If your Android phone doesn’t have a lot of storage space, it can be a constant struggle to remove old junk and make room for new pictures, videos, and apps. Google’s Files app has a handy tool to make this process easy.
Files by Google is preinstalled on some Android phones, but anyone can download it from the Play Store. One handy feature that sets it apart from other file managers is its cleaning recommendations. It identifies things that can be removed from your phone to free up storage space.
To get started, download and install Files by Google on your Android phone or tablet.
If this is your first time using Files by Google, you’ll be asked to agree to Google’s Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Tap “Continue” to proceed if you agree.
To allow the Files app to access your files, tap “Allow” in the permissions popup.
With that out of the way, you can start freeing up storage space. Tap “Clean” at the bottom.
At the top of the page, you’ll see how much storage space you’re using. Underneath, Google will automatically suggest files you can delete to free up storage space. Common examples are screenshots, duplicate files, and photos that are already backed up to Google Photos.
Each of the following categories will have one of three possible buttons, and they perform slightly different actions:
“Confirm and Free Up (X) MB”: Where (X) is the amount of space. Tap this to open a popup and clean right away without reviewing the files first.
“Select and Free Up (X) MB”: Where (X) is the amount of space. Tap this to jump straight to the review screen, where you can select the files you want to remove.
“Free Up (X) MB”: Where (X) is the amount of space. This action is specifically for Google Photos. Google will suggest removing any photos on your device that have been backed up. Tap this to go to the Google Photos app, where you can choose to free up space.
For our example, we tap “Select and Free Up (X) MB” from the category we want to clean up.
We see a list of files Google suggests removing. In the “Duplicate Files” category, original files are indicated by a bookmark icon in the bottom left corner.
We select all the files we want to remove, and then tap “Delete.”
If you select original files in the “Duplicate Files” category, you’ll be asked to confirm your choice; tap “Continue” to proceed.
You’ll be asked once again to confirm your choices. Tap “Delete” to permanently remove the files.
If you want to clean up a category quickly, tap “Confirm and Free Up (X) MB” (where “X” is the amount of space) to skip selecting each file individually.
Tap “Clean” to remove the files without reviewing them.
To review files before removing them, tap “See Junk Files.”
Select all the items you want to remove (or tap “All Items” at the top of the screen), and then tap “Clean” when you’re done.
A pop-up message will ask you to confirm your choice. Tap “Clear” to proceed.
That’s it! You can repeat these same steps for any of the categories on the “Clean” tab. The app might periodically recommend freeing up space, as well.
Two months before the virus probably began spreading in Wuhan, China, the Trump administration ended a $200-million pandemic early-warning programaimed at training scientists in China and other countries to detect and respond to such a threat. The project, launched in 2009 in response to the 2005 H5N1 “bird flu” scare, identified 1,200 viruses that had the potential to erupt into pandemics, including more than 160 novel coronaviruses. Trump has come under increased criticism for past moves to downgrade global health security, including proposals to slash funding to science agencies and the elimination of the National Security Council’s key global health post.
I’ll give you just a handful, but they are among the worst drainers in the world. The order is not dictated by the effects. They differ for different people.
1. Procrastination.
It can have many shapes, but in the end it’s delaying an action which is unavoidable or which is very beneficial to do here and now. You can make up some ‘urgent’ subsidiary actions, or you simply wait instead of doing.
Both courses of action drain your energy. Even if you do something, but you know you should do something else entirely, your heart is not in the present action. Your mind is divided. Your energy drains through the cracks.
2. Binging.
It applies to absolutely every kind of binge. I’ve never met a person who moved too far with any kind of binging and wasn’t robbed of energy. Maybe you met someone who said:
“Oh, I ate a ton and have so much more energy!”
“Yesterday, I drank myself unconscious and I have more energy today!”
“I read an awesome fiction book, 5 hours passed by and I was able to move mountains afterwards.”
“I played Fortnight till 3am and I woke up at 6 am buzzing with energy!”
“I watched YouTube for four hours/ the whole series on Netflix and it filled me with energy.”
No? What a surprise.
While pleasures of the flesh and of the mind can restore your energy in moderation, they are drainers when you cross the ‘moderation’ point.
3. Living in the Past.
It’s not that every single time you reminisce you lose energy. Sometimes you need to revisit past lessons to pick the right course of action now. Sometimes you recall something awesome or wonderful from your past and it boosts your mood.
But living in the ‘ol’ good days’ all the time or beating yourself about your past mistakes over and over again leaves no time to be present here and now. And here and now is the only place when/where you can truly act and live.
4. Worrying.
“Worry is a thin stream of fear trickling through the mind. If encouraged, it cuts a channel into which all other thoughts are drained.” — Arthur Somers Roche
Eight-five percent of our worries will never materialize. We also tend to stupendously waste our ‘worry time.’ Instead of preparing for the worrisome future probabilities, we simply worry ourselves sick.
I have a close friend. She is sick and doctors cannot help her. She experiences unexplainable dizziness every so often. She cannot function properly. She may walk down the street, suddenly experience dizziness and collapse at any time.
She is constantly worried about her dizziness attacks. What if she goes to school and has an attack? What if she gets an attack while grocery shopping? Every day of her life is a struggle.
In her case, maybe as much as 50% of her worries may materialize. The problem is, she occupies almost 100% of her time with worries, so she has very little time for living. And her every second spent on worrying is wasted anyway. She cannot do a single thing about her mysterious attacks! Whether she worries about them makes exactly zero difference.
She, like most of us, would be so much better if she stopped worrying altogether and dedicated her energy into living her life.
5. Holding a Grudge.
Oh, this is so draining! Mulling the past injustices in your head robs you of time, brainpower and energy.
Instead of living your life, you revisit the past hurts, you have discussions in your head with your tormentors, you come up with scenarios of how you should have answered an unfair attack… and you relive the unpleasant experience over and over again. Even the one-time occurrence of unjust treatment drains your energy. Reviving it in your mind is like putting new holes in your energy tank.
The best remedy? Authentic forgiveness.
6. Beating Yourself up.
It is like holding a grudge against yourself, and it is as unproductive and draining as holding a grudge against anyone else. Oh, even more. You see, you are the only person who can change your life for good.
We all know people who feed their stomach, but it doesn’t automatically transform their lives. Being alive doesn’t mean you are living to your full potential, it’s just a prerequisite. Only you can leverage external and your internal resources.
Beating yourself up is equal to beating up the only person who can get you out of trouble. True, you might be the person who got you into trouble in the first place, but it doesn’t change the fact that you are your only hope. If you don’t stand up and do something, the only alternative is waiting for help or luck.
“If you don’t design your own life plan, chances are you’ll fall into someone else’s plan. And guess what they have planned for you? Not much.” — Jim Rohn
7. Overworking.
Work actually provides energy. Does that sound counterintuitive? Let me elaborate: the right work in the right doses provides energy. Sadly, most people work to live, not the other way around.
When you do something you are good at, something you are passionate about, and/or something you like doing, work is a source of energy, not a drainer.
So, ‘overworking’ applies first to doing the wrong kind of work. I’ve been working in IT support for almost 15 years. The one thing I absolutely love about this job is solving real life problems. Oh, it’s often frustrating. It’s challenging. It also mobilizes my whole intellect and creativity.
On the other side of the spectrum is writing technical documentation. Ugh! It’s drudgery. It drains my energy within mere minutes.
The second shade of overworking is working too much. If you work more than five hours a day, you probably work too much. Of course, I mean ‘work’ by work, not coffee breaks or water-cooler chats. Nor do I mean hours of boring corporate meetings.
People who are the best in the world at their crafts — sportsmen, writers, artists — you know, the kind of people the world is fascinated with, so they were studied very carefully, unlike IT support guys — practice only for about 3 to 5 hours a day.
And they are the best! Part of the reason is that they work really smart and don’t waste their time on corporate meetings. However, the main reason is that anything above those 3–5 hours is counterproductive. It drains energy.
8. Living in the Future.
Worrying yourself sick is one form of living in the future. But it is only slightly different than dreaming about the great bright future of yours. In small doses, it provides energy. You feel motivated to keep going. You forget about the grey reality and focus your mind on happy images.
But if you overdose on dreaming, you rob yourself from the present moment. You don’t have time to actually act and do something to achieve those bright images. Frustration creeps in.
Dreaming too much always brings down the cognitive dissonance. Your reality doesn’t much your imagination and it becomes unbearable. You fall into coping mechanisms, procrastination, binging, or you start to beat yourself up.
Your energy evaporates.
9. Acting against Your Values.
This is the biggest drainer on my list. Usually, if you act against your values, you put yourself on the first step on the path to the one of the above eight drainers.
You literally cannot live with yourself. It cannot end well. You either take responsibility for amending the situation or you succumb to one of the escape routes. Even if that route is beating yourself up, it’s a bit more bearable than realizing that you betrayed your very own self. At least you are doing something about it, right? You are punishing the person responsible for this abominable situation — yourself.
The big problem with this drainer is that nowadays it’s not common to know your values. You may send your kid to school with an internal dread, but you don’t realize that freedom of thought is one of your core values. Each time your kid goes to school and is formed into the ‘ideal member of society’ you feel responsible for killing his individuality.
When you know you are acting against your values, you’d better amend the situation as soon as possible. There is no worse mess than a person who commits crimes against themselves. It’s the direct road to hell. Or rather, it’s a very slippery slope to hell.
When scientists studied the rotation of galaxies, they were surprised to find that the stars on the outer edges of the galaxy were spinning much faster than the traditionally understood laws of gravity would allow. If gravity was the only force keeping everything together, at those speeds the stars should be flung out into the universe! But clearly, they’re not. So, there must be some mysterious, invisible force at work holding everything together. Because it’s so hard to detect, it was given the name “dark matter.”
While dark matter research has escalated in the modern era, it was first hypothesized by an astrophysicist named Fritz Zwicky in the 1930s. He was studying a group of galaxies called the Coma Cluster. By measuring the light that they emitted, he could estimate the mass of each galaxy. If his estimations about mass were accurate, and therefore the gravity that each galaxy can produce, the speeds at which they were hurtling through the universe should have been impossible.
The galaxies would have needed at least 400 times the estimated mass in order to have enough gravity to stay together. He knew there was something else at work but didn’t have the means to research further.
Although Zwicky had noticed something incredible, dark matter was mostly forgotten until the 1970s. That’s when an astronomist named Vera Rubin noticed something similar to Zwicky, but this time in much greater detail. Instead of viewing galaxies as a single point of light, she was looking at individual systems within the galaxy, specifically our neighbor Andromeda.
She knew that the closer something was to a massive object, the more gravitational pull it would feel. So, using the traditional knowledge of gravity, she hypothesized that the stars at the center of the galaxy would move faster than those farther away. She was wrong. The stars on the outside of the galaxy were spinning at the same speed as those in the center, and they were spinning so fast that they should have flown apart. There wasn’t enough mass to hold the galaxy together. Something, and a lot of it, was missing.
MACHOs vs. WIMPs
No, it’s not high school all over again. Since there was a lot of “stuff” providing mass to these impossibly rotating galaxies, scientists had to come up with a name for the invisible objects. There were two potential explanations that could have caused this phenomenon:
MACHOs – Massive Compact Halo Objects
WIMPs – Weakly Interacting Massive Particles.
The problem with dark matter is that it’s dark. Scientists can’t see it. MACHOs are very large objects that don’t reflect or produce light, such as planets, stars that haven’t gotten big enough to glow, or any other gigantic dimly-lit objects that could be out there. What if there were huge numbers of massive objects that we couldn’t see that provided the mass necessary for the galaxy to stay together? The problem with the MACHO theory is that their gravity would be so intense that it would cause light to bend, which could be observed. That’s how black holes, a form of MACHO, were discovered. Since there aren’t enough MACHOs to be found, scientists were pushed towards WIMPs.
WIMPs are tiny, possibly subatomic particles that contain some mass. Massive swarms of WIMPs — and by massive they mean enough to fill about 84% of the entire universe — could generate the combined mass necessary to keep the galaxies together. The problem with this theory is that we can’t find them. If they’re everywhere, they should be detectable even in our solar system.
Neutralinos
After mostly settling on the idea of WIMPs and lacking any concrete proof as of yet, scientists invented a hypothetical particle that could solve the problem. They named the imaginary (so far) particles neutralinos.
Since everything related to dark matter is mostly theoretical, scientists always have the option to select D: none of the above. Some scientists believe that instead of a new invisible particle explaining everything, what if our understanding of gravity is incomplete or even wrong? Rubin herself even admitted to being at least partially in this camp.
A new theory of gravity (sorry, Newton) was introduced by theoretical physicist Erik Verlinde in 2010. In his theory, he states that gravity is not a fundamental force that affects all objects equally but, rather, an “emergent phenomenon” that can change and fluctuate based on the environment much like temperature. This could explain how galaxies move the way that they do.
Of course, as with anything in science, there are always disputes. Many scientists completely reject the idea of modified gravity and are sticking with the theory of dark matter. It seems debate will have to continue for the foreseeable future.
The Windows 10 backup program, File History, saves the files that you‘ve created. It doesn’t back up your apps and programs. After all, apps and programs can always be reinstalled. But many of the moments that inspired so many of your photos, videos, and documents can never be re-created.
To keep your files safe, File History automatically makes a copy of every file in your Documents, Music, Photos, and Videos folders. It copies all the files on your desktop, as well. And File History automatically makes those copies every hour.
File History makes your backups easy to see and restore, letting you flip through different versions of your files and folders, comparing them with your current versions. Should you find a better version, a press of a button brings that older version back to life.
File History doesn’t work until you turn it on, a process I describe in Chapter 13. Please, please, flip back a few chapters and turn it on now. The earlier you turn it on, the more backups you’ll have to choose from when you need them.
To browse through your backed-up files and folders, restoring the ones you want, follow these steps:
Click the taskbar’s File Explorer icon (shown here) and then open the folder containing the items you’d like to retrieve.
For example, click This PC in the folder’s left pane to see your most commonly used folders, Desktop, Downloads, Documents, Music, Pictures, and Videos. Open any folder by double-clicking its name.
2.
Click the Home tab on the Ribbon atop your folder; then click the History button.
Clicking the History button, shown here, fetches the File History program, shown in the following figure. The program looks much like a plain old folder. For example, the figure shows what happens if you click the History button in any folder and then click File History’s Home button: That button lets you see all of your backed up folders.
The File History program lets you restore backups from any of your main folders.
The File History program shows you what it has backed up: your main folders, your desktop, your contacts, and your favorite websites.
Feel free to open the folders inside the File History window. You can also peek inside the files you find there to see their contents.
3. Choose what you’d like to restore.
Point and click your way through the libraries, folders, and files until you spot the item or items you’d like to restore:
Folder: To restore an entire folder, open it so you’re viewing its contents.
Files: To restore a group of files, open the folder containing them, so the files’ icons are onscreen.
One file: To restore an earlier version of a file, open that file from inside the File History window. File History displays that file’s contents.
When you’ve found the file or folder you want to restore, move to the next step.
4. Move forward or backward in time to find the version you’d like to restore.
To browse through different versions of what you’re currently viewing, choose the left-pointing arrow along the bottom, as shown here. To see a newer version, choose the right-pointing arrow.
When looking at a particular file’s contents, click the left or right arrow along the bottom to see newer and older versions of the file.
A newer version of the same document.
As you move forward and backward through time, feel free to click open folders or individual files, peeking inside them until you’re looking at the version that you want to retrieve.
Not sure whether a folder contains your sought-after item? Type it into the Search box in File History’s top-right corner.
5. Click the Restore button to restore your desired version.
Whether you’re looking at an individual file, a folder, or an entire library’s contents, clicking the Restore button places that item back in the place where it used to live.
That brings up a potential problem, however: What happens if you try to restore an older file named Notes into a place that already contains a file named Notes? Windows warns you of the problem with the window shown, which brings you to Step 6.
Choose whether to replace the existing file, skip the file, or choose which file to keep.
6. Choose how to handle the conflict.
If Windows notices a naming conflict with the item you’re trying to restore, File History offers you three ways to handle the situation.
Replace the File in the Destination Folder. Click this option only when you’re sure that the older file is better than your current file.
Skip This File. Click this if you don’t want to restore the file or folder. This option returns you to File History, where you can browse other files.
Compare Info for Both Files. Often the best choice, this option lets you compare the files’ sizes and dates before choosing which one to keep, the incoming file or the currently existing file. Or, if you want, this choice also lets you keep both files: Windows simply adds a number after the name of the incoming file, naming it Notes (1), for example.
7. Exit File History by closing the window.You close the File History window just as you close any other window: Click the X in its top-right corner.
Want to know more about File History? Read on:
In addition to backing up everything in your main folders and on your desktop, File History stores a list of your favorite websites, listed earlier in Figure 18-2 as Favorites. It also backs up the OneDrive files you’ve synced to your PC.
When buying a portable hard drive, flash drive, or memory card to create backups, don’t skimp on size. The larger the hard drive you choose, the more backups you can save. File History comes in very handy.
For the last three years running, the Internet has seen a bizarre puzzle game each January, hosted by someone who calls itself “3301” and uses cicada imagery. The puzzles are enormously complex. They draw on elements of cryptography, mathematics, literature, hidden messages, data security, and philosophy. Physical clues appear in places as diverse as Poland, Hawaii, Spain, Australia, and Korea. 3301 claims that its puzzles attempt to find “intelligent individuals,” for unspecified ends.
In June 1947, multiple ships travelling trade routes in the strait of Malacca, off the coast of Malaysia, received a terrifying SOS message that read: “All officers including captain are dead lying in chart room and bridge. Possibly whole crew dead.” After a short period of time, one final message was received, that read simply … “I die.” Nearby ships identified the source of the signal as coming from a Dutch freighter, the SS Ourang Medan. The nearest merchant ship, The Silver Star, traveled as fast as they could to the source of the distress signal. But upon boarding the Ourang Medan, they were horrified by what they found: Every member of the crew lay dead, their corpses scattered on the decks. The eyes of the men were still open and expressions of sheer terror were frozen on their faces. The Silver Star’s party found the deceased radio operator as well, his hand still on the Morse Code-sending key, and eyes wide open. But strangely, there were no signs of wounds or injuries on any of the bodies. The Silver Star’s crew decided to tow the ship back to port, but before they could get underway, smoke began emanating from the decks below. The boarding party quickly returned to their ship and barely had time to escape before the SS Ourang Medan exploded and swiftly sank. Some theorized that clouds of noxious natural gases bubbled up from fissures in the seabed and engulfed the ship, and others have even blamed the occurrence on the supernatural, but to this day, the exact fate of the ships crew remains a mystery.
The Voynich Manuscript
What is so remarkable about the manuscript, then? Well, It’s written in a language unknown to man, and has evaded all attempts to decipher its contents to this day. The writing is composed of over 170,000 characters written in patterns that resemble natural language. Twenty or 30 glyphs can account for nearly the entire text, with the exception of a few stray characters that appear only once. It was written smoothly, with no evidence of errors or corrections anywhere, and no evidence of pauses during writing, which one would expect with encoded text. Almost as to suggest that the language was natural for whoever wrote it. Carbon dating revealed that the script was written between the years 1404 and 1438, and although theories have been offered, nobody actually knows the author of the work.
The real identity of Benjamin Kyle;
In 2004, A man that would soon adopt the name Benjamin Kyle woke up outside of a Burger King in Georgia without any clothes, any ID, or any memories. He was diagnosed with retrograde amnesia, unable to remember who he was, and with no identification, unable to find out. Now, if this was like any other story about amnesia, it would have probably resolved itself soon afterwards. But the trouble was, authorities couldn’t identify him either. Local and state police failed to discover him in any known records despite an exhaustive search. And then in 2007, the FBI became involved, but were also unable to identify him, making him the only US citizen in history listed as missing despite his whereabouts being known.
The Americas are named after the Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci. He traveled all over the globe, from Portugal to the Gulf of Mexico and southern Asia. As noted by Britannica, his 1501 voyage charted a course for history; he believed that the lands he encountered on his voyage were not part of Asia but a “New World.” In 1507, Martin Waldseemuller reprinted Vespucci’s findings “Quattuor Americi navigationes” and suggested the new land should be called Americus or America. South America claimed the moniker first, but it eventually made its way to North America as well.
I have no doubt that Charles was genuinely very fond of Diana during their early time together. Diana herself claimed that the 6 weeks prior to Harry’s birth in 1984 were their closest ever. The marriage collapsed following Harry’s arrival.
There is footage of Charles admitting that his life would be easier if he had ‘two wives – one for each side of the street’.
While he was indeed jealous, his situation must be viewed in context. Born in 1948, he was a female-line grandchild of a Monarch, and as such he did not qualify for HRH status. At this point, it was clear that the King wasn’t going to be having any more children of his own, so Letters Patent were issued giving Elizabeth’s children HRH Prince/ss status. They would otherwise have been styled as the children of a Duke and Duchess (of Edinburgh), and Charles, as heir, would have been simply ‘Lord Charles’.
By the time he arrived, in November 1948, he was HRH Prince Charles. In February 1952 his grandfather, the King, died. Charles was 3. He now became Heir Apparent and HRH The Prince Charles. At the age of 9, his mother created him Prince of Wales. The investiture came years later. So by the age of 9, he was a pretty important chap. His mother was even more important. Being Queen took up an awful lot of his mother’s time, (and his father’s) and he was cared for mostly by nannies and by his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother.
From his earliest days until his marriage, aged 32, Charles has been a big deal. He took a great interest in architecture, the environment, philosophy, and Islamic culture. He has a huge collection of Islamic art and artefacts.
Then he married a 20-year-old ‘commoner’ that nobody had ever heard of. Because she hadn’t been raised by Royalty, Diana was down-to-earth and relatable. She shook hands with people. She hugged children. She bent down to talk to wheelchair users, so that they were at the same eye-level. And she was beautiful. The public fell in love with her.
Initially, Charles was very proud of her. At their first appearance as an engaged couple, he looked besotted with his fianceé, who wore a daring black gown and a lot of cleavage.
As one appearance followed another, a pattern began to emerge. As soon as they were out of their car, the crowd would start screaming for Diana. As she headed for one side of the road, the fans went wild. On the other side, sour-faced Diana fans groaned openly as Charles approached them. They didn’t even try to hide their disappointment, it was made very obvious.
Eventually, ‘Shy Di’ realised that she had something her husband didn’t – star power. He had the Royal blood, but she had the face. People loved her. Children loved her. Journalists and cameramen went into battle to get the best shots of her. Nobody cared that the heir to the throne was there, Diana was wearing a new dress!
It wasn’t anyone’s fault. It wasn’t Charles’s fault, nor was it Diana’s. She just appeared from nowhere and the world fell in love with her. The right girl in the right place at the right time. She was gorgeous. She had empathy. She cared for the downtrodden. She adored her sons.
Eventually, Charles’s bewilderment turned to resentment. He genuinely couldn’t understand how or why his wife was eclipsing him at every turn, without even trying. He’s going to be King someday. His mother is our Queen. But all anyone cared about was Diana – what she was wearing, whether she looked happy or sad, what she said, who she’d been seen with…. etc. Charles was almost being airbrushed out of the marriage, and out of the news. He often felt that important speeches he made were passed on in favour of a photo of his wife’s new shoes, and he was right. For a long time, the world had Di-Mania, and he hated it.
Gradually, it caused enormous tension between them, and of course Diana learned exactly how to play the media to her advantage. She often used it as a weapon against Charles, once things began to turn sour.
For 32 years, Charles was seen as an incredibly important person. He was born his mother’s heir. He was a Prince. He’s The Prince of Wales. The only man who can claim to be his equal is his father, who will never be King. Charles’s place in Royal history was set the moment he was born, over 71 years ago.
Yes, he was jealous of Diana’s popularity, because he didn’t understand it. He’d never had his position challenged by anyone before. He is constitutionally above his 3 siblings. He ranks higher than his sons and grandchildren. Up until he married, the only woman who took precedence over him was his mother.
Diana did not take precedence over Charles, but she eclipsed him in almost every other respect. Despite her lack of academic success, Diana was able to talk to everyone, from Mother Theresa and Henry Kissinger to the starving homeless who slept on London’s freezing streets. She took her sons on secret nightly visits to homeless shelters, so that they would know that not everyone has their privilege.
She oozed charm and charisma. Charles can talk at length, but he isn’t always quite as captivating as Diana was. She had a truly naughty, rebellious streak which made her even more relatable to ordinary folk.
While it’s fair to say that there are many who didn’t like Diana, I remember the outpouring of absolutely raw grief that erupted when she died. It was unprecedented. There had never been scenes like it before, or since. Us buttoned-up, repressed Britons were crying openly on the streets of London. Men cried – huge bearded men with tattoos and piercings cried next to their wives and girlfriends. Elderly men and women cried. Children and teenagers cried. All of the UK, and a large chunk of the world cried.
Charles didn’t understand that either. By then, she wasn’t even Royalty. He’ll never get it. And when he goes, he won’t get the weeping and wailing that his new young bride got, any more than Camilla will.
Of course he was jealous. She was one in a million.
It’s hard to believe that she had been and gone at 36, younger than both Catherine and Meghan are today. I’ll certainly never see another one like her in my lifetime.
The main reason, as far as I’m aware, is the idea that the Indo-Aryan migration theory was concocted by Europeans only to humiliate Indians and deny them their roots, and Indians who oppose the theory believe that its narrative only mirrors historical European colonisation: They view the exogenous Indo-Aryans of the migration narrative as a prehistorical proxy (a kind of sockpuppet) of the British (and others).
While I cannot exclude that some Brits abused the migration theory in order to justify European colonisation, the – mainly German – scholars who developed the theory in the 19th century, such as Max Müller, had no such ulterior interests, nor a hidden agenda to humiliate Indians, being great admirers of Indian culture. From Wikipedia (footnotes dropped):
Müller’s work contributed to the developing interest in Aryan culture, which often set Indo-European (“Aryan”) traditions in opposition to Semitic religions. He was “deeply saddened by the fact that these classifications later came to be expressed in racist terms”, as this was far from his intention. For Müller the discovery of common Indian and European ancestry was a powerful argument against racism, arguing that “an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar” and that “the blackest Hindus represent an earlier stage of Aryan speech and thought than the fairest Scandinavians”.
In fact, for a time, some 19th-century European scholars, such as Friedrich Schlegel, themselves believed that the origin of the Indo-European languages was in India, and that the common ancestor language, Proto-Indo-European, was essentially an archaic form of Sanskrit! August Schleicher’s reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European still resembles Sanskrit quite a lot, demonstrated by his celebrated fable (1868):
Avis akvāsas ka.
Avis, jasmin varnā na ā ast, dadarka akvams, tam, vāgham garum vaghantam, tam, bhāram magham, tam, manum āku bharantam. Avis akvabhjams ā vavakat: kard aghnutai mai vidanti manum akvams agantam.
Akvāsas ā vavakant: krudhi avai, kard aghnutai vividvant-svas: manus patis varnām avisāms karnauti svabhjam gharmam vastram avibhjams ka varnā na asti.
Tat kukruvants avis agram ā bhugat.
It is only in the 1870s that, with the discovery of the law of palatals, European scholars came to the conclusion that this reconstruction cannot be correct and that Proto-Indo-European must have had three vowel colours, /e/, /a/ and /o/, just like Ancient Greek and Latin, that had later merged into /a/ in Sanskrit (in fact, in all Indo-Iranian languages). In 1939, Hermann Hirt reconstructed Schleicher’s fable thus:
Owis ek’wōses-kʷe
Owis, jesmin wьlənā ne ēst, dedork’e ek’wons, tom, woghom gʷьrum weghontm̥, tom, bhorom megam, tom, gh’ьmonm̥ ōk’u bherontm̥. Owis ek’womos ewьwekʷet: k’ērd aghnutai moi widontei gh’ьmonm̥ ek’wons ag’ontm̥. Ek’wōses ewьwekʷont: kl’udhi, owei!, k’ērd aghnutai vidontmos: gh’ьmo, potis, wьlənām owjôm kʷr̥neuti sebhoi ghʷermom westrom; owimos-kʷe wьlənā ne esti. Tod k’ek’ruwos owis ag’rom ebhuget.
By the end of the 19th century, leading scholars had abandoned the Out-of-India theory and increasingly favoured Europe as the origin of the Indo-European languages.
Many white supremacist, racist ideologues seem to view the Proto-Indo-Europeans as a prehistorical analogue to Romans or Egyptians, or even a kind of Atlantis in Europe: a lost empire and advanced civilisation with powerful warriors, practically super-men, who “conquered” a vast part of Eurasia and imposed their language on it. However, the analogy with ancient Rome is misguided; if Proto-Indo-European language and culture is so old, this portrayal is unlikely, and it suggests itself to view it as rather primitive in comparison to ancient civilisations, including Ancient India (even Egypt was still a pre-literary culture at the time), so it cannot be a valid basis for a “European supremacism”. The Proto-Indo-Europeans were certainly not particularly advanced technologically, as the reconstructed vocabulary indicates. Rather, by the late Neolithic, about 4000–3000 BC, when Proto-Indo-European was most likely spoken prior to its split-up, all of Eurasia was technologically primitive, the wheel just having been invented.
The most plausible scenario is that the Proto-Indo-Europeans were the first to have both domesticated horses and wheeled wagons, plus secondary animal products (milk and wool) – the secondary products revolution –, giving them an edge over other cultures, especially neighbouring cultures, some of which, such as the Danubian civilisation, appear to have been comparably sophisticated. There was nothing inherent to this culture that made it superior, just pure luck.
Therefore, there is nothing particularly shameful about the idea that the dominant language of Ancient India traces back to this culture, and the analogue to European colonisation (which is based on military superiority) doesn’t really work. European scholars who support the migration theory do not consider the Indo-Europeans inherently “superior”, and support for a European homeland does not imply that Europe was more advanced than South Asia. The Harappan civilisation was certainly more culturally and technologically advanced, sophisticated and complex than any part of Europe, except perhaps Crete, by 2500 BC, or even 3000 BC. European scholars acknowledge this fully, but it does not imply the original homeland of the Indo-European languages must have been there. There is no reason to think the Proto-Indo-Europeans must have had a super-advanced civilisation. Keep in mind that Sumerian and Egyptian are extinct. Linguistic expansions do not necessarily correlate straightforwardly with ancient civilisations and empires.
There’s another reason why the reasoning that the migration theory implies something negative about Indians is based on questionable reasoning: Indians opposed to the migration theory believe that it implies that Indians are not actually the indigenous, native population of South Asia.
However, according to the same logic, not only the English, but even the Welsh would not be indigenous to Britain, since their linguistic ancestors only immigrated less than 3000 years ago!
Consider this: At the time when the Indo-Aryans are supposed to have arrived in South Asia, about 1500 BC (perhaps even a bit earlier), no speaker of a Celtic or Germanic language had yet set foot on Britain or Ireland. How do I know this? Because no language that could be rightfully described as Celtic or Germanic even existed by 1500 BC, per scholarly consensus. Just like no language that could be called French existed in 200 BC.
The strongest opposition to the migration theory comes from Indian nationalists and Hindu religious fundamentalists (Hindutva) anyway. They take offence specifically to the implication that Hindu religion isn’t native to South Asia. But especially in its modern form(s), it assuredly is. Even if it is granted that the earliest layers of Rigvedic religion originate from outside South Asia, modern Hinduism has little in common with Rigvedic religion. It has been thoroughly “Indianised”, with numerous elements that are certainly of indigenous, or post-Vedic, origin. Temporally alone, modern Hinduism is as far removed from Rigvedic religion as modern Christianity is from Ancient Canaanite religion. Some nationalists and religious fundamentalists are never satisfied – in India, they want to date the Vedas and the Sanskrit language back to 10,000 BC. Why not 20,000 BC? 100,000 BC? A million years? Why shouldn’t humanity itself originate in India? (Some nationalists do believe that all languages of the world are derived from Sanskrit. See goropism.) It’s completely arbitrary, and pure boosterism.
INDIA’S FILM ROYALTY MEETS BRITISH CROWN ROYALTY. SRK is known the world over.
As a non-Indian, white American movie lover, I have to say the reason SRK is my personal favorite Bollywood actor has to do with not only his acting skills and the types of movies he has made, but also with his nature as a human being.
Some people are able to transcend the heights even in their own chosen field while others are great at what they do but never become transcendent. Shah Rukh Khan is a self made man who has become transcendent.
He is an actual hero, not just an actor hero. That doesn’t mean he is fighting bad guys in the streets or pulling down corruption in the government single handedly. But what it does mean is that he has developed a lifestyle which is worthy of being emulated by others who seek for success. He has developed himself as a person into a man who is humble, kind, patient, transparent and genuinely cares about others.
The man has a wonderful family life, a clean police record with no arrests, a heartfelt and tolerant religious life, an amazing work ethic, a strong belief in his fellow man, and hope for the future. There is no more or better a winning combination than that.
He is generous and gives of himself as well as huge amounts of his money and everyone who has had dealings with him, whether it be fellow actors, interviewers, cricket players, or those ordinary people who are lucky enough to meet him say the man is attentive, caring and very genuine. He does tons of charity work, especially with children, and is never afraid to speak honestly about his views or feelings on anything. His Meer Foundation is doing ground breaking work for women who have been acid attack victims and he runs several charitable hospital and clinic services from children with cancer to receive free treatment. In fact, just a few days ago he was awarded the very coveted Crystal Award at the World Economic Forum’s recent summit in Davo. He was present with other world leaders, including PM Modi.
Shah Rukh Khan gets special honour in Davos, and asks Cate Blanchett for selfie
Shah Rukh Khan received the 24th Crystal Award at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos for protecting human rights through his non-profitable Meer Foundation.
Actor Cate Blanchett and actor Shah Rukh Khan pose for the media after receiving the Crystal Awards, with Hilde Schwab, chairperson and co-Founder of Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship, and Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the WEF, at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos.(REUTERS)
Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan was at his wittiest best in Davos on Monday when he asked actress Cate Blanchett for a selfie publicly and immediately quipped that it may leave his children embarrassed, sending the audience into peals of laughter.
Khan received the 24th Crystal Award on Monday at the World Economic Forum in Davos for “his leadership in championing children’s and women’s rights in India”.
English singer Sir Elton John and Australian actress Cate Blanchett were also honoured at the event.
Actor Cate Blanchett, actor Shah Rukh Khan and singer Elton John are pictured at the Crystal Awards ceremony of the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos. (REUTERS)
“I am genuinely and deeply grateful for this honour. It is indeed a privilege to be in the company of two phenomenal and extraordinary human beings and talent, Cate Blanchett and Sir Elton John,” Khan said.
He talked extensively about his social initiative, which he has named after his father, and the reason for the same.
Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan, right, receives the Crystal Award from German Hilde Schwab, chairperson and co-founder of Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship, during the Crystal Award Ceremony on the eve of the 48th Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum. (AP)
The 52-year-old cine star also thanked his late mother, wife and his daughter for inspiring him. After thanking the WEF for the award, Khan finished his speech with namaskar and ‘Jai Hind’.
He was presented the award for “his leadership in championing children’s and women’s rights in India”.
Earlier in the day, he also posed in his signature open arm style right after reaching Davos.
Khan is the founder of the non-profit Meer Foundation, which provides support to female victims of acid attacks and major burn injuries through medical treatment, legal aid, vocational training, rehabilitation and livelihood support.
The mega star has also been responsible for the creation of specialised children’s hospital wards and has supported childcare centres with free boarding for children undergoing cancer treatment.
If you listen to his speeches or interviews on youtube, you never get the sense he is just saying stuff or spitting out words to promote himself, project his image or protect himself from criticism. He is honest and forthright and fearless.
He says he is shy and has trouble dealing with people or situations unfamiliar to him, and yet he never disappoints or fails to give his best even in the most stressful environment. So, these are the things that make him world famous and hugely popular.
India is a blessed nation to have such a wonderful ambassador for their movie industry as they have in SRK and should see him for what he is…. a national treasure.
I hope the people of India tuned in this past Sunday to see the Ted Talks India which Shah Rukh Khan not only is hosting, but also was very instrumental in arranging to have in India. How amazing it is this man uses his wealth and power to bring influence to such groups in order to provide a platform for his own people to be able to share their ideas. Any Indian person who has an idea how to make their nation more great or how to improve things or situations which are currently problems in India can apply to be a speaker on Ted Talks. How great is that India? You should love this man with your whole hearts for this alone if nothing else. What a champion your nation has in SRK.
Thinking Bits 