After using Windows PCs for years, I am thinking of buying a Macintosh for our home. (The work PC, unfortunately, is given by the employer and will stay Windows.) The reason--more than anything Apple has done--is the work of Google, Yahoo, Amazon, and eBay. These four companies are gradually moving an increasing amount of "computing" to the Web.

Now Microsoft and Adobe are bracing themselves for a race to bring "rich Internet applications" to the Web, using Silverlight (Microsoft) and Flex (Adobe). This further reduces the need for desktop apps, many of which are only available on Windows. Hallelujah!

BTW, I have owned Dell and Compaq computers over the years, and have been thoroughly disappointed with the poor workmanship. These computers are noisy, way too big, and power hogs. Windows OS is the anti-thesis of design elegance.

Aneesh Shrikhande

Sandip Roy's article is heart-warming with its examples of parents in a "third-world" country helping their children get married to others of the same sex. Most Indian parents today are not that liberated.

The real subject matter of the California ruling is not the inclusion of gays. It is that the current marriage laws are unfair: they provide tax, custody, insurance, and inheritance benefits to married people vs. singles or divorced people. Over the years, this unfair discrimination has not abated. The least-bad option, at this point, is to broaden marriage and its discriminatory legal benefits so much that a large percentage of the population can get them.

Personally, I would want a world where the word "marriage" refers to heterosexual coupling, and carries no extra legal benefits--and no connotation of moral superiority. But I applaud the recent California ruling; it is creating a "more perfect," although far from perfect, union.

(Disclosure: I am happily married to a woman, and have two kids.)

Aneesh Shrikhande

Farmington, CT

The choice is obvious. Gen. Clark will burnish Sen. Obama's national security credentials--as the supreme commander of NATO forces in Europe (and the architect of the Kosovo campaign), Clark has forgotten more about military strategy than Sen. McCain will ever know. The author called him "shopworn," but he simply happens to be a decent, boring leader who will add more drama to Sen. Obama's campaign.

If Gen. Clark refuses, Gov. Sebelius will be another boring VP candidate.

I have mixed feelings about the English-only position. First, as someone who grew up in India (and for whom English is the third language), I see the immense benefits of having one language. In fact, the 26+ languages and 300+ dialects in India seriously corrode its democracy, divide its society, and are an economic burden.

To use management-speak, English has achieved "tipping point": its dominance is unassailable. For perspective, China now has more English speakers than USA. Their English can be characterized as "imperfect," but the future is clear. English also happens to be the only language that is used throughout India, and most Asian countries.

On the other hand, the future of one language (English) throughout the world will take a couple of generations to arrive. Our children can, therefore, benefit from knowing other languages, assuming that they are also good at the basics: math, science, geography, etc. :-)

My sons go to an excellent public school in Farmington, CT. They will start Spanish (they are both in elementary school). At home, we are teaching them Hindi. My elder son, at 9, can read and speak Hindi fairly well.

Will these language skills help them? I believe so. When they have to go to India to design cars for Reliance, or to Argentina to advise a television network, this may be an edge.

Everybody needs to know English; for the next generation or two, it will be helpful to know another language, too.

Regards,

Aneesh Shrikhande

Cary:

The obfuscation in your response insults your audience's intelligence.

This lady is married and has a child (or children). She can "discover" herself all she wants, but, at the very least:

-- She should have the honesty to tell her husband, since they presumaby promised a monogamous relationship to each other when they got married.

Once you marry and bring a human being into the world, your child's nurturing is your responsibility, and takes precedence over your infidelity. This woman is clearly not marriage material, despite her Ph.D.

Aneesh Kumar