearance and behavior. A particular range of behaviors and physical characteristics that are found to occur commonly over a particular geographic area came to be associated with the word Hindus and Hinduism. The people who were classified in that way did not spontaneously come out and say We are Hindus That nick was initially placed on them as a general description by visitors from outside the region. These people (dubbed Hindus) were more obsessed with themselves than what lay outside, and were particularly deficient in connecting up time with events and keeping a record of history. There is a beautiful analogy comparing this Hindu characteristic with some tribe elsewhere in the world by Naipaul - I need to dig that up. I will do in due course. Religion, and the specific identity of a God is not the only, or the strongest indicator of Hindu. I suspect that the concept my religion is my identity came with Christianity and Islam, but this was at best a highly variable characteristic among the mass of people who were dubbed Hindus. In that sense the dubbing of Hinduism as a religion is a mixed bag that suits some agendas and is detrimental to others. But the world has no other word for it currently and the world is as mystified by Hinduness as you are and I am. shiv
Re: [silk] Global Warming Alarmists?
--- Venky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do agree that attributing scepticism to bad science or bad intentions is deplorable. The interesting thing to ask, IMHO, is: what does the majority scientific community position on (a) is the climate changing? (b) is it probable that the climate change is attributable to human interference ? AFAIK, there is a very broad consensus on (a), Not sure I'd accept consensus as an argument. Normally, consensus would be based on facts, and these are the facts that I'd use to judge the issues involved. The consensus on the question 'is the climate changing?' *is* based on observable facts from a wide range of sources - satellite evidence, polar melt, Antarctic ice core analysis, rainfall records, sea sediments, etc. - and IMO is a valid argument in the same way that the broad consensus on the theory of evolution is (again, based on observable facts). *Causality* is where the controversy lies. the increase in temperature, why are the cause and effect reversed, with an 800-year lag between temperature increase and the corresponding increase in atmospheric CO2. I'm yet to come across a convincing answer. 'CO2 causes global warming' is definitely one of the areas that there is both a justified amount of debate as well as an unwarranted amount of hysteria and scare-mongering. Sure, though it sounds awfully like Pascal's Wager. Surely not :-) In this case, there is a strong possibility some of us would be around to observe (and communicate to other interested parties, without benefit of Ouija boards or divine revelation) measurable results or non-results of any actions we take today... The measures I'd support are the same as the one I'd support irrespective of whether global warming turned out to be anthropogenic or not - reducing emissions and fuel consumption of vehicles, replacing incandescent bulbs with CFLs, harnessing solar energy, etc. I would actually support those and other measures from motives beyond just CO2 emission control: sustainable and renewable energy that is not based on finite oil reserves, cheaper (ultimately) energy available to more people on the planet, cleaner air for us all to breathe, and so on. To me, concern about climate change is one part of broad concerns about environmental issues- another biggie happens to be the adverse effect of human intervention on bio-diversity. Scepticism is one of our most valuable tools in science. I think we agree that the pursuit of facts should not be subverted by emotion, religion, politics, or 'the accepted view'. That said, I stand by my belief about pragmatic action to contain chemical emissions (not just CO2), in the face of our current state of knowledge about how human interactions are affecting the environment. cheers, Divya
Re: [silk] Global Warming Alarmists?
On 8/6/07, Divya Sampath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Gautam John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Newsweek Disgrace: 'Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine' By Noel Sheppard | August 5, 2007 - 13:43 ET I find it interesting that this article appears to be more critical of the politics behind the position than the actual science. I do agree that attributing scepticism to bad science or bad intentions is deplorable. Actually, the reason the article talks more about the politics and not the science is because the Newsweek article is about the politics of climate change, i.e., how those who oppose regulation to address the problem are funded. I think this is something that the general public isn't really aware of. And while I wish the discussion could be purely about the science, the non-Utopian in me recognizes the importance of questioning the credibility of the witness, so to speak, in addition to questioning what the witness says. As someone who lives in DC and has a DC job, the Newsweek article struck me as spot on in terms of its description of the effect special interests have in the DC political/policymaking space. (The tone may have been slightly harsh.) Also FWIW, I thought the Noel Sheppard article was nonsense, pretty much -- and a quick google search reveals this one to be one of many similar articles (such as the ones in which he accuses the NY Times of treason for disclosing some of the Bush administration's spying programs). Dave
