Re: [silk] BW: How Risky Is India?
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:36 AM, J. Andrew Rogers and...@ceruleansystems.com wrote: [...] The doctrinal assumptions of infantry and police are inverted. Infantry operate in a hostile environment in proximity to a few friendly people, police operate in a friendly environment in proximity to a few hostile people. Their tactics and procedures reflect this. Excellent summary. From my limited knowledge even I know this: The INSAS rifle uses ammunition designed to maim rather than kill. The 5.56x45mm is *not* designed to maim except to the extent that maiming leads to death. This is an old urban legend based primarily on the fact that it uses a significantly smaller bullet than the cartridges it replaced. This particular cartridge has the distinction of being one of the very few military cartridges that can undergo explosive fragmentation when fired from common weapons. In terms of terminal lethality, you would be better off getting hit by a larger bullet that does not undergo explosive fragmentation. I am unable to ascertain for sure the fragmentation behavior characteristics of the INSAS. Since few if any own INSAS outside of the Indian Nepali forces public data isn't widely available. The NATO 5.56 fragments at high velocities, however once again I don't have any information on the velocity characteristics of INSAS. The Special forces like NSG use sub-machine guns like the HK MP5 which are designed to kill rather than maim... Actually, the HK MP5 has very benign terminal ballistics as military weapons go, since it uses a 9mm pistol cartridge. Survival rates for these types of wounds is very high, though in the case of the MP5 the standard practice is to hit the target with a burst of well-placed bullets which mitigates the relative non-lethality of a single random shot. Thanks for refreshing my memory. The INSAS is cheap to produce but will overheat after 10 rounds of continuous fire. It stretches plausibility that a modern AK-47 derivative would overheat after 10 rounds of continuous fire, since that is barely enough rounds to warm the steel. Even the lightest of lightweight military rifle actions -- and the INSAS is not lightweight -- can absorb the thermal waste of a full 30-rd magazine at maximum cyclical rate without overheating. Military small-arms of the last half century are designed to indefinitely sustain fire of 50-100 rounds per minute, including AK-47 derivatives actions, which is roughly rapid semi-automatic fire. I have no direct experience, however on internet forums there are fairly regular reports of the INSAS heating up to unusable temperatures after 10-20 continuous rounds. This is also said to be due to the poor quality of Indian ammunition. It's another matter that the stock infantry version of the INSAS is not capable of full auto because of army specified restrictions. After seeing the civilian use guns that OFB produces, one wonders if the INSAS is any better. [...] While I agree that military units make poor police, the reasons have more to do with doctrine and training assumptions than the particular weapons they use. I am no expert, so thanks for correcting my errors. Cheeni
Re: [silk] BW: How Risky Is India?
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:28:19AM +0530, Madhu Menon wrote: We could try to manufacture some of The Joker's laugh gas against the terrorists. Let's put a millle on that face! Unfortunately, they'll only die laughing.
Re: [silk] Pet Peeves and Pedantry, was: How Risky Is India?
I was going to say that I fail to understand why any of this is particularly bothersome, but then I remembered my own feelings of helpless frustration on being confronted with the word 'revert' in a professional email when the sender means 'respond,' and I begin to feel some sympathy. On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Udhay Shankar N ud...@pobox.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian sur...@hserus.net wrote: Someone go analyze the stuff Amitabh points out in his English is a very funny language song. And, for some year-end amusement in this vein: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silk-list/message/14049 Udhay -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com)) -- roswitha.tumblr.com
Re: [silk] Pet Peeves and Pedantry, was: How Risky Is India?
--- On Fri, 12/19/08, Ramakrishnan Sundaram r.sunda...@gmail.com wrote: Divya, Just curious - how exactly does one get behind a gripe? It's easy, Ram - one just waits around for it to get ahead of itself, which it inevitably does, because it's the nature of the beast. In the process, one finds oneself behind it. The Doppler shift is useful in telling where one stands (the volume of shrill indignation increases as the gripe closes on one, is identical to one's own as it draws even, and then declines as it leaves one behind). cheers, Divya
Re: [silk] Pet Peeves and Pedantry, was: How Risky Is India?
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Ramakrishnan Sundaram r.sunda...@gmail.com wrote: 2008/12/19 Amit Varma amitbl...@gmail.com: Both* 'a history' and 'an history' are correct. 'An history' fell out of fashion in the 20th century, but was the norm before that -- So you're saying that IG uses an history because that's what his contemporaries used? Sorry, who be IG? -- Amit Varma http://www.indiauncut.com
Re: [silk] BW: How Risky Is India?
On Friday 19 Dec 2008 11:36:12 am J. Andrew Rogers wrote: The 5.56x45mm is *not* designed to maim except to the extent that maiming leads to death. This is an old urban legend based primarily on the fact that it uses a significantly smaller bullet than the cartridges it replaced. This particular cartridge has the distinction of being one of the very few military cartridges that can undergo explosive fragmentation when fired from common weapons. In terms of terminal lethality, you would be better off getting hit by a larger bullet that does not undergo explosive fragmentation. Interesting - and it is likely that you know much more than I do about this. Of course the theory was that the smaller round would maim and then the enemy soldiers would be put out of action - i.e. the wounded man and two people to carry him. However. this obviosuly does not work against jihadis. I recall reading that when the INSAS was first inducted the Indian Army was unhappy with the muzzle velocity and maiming potential. But I am told that these issues have been addressed and I see the rifle appearing everywhere and people I speak to (soldiers) seem happy with it. I think the main advantage of the 5.56 is the weight penalty is lower. But Indian police forces are almost always equipped with the Lee Enfield .303. What is worse is that most rifle wielding policemen go to a firing range to practice shooting less than once a year. shiv
Re: [silk] Pet Peeves and Pedantry, was: How Risky Is India?
--- On Fri, 12/19/08, Chandrachoodan Gopalakrishnan chandrachoo...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:52 AM, Abhijit Menon-Sen a...@toroid.org wrote: At 2008-12-18 11:40:27 -0800, divyasamp...@yahoo.com wrote: If you are nostalgic about my outbursts of linguistic pedantry on Silk, we can go into why the 'h' in 'hour', 'honour' and 'honest' are silent, and why this is not the case with 'history' or 'hippopotamus'. Yes! Do tell. Yes, please! I think you guys are just rooting for IG and I to start one of *those* arguments. You know, the ones where we unleash spates of tautology on subjects no one else cares about, the rest of the list falls asleep, and then the two of us decide that we had been in agreement since the beginning. It's been a while we've done that. OK, so you talked me into it. Before I get to the question of the aspirated/non-aspirated 'h', let's start with some exposition. First of all, evolutionary theory applies. The most successful languages share characteristics with successful biological species - if we define success by numbers (of speakers and vocabulary/ individuals) and longevity (of the species or the language, not the individual). The most obvious of these shared characteristics are - the ability to adapt at the optimal rate (not too fast, not too slow), which permits useful adaptations to be passed on, and weeds out useless or bad adaptations before they can cause widespread damage. - a large number of contemporaneous diverse forms (phenotypes in biology, dialects and regional/cultural usage variants in language). - accretion of vestigial structures with no obvious utility. Just as we understand the presence of the coccyx in humans by seeing it as the remnant of a lost tail, we make sense of idiosyncratic English spellings and usages by looking at their Greek, Latin, French, Old English or other antecedents. An important non-obvious characteristic is that no species or language remains successful forever. Either a species evolves to the point that it becomes a recognisably new one (e.g., homo habilis diverges from the australopithecines / Romance languages diverge from Vulgar Latin) or it is supplanted by a more successful species (homo neanderthalensis overtaken by homo sapiens / Latin replaced by French and then by English as the dominant language of trade and diplomacy). So - long story short, change = good, stagnation = bad, right? But language is inextricably linked to social, political and cultural structures. A powerful cultural meme throughout history propagates the notion that linguistic change is a symptom of degeneration and decline. This is unavoidable, because language is a social marker (accents, dialects, regional idioms). Lower status groups strive to emulate higher staus groups. (As Aelfric's Colloquy put it, back in the 10th century, Wé cildra biddaþ þé, éalá láréow, þæt þú taéce ús sprecan rihte, forþám ungelaérede wé sindon, and gewæmmodlíce we sprecaþ, or We kids ask you, master, to teach us to speak correctly, because we're ignorant and speak badly.) Institutions and mechanisms are created to preserve linguistic prestige (the Académie française, and the OED, to name two). Over time, however, even these institutions must change to remain relevant. In this context, let's re-examine the silent 'h' question. Both 'history' and 'hippopotamus' entered Middle English via Latin, from the original Greek, that is, from the Greek 'historia', meaning history or narrative, and 'hippopotamos' meaning river horse. Middle English (ME) broadly refers to the forms of the English language spoken between the Norman invasion of 1066 and the 1470s, from which point a form of London-based English became dominant, thanks to the introduction of the printing press by William Caxton. These 'imports' retained the aspirated 'h' from the original language(s). 'Hospital' 'hour' and 'honour' entered ME via French, from Latin origins. In spoken French, most words imported from Latin turned the initial 'h' into the h muet, or mute h. When the words were imported into English, the h remained silent. However, there was a twist in the tale in the case of 'history'. French replaced Latin as the lingua franca across Europe and its colonies from the 17th century onward. During this time, the educated class in Britain and specifically in England adopted 'frenchified' pronunciations. Many direct Latin import words, including history, which had hitherto been pronounced with an aspirated h, suddenly became 'mute h' words. This was reflected in the number of 'An History...' book titles between the 1600s and the mid-1800s. At this point, there was a resurgence of English chauvinism (precipitated by the emergence of the global British Empire and the predominantly English-speaking United States) which started eroding the 'frenchification' process, and by the early 1900s, 'a history' with a clearly
Re: [silk] Pet Peeves and Pedantry, was: How Risky Is India?
--- On Fri, 12/19/08, Amit Varma amitbl...@gmail.com wrote: snipped content correct. 'An history' fell out of fashion in the 20th century, but was the norm before that snipped content Language evolves. According to Mirriam-Webster [1] and WordNet [2], 'decimate', like so many other words, has an accepted second meaning. So, you're saying that 'an history' is hallowed by virtue of antiquity and a respectable pedigree, but in the case of 'decimate', the contender with youth and popularity beats the establishment favourite? Hmm. That's interesting sophistry. You'll notice my original post conceded that decimate has an accepted second meaning, though in true pedantic tradition, for the purpose of my Silk-list rants, I uphold the standards of the OED over sources that are either American (bah, humbug), or Internet-only (ptui!). One can't really deliver a pompous philippic about the decline and fall of the English language without adequately pretentious references to match. Snark aside, of course language evolves; if it doesn't, it dies. I've talked about the evolution of the voiced h in 'a history' and my support for the older meaning of 'decimate', in another post. But an exaggerated sense of indignation over trivialities is part of the fun of being a pedant and a Silk-list loony. cheers, Divya
Re: [silk] Rhetoric and dialectic - was: How Risky Is India?
ss cybers...@gmail.com writes: On Thursday 18 Dec 2008 12:46:17 am Perry E. Metzger wrote: All that said, people seem to be taking you to task for ignoring the fact that terrorism is a very small killer which is very hard to address, and much bigger killers which are cheaper and easier to address go unanswered. Do you have a good answer for them? Well I need to explain what you have yourself done just in case you are doing this without realizing it Let me explain You word a question in the following manner: 1) X is bad, but Y is worse 2) Do I have a good answer for why anyone should bother about the lesser problem X This sort of tactic comes naturally to people in political debate and is the stuff of rhetoric and dialectic. Actually, it comes naturally to people who think about resource allocation, not to people who think about politics. Politics is all about generating hysteria. Rational thinking is about trying to cut through hysteria. There aren't infinite resources in the world, and devoting a very large fraction of a society's resources in a self destructive potlatch that accomplishes nothing when the same resources could be spent productively is a very natural thing to be concerned about. A politician would love to ignore such things. The rational man cannot. Restructuring one's society to fight terrorism when few people die of it and hundreds of thousands die preventably is much like using nuclear weapons to attack a fly when you won't even get out a cudgel to kill a rabid racoon. It begs for satire because it is bizarre and silly. The question removes the focus of discussion from terrorism, No. It points out that those that spend much of their time worrying about terrorism have no sense of proportion. Why should you warp a society to attack a problem that has so little real impact? Human beings are notoriously bad at risk assessment. They won't fasten their seatbelts, when the risk of dying in a car crash over a lifetime is quite significant, and then they get phobias about flying when the risk of dying in an airplane crash is nearly nonexistent. It is, however, easy to whip people's fears up. Television stations never break in the middle of programming to announce that the 75,000th person to die in an auto accident this year has just expired. However, if there is a sniper shooting somewhere, it is news. Ordinary risks are rarely paid attention to -- it is trivial to get people to look at the rare. by saying that something else is worse. It then piles up conditionality on the answer by saying Do you have a good answer? The final judgement of what is a good answer and what is not a good answer is left to the person asking the question. In other words the question is worded so at to: a) to take the focus away from the point of discussion b) Leave a door open to declare any answer as not good Not quite. I won't deny that I think your position is unreasonable and I am clearly attempting to make others think the same thing. However, I think the means I am using are quite legitimate. You are one of those who claims that terrorism is an existential threat to society that justifies vast commitment of resources and the restructuring of the legal system. However, the evidence is utterly against you, and it seems illogical to ignore real problems while paying attention to such a puny threat. This reminds us of the man who would alter every part of his life in order to avoid the risk of tetanus, while ignoring the fact that he is obese, has type 2 diabetes, and is in the end stages of heart disease. It feels ridiculous because it *is* ridiculous. Yes, I intend to make your position look untenable. That is because I think your position is indeed untenable. This does not make my attempt unreasonable -- it makes your position unreasonable. I am sure it is uncomfortable for you to have others attack your position, but there is nothing wrong with others attacking your position, and provided they aren't engaging in logical fallacies in so doing, I fail to see the problem. Perry -- Perry E. Metzgerpe...@piermont.com
Re: [silk] BW: How Risky Is India?
I'm not sure how serious you are here, but, at the risk of making the implicit explicit... lukhman_khan lukhman_k...@yahoo.com writes: Even if we cant cover each and every square kilometer of the whole country, we can at least cover the areas of interests with real fool-proof security. I don't think even that lower standard is possible in practice. LOL So you want a check-post every five kilometers in bangalore Why not? At least one in ten kilometers? And manned by soldiers with the right equipment. Or at least some visible presence. Try telling me that is not a deterrent. It is not a deterrent. Within days, the soldiers will stop paying attention because they'll be opening up truck after truck and finding nothing inside. Pretty soon it will be possible to move a nuclear missile painted in red with the words this is a nuclear missile past them without anyone noticing. However, in order to get this security theater, you will have to spend lots of money, and you'll slow down trade (and thus economic development) as well. Perry -- Perry E. Metzgerpe...@piermont.com
Re: [silk] Rhetoric and dialectic - was: How Risky Is India?
On Friday 19 Dec 2008 9:02:46 pm Perry E. Metzger wrote: You are one of those who claims that terrorism is an existential threat to society that justifies vast commitment of resources and the restructuring of the legal system. Sorry. Could you kindly point me to any statement I have made calling for a vast commitment of resources. You are making up things to suit your viewpoint. I was talking about terrorism. Clearly you do not want to talk about something that concerns me. That is fine with me but you will have to excuse me. I have not read most of your message and will not be doing so. I am not really interested. Thanks for trying shiv
Re: [silk] BW: How Risky Is India?
ss cybers...@gmail.com writes: India's success is Pakistan's failure. India has to fail for Pakistan to succeed. But this seems to be too abstract an idea for most people, regardless of their education, to understand. Actually, it makes no sense to me at all. The world is not a zero sum game. If the US succeeds, it doesn't mean that Canada or Mexico have to fail. I don't understand at all this notion that Pakistan must fail if India succeeds -- it seems like nothing more than a rhetorical flourish with no content or actual meaning. Pakistan is certainly a badly mismanaged basket case on the brink of internal collapse, but its success or failure, especially economically (and the economy is the key to stability in most places) hinges largely on its internal policies, and not on anything whatsoever that India does or does not do. Perry -- Perry E. Metzgerpe...@piermont.com
Re: [silk] some more from arundhati
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Udhay Shankar N ud...@pobox.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Tim Bray tb...@textuality.com wrote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/12/mumbai-arundhati-roy/print This is interesting: http://greatbong.net/2008/12/16/the-algebra-of-infinite-fundamentalism/ Udhay, please expand. Which of these do you find more compelling? Tim, compelling is a red herring. I've made no secret of my opinion that Arundhati Roy is fundamentally dishonest; in approximately the same way that Tom Friedman is dishonest (and how's that for irony?) - Her agenda shines through even more in what is NOT said (i.e, carefully or conveniently omitted from her effusions) than in what is said - though that is certainly shrill enough. Read as fiction, her faults are many. Read as fact or analysis, not even in the frame. This is what her fellow authors Salman Rushdie and Suketu Mehta had to say about that article. quote Salman Rushdie - It is disgusting to read her comments. I find her thoughts nauseating. She should be ashamed of herself. Suketu Mehta joined Rushdie immediately pointing out dozens had died at the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus and asked if the train station wasn't an icon too? /quote more @ http://specials.rediff.com/news/2008/dec/19slide2-understanding-the-mumbai-attacks.htm -- Vinayak -- Blog @ http://thoughts.vinayakhegde.com PS: Weird as it may seem, the other name that came to mind when discussing Arundhati Roy was Tom Friedman. Both are intellectually dishonest. Ms. Roy writes fiction and she should stick to it.
Re: [silk] BW: How Risky Is India?
On Friday 19 Dec 2008 9:15:19 pm Perry E. Metzger wrote: Actually, it makes no sense to me at all. Don't worry about it. It will not affect you in any way. Just ignore my messages. You are seeing my viewpoint only because we are on the same list. Not because we are on the same wavelength. I don't think there is any point in either of us trying to understand the others' viewpoint. I am not trying to understand yours and I will not try and make you understand mine. shiv
Re: [silk] Meetup in Madras on Dec 27th?
I'm in On 17-Dec-08, at 5:22 PM, Thaths wrote: When: 12:30 pm on Dec 27th 2008 Where: Sree Annapurna of Calcutta restaurant, Egmore, Chennai (http://chennai.burrp.com/listing/restaurant/131398178_sree-annapurna-of-calcutta ) What: A meetup Can you please RSVP if you are going to make it? Thaths -- Silly Indians. Our God made their God -- Homer J. Simpson
Re: [silk] Pet Peeves and Pedantry, was: How Risky Is India?
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Divya Sampath divyasamp...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Fri, 12/19/08, Amit Varma amitbl...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry, who be IG? IG is bonobashi, who happens to be over 200 years old. He is the list Methuselah in chief. O tempora! O mores! I never thought my grandfatherhood would be supplanted by some 200-year-old whipper snapper. Thaths -- Silly Indians. Our God made their God -- Homer J. Simpson
Re: [silk] BW: How Risky Is India?
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:21:17PM +0530, ss wrote: Don't worry about it. It will not affect you in any way. Just ignore my messages. You are seeing my viewpoint only because we are on the same list. Not because we are on the same wavelength. I don't think there is any point in either of us trying to understand the others' viewpoint. I am not trying to understand yours and I will not try and make you understand mine. I'm another data point in this. I just don't get the sentiment. I find it irrational and slightly barbaric, but I'm ready to concede I don't really understand the dysfunctional two-spent-swimmers-cling-together relationship. I would just let it go, I think.
Re: [silk] BW: How Risky Is India?
On Friday 19 Dec 2008 9:37:11 pm Eugen Leitl wrote: dysfunctional two-spent-swimmers-cling-together relationship. This is an excellent analogy that I wll use. Barbaric is certainly an appropriate expression of the feeling that exists. But the only way anyone can begin to understand is to figure out nazria-e-Pakistan which is often translated as the idea of Pakistan I tend to push the topic among those people who are most affected by this. But they are also most likely to understand. Perhaps it requires an Indian upbringing to figure it out - but I'm not sure. It's too much of a waste of time to try and explain it to people who will not make any difference. A few Western authors have understood. As for others - those who understand will understand. Those who don't, don't matter, for most part. Best to let it rest. shiv
Re: [silk] BW: How Risky Is India?
in either of us trying to understand the others' viewpoint. I am not trying to understand yours and I will not try and make you understand mine. Shiv, that's a cop-out. The reasons Perry gives are the natural responses you'll get from most people who disagree with your views, irrespective of their background. If you can, I think you should try and address his points. Speaking for myself, it feels like I'm getting a dim sense of the points you're trying to make, without fully understanding. I can sort-of understand the point about Pakistani identity being linked to Indian failure, but I'm really not grasping why economic success and stability in Pakistan won't fix the problem (which is sort of what Perry was trying to say I think)
Re: [silk] BW: How Risky Is India?
On Friday 19 Dec 2008 10:12:59 pm Badri Natarajan wrote: Shiv, that's a cop-out. The reasons Perry gives are the natural responses you'll get from most people who disagree with your views, irrespective of their background. If you can, I think you should try and address his points. Yes it is a cop out. But I believe I am wasting my time. There is method in my madness. I write what i think is correct, but I write one heck of a lot and when one writes too much - one gets a sense of what is a waste of time and what isn't. Opposition to what I say is normal - that does not bother me, but beyond a point, trying to convince those who dislike or oppose what I have to say is a mistake It is a complete waste of time. Those who disagree are welcome to disagree - but that will not stop me from saying what I need to say. It is a tactic of some people who disagree to say Convince me. It is easier for me to say Sorry I cannot convince you and go on with what I need to do than stop and try to convince everyone who objects. That is a cop out, but cop outs are sometimes unavoidable. My responses to those who disagree do come - but they come at a time and place of my choosing. Unless I am convinced that I am wrong, in which case I just apologise. shiv
Re: [silk] BW: How Risky Is India?
On Dec 19, 2008, at 6:47 AM, ss wrote: Of course the theory was that the smaller round would maim and then the enemy soldiers would be put out of action - i.e. the wounded man and two people to carry him. However. this obviosuly does not work against jihadis. The problem with this oft-heard theory is that terminal effects are a continuum that range from instantly dead to having almost no incapacitating effect. Different weapon setups will center the distribution of real-world terminal results at different points on that continuum. Since the no incapacitating effect end of that continuum is considered very bad, designers attempt to push weapons as far to the instantly lethal end of the range as they can without compromising other required design criteria. Maiming is part of the distribution, but not a design goal. As an anecdotal data point, the 2002 Beltway sniper incident in the US, in which over a dozen people were shot, used a ballistic setup that is virtually identical to the INSAS. The mortality rate from those single bullets across all the victims was 75% in an area with fast access to medical trauma units, in line with statistical mortality rates consistently above 50% for that particular weapon system. By contrast, the mortality rate for US soldiers getting shot with the traditional AK-47 in various wars and for civilians in large- scale shootings is consistently less than 25%. The empirical evidence of this collected during the wars of the 1960s and 1970s was one of the motivations for the Soviets to replace the AK-47 cartridge with a cartridge that was ballistically similar to the American 5.56x45, using an even smaller bullet in fact. I recall reading that when the INSAS was first inducted the Indian Army was unhappy with the muzzle velocity and maiming potential. But I am told that these issues have been addressed and I see the rifle appearing everywhere and people I speak to (soldiers) seem happy with it. I think the main advantage of the 5.56 is the weight penalty is lower. Given the combination of cartridge and barrel length, the INSAS should have a muzzle velocity that is among the highest of any infantry weapon fielded in the world today, at 950-1000 meters per second (assuming conventional NATO ammo). The low weight and cost of the ammunition is a relevant factor, but little is sacrificed as a result. Assuming the soldier actually hits the target -- frequently not a safe assumption -- the ballistic profile is nearly ideal as far as lethality goes, and should be expected to exhibit a higher lethality than the standard weapons now fielded by European and American militaries (opting for other design characteristics like weapon weight and size). But Indian police forces are almost always equipped with the Lee Enfield .303. I think it might be an improvement if US police were forced to carry an Enfield. What is worse is that most rifle wielding policemen go to a firing range to practice shooting less than once a year. True of police forces the world over. J. Andrew Rogers
Re: [silk] Meetup in Madras on Dec 27th?
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Krish Ashok jalsa.ji...@gmail.com wrote: I'm in Will wonders never cease, I am in Chennai on said dates, you will have the please of my glorious self. Cheeni
Re: [silk] BW: How Risky Is India?
On Dec 19, 2008, at 12:41 AM, Srini Ramakrishnan wrote: I have no direct experience, however on internet forums there are fairly regular reports of the INSAS heating up to unusable temperatures after 10-20 continuous rounds. This is also said to be due to the poor quality of Indian ammunition. Now that I think about it, one way of interpreting this is not that the weapon itself becomes inoperable but that some exposed portion of the weapon quickly becomes too hot for the human operator to handle. Inadequate heat shielding/thermal management has been an early design flaw in many modern military arms. J. Andrew Rogers
Re: [silk] Rhetoric and dialectic - was: How Risky Is India?
ss cybers...@gmail.com writes: That is fine with me but you will have to excuse me. I have not read most of your message and will not be doing so. I am not really interested. I'm saddened to hear that the discussion makes you so uncomfortable that you can't discuss the substance and can only make peripheral comments. However, until I hear some explanation of how, in a practical sense, a free society is to prevent terrorism and still remain a worthwhile society to live in -- or how it could manage it at all, even if it was willing to become hell on earth -- I'll have to keep making you uncomfortable. I'll point out that the US has now spent something on the order of a couple million dollars for every death we've had from terrorism without any obvious increase in security. We have, however, managed to drive our economy into the ground, thus allowing the terrorists to win without even continuing to fight very hard. Perhaps India can learn from our success, but I fear it will not. The pressure to do something, even at ruinous cost and without obvious effect, is powerful. Perry
Re: [silk] BW: How Risky Is India?
ss cybers...@gmail.com writes: On Friday 19 Dec 2008 9:15:19 pm Perry E. Metzger wrote: Actually, it makes no sense to me at all. Don't worry about it. It will not affect you in any way. Just ignore my messages. You are seeing my viewpoint only because we are on the same list. Not because we are on the same wavelength. I don't think there is any point in either of us trying to understand the others' viewpoint. I'm not trying to make you understand my viewpont. I'm trying to show others why you're wrong. If, as a side effect, you were to learn why you're wrong, that would be nice, but I don't have high hopes. I am not trying to understand yours I had no illusions you were, though it is rather sad when a participant in an argument makes no attempt to see if the other person's position has merit. Perry
Re: [silk] BW: How Risky Is India?
Badri Natarajan asi...@vsnl.com writes: Speaking for myself, it feels like I'm getting a dim sense of the points you're trying to make, without fully understanding. I can sort-of understand the point about Pakistani identity being linked to Indian failure, but I'm really not grasping why economic success and stability in Pakistan won't fix the problem (which is sort of what Perry was trying to say I think) It is indeed one of the things I was saying. I was also saying that I didn't see why the success of India meant the failure of Pakistan, though I can see how the failure of Pakistan could lead to the failure of India. This latter could happen if Pakistani despair were to lead to increased Pakistani based terrorism, which in turn could lead India to engage in self destructive actions. I do not think any likely level of terrorism could damage India directly, but India could easily engage in the sort of self-defeating strategies the US has adopted, or worse. It is also, plain and simple, unpleasant to border a disintegrating country -- desperate people do desperate things. Looking at a higher level, economic theory tells us that the whole game is not zero sum. India's economy would be better off if Pakistan developed, just as the US and Europe are better off because India and China are developing. Increased development leads to increased wealth for everyone. Wealth is good, both because of its direct benefits and because people who have a lot to lose tend to cooperate more and fight less. Perry -- Perry E. Metzgerpe...@piermont.com
Re: [silk] Pet Peeves and Pedantry, was: How Risky Is India?
(As Aelfric's Colloquy put it, back in the 10th century, Wé cildra biddaþ þé, éalá láréow, þæt þú taéce ús sprecan rihte, forþám ungelaérede wé sindon, and gewæmmodlíce we sprecaþ, You lie! That was Gandalf who said that! :P -- * Madhu Menon Shiok Far-eastern Cuisine | Moss Cocktail Lounge 96, Amar Jyoti Layout, Inner Ring Road, Bangalore @ http://shiokfood.comhttp://mosslounge.com Join the Moss group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=39295417270
Re: [silk] Pet Peeves and Pedantry, was: How Risky Is India?
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 8:31 PM, Divya Sampath divyasamp...@yahoo.comwrote: So, you're saying that 'an history' is hallowed by virtue of antiquity and a respectable pedigree, but in the case of 'decimate', the contender with youth and popularity beats the establishment favourite? Hmm. That's interesting sophistry. No, my argument simply is that both are accepted usage today, and considered correct. I mentioned the antiquity of 'an history' because it is of historical interest, but I would not justify it if it wasn't still in use. For what it's worth, I was of the same view as you about 'a history' until my mid-twenties -- but writing for the British newspapers changed my habits, and I now use 'an history' reflexively. In the case of 'decimate', there are two meanings - one which is correct but endangered, and the other, which is wrong but spreading. And you decide what is 'correct' and what is 'wrong'? Heh. If it is in common enough use for the dictionaries to accept it, it's obviously not wrong. Snark aside, of course language evolves; if it doesn't, it dies. I've talked about the evolution of the voiced h in 'a history' and my support for the older meaning of 'decimate', in another post. But an exaggerated sense of indignation over trivialities is part of the fun of being a pedant and a Silk-list loony. Oh, cool, so this is just for fun. That's okay then -- because you're wrong on both 'an history' and 'decimate', if we are to go by common usage and the dictionaries. But fun is good! :) -- Amit Varma http://www.indiauncut.com
Re: [silk] Pet Peeves and Pedantry, was: How Risky Is India?
--- On Fri, 12/19/08, Madhu Menon c...@shiokfood.com wrote: You lie! That was Gandalf who said that! :P Be grateful I didn't quote Sauron this time around. That would turn into the Return Of The Monster Tolkien Thread, and then Udhay would spontaneously combust. A few years ago, one might have had few qualms about that, but he is now a semi-respectable family man with a young daughter. Just saying. cheers, Divya
Re: [silk] BW: How Risky Is India?
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Perry E. Metzger pe...@piermont.comwrote: Looking at a higher level, economic theory tells us that the whole game is not zero sum. India's economy would be better off if Pakistan developed, just as the US and Europe are better off because India and China are developing. Increased development leads to increased wealth for everyone. Wealth is good, both because of its direct benefits and because people who have a lot to lose tend to cooperate more and fight less. Agree with that. Also, our problem isn't Pakistan per se, it's Pakistan's military establishment, which has thrived on the conflict with India. The biggest threat to that establishment is Pakistan's civil society. The more the latter is empowered, the more the former is endangered. Increased trade, which seems like a pipe dream now, is a good way to start. High levels of trade would change the incentives of many of the players involved. I'd written a piece on this in March 2007, when Musharraf was still in charge: http://indiauncut.com/iublog/article/general-pervez-musharrafs-incentives/ Even though Zardari is in charge now, things haven't changed much. He knows the military can topple him anytime. They have a veto power on all important decisions in Pakistan. I don't see any easy solutions to this -- but it's certainly not a zero-sum game, as Perry points out. -- Amit Varma http://www.indiauncut.com
Re: [silk] Pet Peeves and Pedantry, was: How Risky Is India?
--- On Fri, 12/19/08, Amit Varma amitbl...@gmail.com wrote: But an exaggerated sense of indignation over trivialities is part of the fun of being a pedant and a Silk-list loony. Oh, cool, so this is just for fun. That's okay then -- because you're wrong on both 'an history' and 'decimate', if we are to go by common usage and the dictionaries. But fun is good! :) How dare you imply that my righteous indignation did not prove that I am incontrovertibly, irrefutably right. This is war! War, I tell you! Plus, I was under the impression that some form of monetary compensation was involved. Payment by the word, that sort of thing? What sort of idiot would spend this much time on a Friday afternoon ranting about this sort of thing for _fun_? Oh, wait. cheers, Divya P.S: I'm still going to assert that decimate is better used to convey the original sense. As Mark Twain once said, the difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug.
Re: [silk] Pet Peeves and Pedantry, was: How Risky Is India?
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 12:11:48AM +0530, Madhu Menon wrote: (As Aelfric's Colloquy put it, back in the 10th century, Wé cildra biddaþ þé, éalá láréow, þæt þú taéce ús sprecan rihte, forþám ungelaérede wé sindon, and gewæmmodlíce we sprecaþ, Hmm, I can kinda understand that. You lie! That was Gandalf who said that! :P -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org __ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
Re: [silk] Pet Peeves and Pedantry, was: How Risky Is India?
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 12:59 AM, Divya Sampath divyasamp...@yahoo.comwrote: How dare you imply that my righteous indignation did not prove that I am incontrovertibly, irrefutably right. This is war! War, I tell you! Plus, I was under the impression that some form of monetary compensation was involved. Payment by the word, that sort of thing? What sort of idiot would spend this much time on a Friday afternoon ranting about this sort of thing for _fun_? Actually it's 1 am on Saturday where I am in Mumbai, which makes me even more of an idiot. Oh wait -- I used the second, recently evolved sense of the word 'idiot'. Sorry, please don't be mad at me! -- Amit Varma http://www.indiauncut.com
Re: [silk] Pet Peeves and Pedantry, was: How Risky Is India?
--- On Fri, 12/19/08, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote: (As Aelfric's Colloquy put it, back in the 10th century, Wé cildra biddaþ þé, éalá láréow, þæt þú taéce ús sprecan rihte, forþám ungelaérede wé sindon, and gewæmmodlíce we sprecaþ, Hmm, I can kinda understand that. Since you speak both German and English fluently, this is not surprising. It's Old English, which at that point was definitely a Germanic language. I suspect that if you heard it spoken today, you'd be able to grasp the flow of the conversation pretty quickly. Actually, when spoken aloud, a lot of the words sound similar to the modern equivalents to be understandable: We, children, thee, that, thou, teach, us, right, for, unlearned... cheers, Divya
Re: [silk] Pet Peeves and Pedantry, was: How Risky Is India?
--- On Fri, 12/19/08, Thaths tha...@gmail.com wrote: O tempora! O mores! I never thought my grandfatherhood would be supplanted by some 200-year-old whipper snapper. I forgot about you, Thaths. Obviously my senility is beginning to show. How old are you again? 950, give or take a decade? Are you still counting years in base 10? cheers, Divya
Re: [silk] Pet Peeves and Pedantry, was: How Risky Is India?
At 2008-12-19 00:07:18 +, bluelull...@gmail.com wrote: offer open till stocks last If you add an apostrophe to stocks and parse last as an adjective instead of a verb, it all makes sense. ;-) -- ams
Re: [silk] Pet Peeves and Pedantry, was: How Risky Is India?
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Divya Sampath divyasamp...@yahoo.comwrote: --- On Fri, 12/19/08, Amit Varma amitbl...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry, who be IG? IG is bonobashi, who happens to be over 200 years old. He is the list Methuselah in chief. No, I think methesulah. I think I emailed IG about this (but I am too old to remember exactly O bengali wood-dweller, did I? ). Enjoying the English thread.interesting to see how one dates oneself by the words and phrases that one objects to! I think we will have to accept SMS-ese, too, it's part of the evolution, like it or not...I think that in 20 years' time dat or tat will be the accepted spelling of that, for example, in much the same way as no one writes nuncheon or luncheon nowadays, or withdrawing room Deepa.
Re: [silk] Rhetoric and dialectic - was: How Risky Is India?
On Friday 19 Dec 2008 11:49:14 pm Perry E. Metzger wrote: I'm saddened to hear that the discussion makes you so uncomfortable that you can't discuss the substance and can only make peripheral comments. Please consider this. I have: a) Written a long post on what, in my view, india needs to do to check terrorism in response to a query from Badri which you either faied to read or did not take into account when you jumped into the dicussion. That post is on there fo you to go back and read. b) Written an entire book that is online that speaks of how the idea India's succes is seen as Pakistan's failure has arisen and is propagated. Without reading either of these you have asked for explanations. I don't really have the time to do that. You need to read my book and read they reply that I have already posted before you speak of your personal sadness at my atitudes. It would have been different if you actually had read what have written rather than my repartees after the discussion was dead. I merely returned the compliment. shiv
Re: [silk] BW: How Risky Is India?
On Friday 19 Dec 2008 10:12:59 pm Badri Natarajan wrote: I'm really not grasping why economic success and stability in Pakistan won't fix the problem Badri - at the risk of sounding like a saleaman trying to push his wares, the answer can be found in my book - or at least pointers if you actually go back and have a look at it. If you actually read chapters on the people, the economy, the army, wars, islam and jihad (as well as the foreword and last chapter) you will get some idea of why economic success and stability never came to Pakistan despite several billions of US dollars in aid in the 1960s, plus a free Air Force of F 86 Sabres and F-104s. The same reasons still hold true in the 21st Century the wealthy United States ensured that Paksiatan hs been given 3 bilion US$ a year up front (half for the armed forces) and several hundreds of millions as protection money to let US convoys through. I wrote that book for a reason - but i can't force people to read it. A country and its history and behavior cannot be described in a paragraph or two without resorting to oversimplification and dumbing down of the subject. shiv
