Sanskrit to be used for future supercomputers

6pack

Well-Known Member
ex-Mod
Sep 19, 2005
7,462
1,502
302
Source: Times Of India

Skill development minister Ananta Kumar Hegde on Wednesday said Sanskrit was going to be the coding language for future supercomputers.

Sanskrit could be the better language for computer algorithm design, Hegde told reporters after delivering an address on skill development at Calcutta Chambers of Commerce.

"While we are becoming too dependent on English in our country, we become unaware of the fact that eminent scientists of the world are coming to the view that Sanskrit is the language for future supercomputers," he said, adding that in many European universities Sansktrit was being taught again.
 

nimod

Well-Known Member
Adept
Jan 7, 2013
596
325
102
Ananta Kumar Hegde on Wednesday said Sanskrit was going to be the coding language for future supercomputers
All the remaining literate people in India are getting sick of this illiterati-gang.
I request OP to search/post this visionary leader's academic credentials.
 

Julian

om nom nom
Veteran
Jul 31, 2008
1,829
718
201
37
Navi Mumbai
Isn't this the same retard who said they are going to change the constitution, specifically make it non-secular?

Wonder why he isn't in jail for such comments. Normal people go to jail for posting a joke or cartoon on fb/whatsapp about modi.
 

blr_p

Well-Known Member
Veteran
Apr 11, 2007
5,800
1,203
301
"While we are becoming too dependent on English in our country, we become unaware of the fact that eminent scientists of the world are coming to the view that Sanskrit is the language for future supercomputers," he said, adding that in many European universities Sansktrit was being taught again.
We need a thread called "Strange things govt representatives say" this opener would fit in there well

..or just rename this one[DOUBLEPOST=1529600585][/DOUBLEPOST]Is there anything that can beat what this guy said :D

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tommy_vercetti

Lord Nemesis

Overlord
Veteran
Jun 3, 2005
5,935
2,403
377
Isn't this the same retard who said they are going to change the constitution, specifically make it non-secular?
Nothing about India is secular now or in the past. Its just a word added to the constitution as an after thought. So, changing it in the constitution is not going to make much difference.

Wonder why he isn't in jail for such comments. Normal people go to jail for posting a joke or cartoon on fb/whatsapp about modi.
If you start punishing stupidity, there would be a lot to punish. As for BJP, there is a lot of shit that they keep vomiting all over.

https://www.reddit.com/r/shitbjpsays/
 

blr_p

Well-Known Member
Veteran
Apr 11, 2007
5,800
1,203
301
Nothing about India is secular now or in the past. Its just a word added to the constitution as an after thought. So, changing it in the constitution is not going to make much difference.
Oh really and how did you come to this conclusion ?

I'm pretty sure you're not complaining about the meaning of the word secular in an Indian context which is the right wings hobby horse
 

Lord Nemesis

Overlord
Veteran
Jun 3, 2005
5,935
2,403
377
Secular means not caring about religion and treating all regions with the same level of indifference and disdain in matters of law and administration,

1. The word secular was literally added as an after thought to the constitution in 1976 and without even defining how the country would isolate religion from law and administration which it never did or attempted to do.
2. A country which has separate laws for separate regions and laws explicitly to protect religious sentiments is hardly a candidate worthy of being called secular.

India was never a secular country except on paper.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Julian

Julian

om nom nom
Veteran
Jul 31, 2008
1,829
718
201
37
Navi Mumbai
Nothing about India is secular now or in the past. Its just a word added to the constitution as an after thought. So, changing it in the constitution is not going to make much difference.
Thing is, if they actually remove it from the constitution, they will have more leeway to arrest and screw around with people even more in the name of preserving the hindurashtra.

Holy crap, i wouldn't have guessed there'd be that much !
 

blr_p

Well-Known Member
Veteran
Apr 11, 2007
5,800
1,203
301
Secular means not caring about religion and treating all regions with the same level of indifference and disdain in matters of law and administration,

1. The word secular was literally added as an after thought to the constitution in 1976 and without even defining how the country would isolate religion from law and administration which it never did or attempted to do.
2. A country which has separate laws for separate regions and laws explicitly to protect religious sentiments is hardly a candidate worthy of being called secular.

India was never a secular country except on paper.
Fine but way i understand it is secular made its appearance in the 60s. Its the word socialist that got inserted during emergency.

It's to do with personal law only, a legacy of the Brits. Israel is the same when it come to dealing with its minorities. Too big of a fight then as well as now. This is why uniform civil code is unlikely. As all communities are happy with what they got except for a few that got lumped in as Hindus eg, Sikhs, Jains & Buddhists

What you are missing is the govt cannot make laws based on religion or discriminate on that basis
 

Lord Nemesis

Overlord
Veteran
Jun 3, 2005
5,935
2,403
377
Fine but way i understand it is secular made its appearance in the 60s. Its the word socialist that got inserted during emergency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty-second_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_India

The 42nd Amendment also amended Preamble and changed the description of India from "sovereign democratic republic" to a "sovereign, socialist secular democratic republic", and also changed the words "unity of the nation" to "unity and integrity of the nation".

It's to do with personal law only, a legacy of the Brits. Israel is the same when it come to dealing with its minorities. Too big of a fight then as well as now. This is why uniform civil code is unlikely. As all communities are happy with what they got except for a few that got lumped in as Hindus eg, Sikhs, Jains & Buddhists
They need to be scrapped and a uniform and irreligious code created in order to define itself as a secular country. Similarly, all govt institutions should be alienated from religion or its influence. No Puja's during starting ceremonies or at a later point in govt institutions. No Puja's when ISRO sends rockets into space, no religious idols or pictures in govt offices and no wearing of religious symbolism for govt employees while at work.

What you are missing is the govt cannot make laws based on religion or discriminate on that basis
Actually, they do already. There are laws which If not in letter, but in spirit have been made for religious appeasement. For example, the ban of cow slaughter is very arbitrary. Even if its passed under the "Preservation, protection and improvement of stock", its imposition is arbitrary and the true spirit of the law can be clearly seen as appeasement of religious sentiments rather than protection of live stock. In many of the states where its imposed, it is fine to slaughter other live stock animals like buffaloes, sheep, goats etc.
 

blr_p

Well-Known Member
Veteran
Apr 11, 2007
5,800
1,203
301
ok, so both words were inserted during emergency

On 31 July 1980, in its judgement on Minerva Mills v. Union of India, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional two provisions of the 42nd Amendment which prevent any constitutional amendment from being "called in question in any Court on any ground" and accord precedence to the Directive Principles of State Policy over the Fundamental Rights of individuals respectively.
heh, so Indira tried to make any amendment binding and beyond the courts question. Didn't last very long :)

So people will say look Indira did it therefore any govt can. Well, yeah but it can be overturned after as well. And the only way she managed to do it was by locking up the opposition so they couldn't protest or resist.


They need to be scrapped and a uniform and irreligious code created in order to define itself as a secular country. Similarly, all govt institutions should be alienated from religion or its influence. No Puja's during starting ceremonies or at a later point in govt institutions. No Puja's when ISRO sends rockets into space, no religious idols or pictures in govt offices and no wearing of religious symbolism for govt employees while at work.
Why though. The way secular is implemented depends on the legal system. In countries such as ours we have common law from the British. The other is civil law that stretches from France, Russia, Turkey all the way to China. In a civil law system laws can be passed that ban any religious symbols on govt premises or govt agents and even further intruding at the personal level. I think this goes too far given the unrest it has caused. It's rare to hear of any controversies about religious symbols in common law countries but its frequent in civil law countries notably France. The key distinction is the legal system in place, a fact that tends to be mostly overlooked in reporting. What the French do will be interpreted as discriminating against muslims from a common law pov because we don't do the same thing here. Well, the French legal system allows them to pass laws like that on the basis of secular. The state can explicitly say what you cannot do.

No chalk, bangles, threads, veils, crosses or other religious symbols to be worn. Now the state is intruding in your personal space and telling you what you cannot wear. That's what the Taliban do in the name of religion. Here the argument is on secular grounds. What is the difference ? How long can such a policy be expected to last in this country

A common law system tends to be more accomodating. India allows these symbols in all their diverse variety. I don't see it necessarily impinging on the secular fabric of the country. What is the problem with puja's, symbolic aren't they and not anything more. A matter of custom

The biggest obstacle you will face with this idea is inertia. The majority and i mean Hindus, Muslims & Christians are reasonable satisfied with the status quo. Changing the status quo will be resisted. Where is the overriding incentive ?

Actually, they do already. There are laws which If not in letter, but in spirit have been made for religious appeasement. For example, the ban of cow slaughter is very arbitrary. Even if its passed under the "Preservation, protection and improvement of stock", its imposition is arbitrary and the true spirit of the law can be clearly seen as appeasement of religious sentiments rather than protection of live stock. In many of the states where its imposed, it is fine to slaughter other live stock animals like buffaloes, sheep, goats etc.
I've always understood cow slaughter to be protection of lifestock because India was and still is predominantly agricultural. You can interpret this as appeasement but i do not.

Bear in mind that once lifestock has passed its working age, 14 years it does end up in slaughter houses and this serves as income for farmers. So even though there is a ban you still get beef. And here the ban according to subramaniam swamy is restricted to just indian cows bos indicus because they yield the best quality milk apparently. Bos taurus isn't included in cow slaughter. That's the theory anyway, in practice things will be different. Whether laws on the books are actually followed or not. We have this habit of letting things find a natural equilibrium until some rabble rousers show up and upset things

The bottom line here is whether religion is being used as a basis for making law? I don't think there are any instances in the country where that is the case. They've been lapses in the past on political grounds but those are exceptions not the rule
 
Last edited:

netant

Well-Known Member
Adept
Oct 12, 2012
284
108
82
Mods please ban this guy. He is trying to kill me by showing such videos.[DOUBLEPOST=1529841427][/DOUBLEPOST]
[DOUBLEPOST=1529600585][/DOUBLEPOST]Is there anything that can beat what this guy said :D

:) this the real mental state of majority of IAS/IPS officers in this country.
Even the judges, when it came to computers, internet.

If a looser such as that Duggal guy heads Indian cyber division ( and all best brains serving for USA) what can we expect.
 
Last edited: