Microsoft finally launches Surface Pro 4 in India starting at Rs 89,990

At an event held in New Delhi, Microsoft has finally launched the Surface Pro 4. With a starting price tag of Rs 89,990, looks like Microsoft is certainly targeting high-end consumers. The device will be sold exclusively via Amazon http://locast.mit.edu/healthdiary/user/19191/ India for the first six months and shipping begins January 14. One can also try out the device at Microsoft Stores located at Noida, Gurgaon, Delhi, Bengaluru and Mumbai.

The Microsoft Surface Pro 4 will be offered in three variants in India – Surface Pro 4 with Core i5, 4GB of RAM and 128GB SSD priced at Rs 89,990, the Core i5, 8GB of RAM and 256GB SSD variant at Rs 1,20,990 and Core i7, 8GB of RAM and 256GB SSD at Rs 1,44,990. In addition, Microsoft is selling the Surface Pen at Rs 5,990 and the Surface Pro 4 Type Cover keyboard at Rs 12,490, which is available in blue and black color variants.


During the Future Unleashed event in Mumbai held in November last year, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella had also announced that the company’s Surface Pro 4 tablet will launch in  The tablet was launched https://databox.worldbank.org/profile/Buy-Back-Links/h4kj-c9fj/app_tokens/18841 in October in the US at a price of $899. The company also launched the 2013’s Surface Pro 3 in India, priced at Rs 73,990 and includes Intel Core i3 variant, with 4GB RAM and a 128GB SSD,

With the kind of specification set that Microsoft has packed into the Microsoft Surface Pro 4, it seemed like it didn’t want to leave any room for competition. Microsoft Devices head Panos Panay launched the http://in.usgbc.org/people/buy-backlinkse/0011045234 Surface Pro 4, calling it the best Surface device ever. According to him it is 30 percent faster than the Surface Pro 3 and around 50 percent faster than the Apple MacBook.

The Surface Pro 4 sports a 12.3-inch display with densely packed pixels which makes Microsoft call it PixelSense display. The exact resolution is 2736 x 1824 pixels which gives 267DPI pixel density. It comes with a 0.4mm thick Corning Gorilla Glass 4 protection. Microsoft has also added a special G5 sensor to manage the optical stack, to enable a highly responsive touchscreen for touch as well as Surface Pen input.

The Surface Pro 4 has the same footprint as the 12-inch Surface Pro 3 thanks to thinner bezels. The Surface Pro 4 is powered by the 6th generation Intel Core M, Core i5 or Core i7 processors along with RAM going from 4GB to 16GB. It offers SSD storage options going from 128GB all the way to 1TB.

Windows 10 Pro OS naturally comes out of the box giving you access to desktop class software. The Surface Pro 4 weighs around 766 grams and is just 8.4mm thick. On the camera front, you have an 8MP rear camera and a 5MP front camera for video calls. On the connectivity front, you get Wi-fi 802.11ac, Bluetooth 4.0, a full size USB 3.0 port and more.

Along with the Surface Pro 4, you will also get the Surface Pen, which has an eraser button on one end. The tip of the Pen has around 1024 pressure sensitive points which, according to Microsoft, ensure that the responsiveness of the Pen is on the higher side. You can click and hold http://www.nature.com/protocolexchange/labgroups/82117 With one click of Surface Pen, a blank OneNote page appears for quick notes. And just last we had seen in the last generation, the Palm Block technology allows you to rest your hand on the screen to write naturally, just like a pad of paper.

Microsoft has also refined the design on the Type Cover, having the keyboard with more spaced out keys, less travel and quieter typing sound. The Type Cover is also compatible with Surface Pro 3. It also incorporates a fingerprint reader for quick authentication. The trackpad has been increased by 40 percent and it supports all Windows 10 gestures.

Microsoft Surface Pro 4 comes with a 12.3-inch PixelSense Display with 2736x1824p resolution and runs the Windows 10 Pro operating system. It is available in three processor options: Intel Skylake Core m3, i5 and i7; buyers can choose between 4GB and 8GB of RAM and 128GB and 256GB of storage.

For connectivity, Microsoft Surface Pro 4 has USB 3.0 port, card reader, Bluetooth 4.0, Wi-Fi and MiniDisplay Port. The front camera has 5MP resolution, while the rear camera features an 8MP sensor. The tablet comes with Dolby audio for sound enhancement. Battery life of Surface Pro 4 is 9 hours, Microsoft says.

Microsoft Surface Pro 4 with i5 processor, 128GB SSD and 4GB RAM: Rs 89,990
Microsoft Surface Pro 4 with i5 processor, 256GB SSD and 8GB RAM: Rs 1,20,990

Microsoft Surface Pro 4 with i7 processor, 256GB SSD and 8GB RAM: Rs 1,44,990


Surface Pro 3, on the other hand, has a 12-inch ClearType screen with 2160x1440p resolution and packs the Core https://cordis.europa.eu/partners/web/buybacklinkso/profile For storage, buyers get 128GB of SSD. The tablet comes with the same connectivity options as its newer sibling, but the camera on the front and back have 5MP resolution.

As shadow of terror hangs over talks with Pakistan, Narasimha Rao has a lesson for Modi

The terror strike at the Pathankot air base on Saturday once again brings to the fore the question of whether New Delhi should push for closer ties with Islamabad even though it is clear that this strategy lacks national consensus.

From available indications, it seems that the terrorists crossed over into India two or three days after Prime Minister Narendra Modi's stopover in Lahore on December 25. A link between the two events seems inconceivable.

Yet the narrative has come to focus on the very efficacy of India-Pakistan dialogue. There is a sense of triumphalism among many of those who oppose dialogue with Pakistan. They believe that their so-called hardline thinking – "no dialogue while terrorism continues" – stands vindicated.

On the other hand, the advocates of dialogue have gone on the defensive. This polarisation of opinion in favor of the hardliners may not be a true reflection of the mainstream opinion. But in the absence of a national consensus, it is yet to be rejected.

The government faces the same dilemma that gripped the dialogue process during the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance regime: the voices of reason and moderation are allowing themselves to be overwhelmed.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi would be well served if he were to take a leaf out of Narasimha Rao’s practice of statecraft in the early nineties to push the initiative on Pakistan.

The year was 1993, circa June. The Babri Masjid had been destroyed six months before. As the anger in the Muslim world was still overflowing, Rao took a controversial decision to pay a path-breaking visit to Iran. It was entirely Rao’s decision; the South Block bureaucracy was merely informed about it.

The opening to Iran resulted from an acutely felt need to acquire more space in India’s diplomatic manoeuverings, in particular with regard to the Kashmir problem. This was because for the first time in the post-Cold War world, after several decades of seamless Soviet support, Delhi was being called upon to handle the issue on its own on the international stage.

Given the US's unfriendly attitude toward India in the full flush of the victory over socialism, it made additional sense to cultivate Iran, a powerful voice in the Islamic world and a country that is rooted in safeguarding its strategic autonomy.

https://cordis.europa.eu/partners/user/buybacklinkso/my-profile

The opening to Tehran was borne out of strong compulsions, not of whimsical choice. Nonetheless, Rao was apprehensive about how his minority government would defend itself against adverse domestic public opinion. At the time, India was a hopelessly polarised polity. Besides, Iran had been a strident critic of the tumultuous happenings in India in late 1992 and early 1993.

Rao directed that someone from Ministry of External Affairs should go over to meet the Bharatiya Janata Party's’s Great Helmsman at that time, LK Advani, to explain the raison d’être of the Iran opening, and try to carry the saffron party along.

On the instructions of JN Dixit, the foreign secretary at the time, I undertook the mission. I began with trepidation when Advani received me at his Pandara Road apartment.

Through the 40-minute briefing, I explained the various dimensions of our initiative on Iran – against the backdrop of the uproar in the Muslim world over Babri Masjid and the communal riots that followed, the situation in Jammu and Kashmir and the Pakistan-sponsored insurgency, the headwinds in the United Nations on account of India’s human rights record, the disarray in the Russian policies under President Boris Yeltsin and the vengeful attitude of Washington towards non-aligned India, and so on.

At the end of the briefing, which Advani listened to attentively, he asked a few searching questions, reflected for a while, and then went on to say something like the following: "You people are doing something that is very much in the national interests and we will never stand in the way. I will apprise Atalji. Indeed, our party will discharge its role as a responsible Opposition in the parliament and we will continue to express our misgivings about government policies, but you should go ahead with this initiative. I wish all success for the PM’s visit to Iran."

Changed situation

How times have changed. Today, there is no such working relationship at the level of the leaderships of the Bharatiya Janta Party and the Congress Party. Modi as prime minister did not apparently feel the need to explain to the Congress leadership his profound considerations in making repeated overtures to his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif as he did in Ufa, Paris and Lahore over the past six months; the Congress and the BJP are actually locked in a curious role reversal with the latter having having virtually usurped the Congress’ Pakistan policy but still lacking the imagination to explain its motivations through the prism of national interest.


From indications available so far, the government appears to be sticking to its action plan with regard to dispatching the foreign secretary for talks in Islamabad on January 15, the terror attack on Pathankot base notwithstanding. That, of course, will indeed be the right thing to do. But the big question remains: In the absence of a political consensus at home, how far can Modi possibly advance his Pakistan policies?

Put differently, what is the big deal about dialogue if the talks get reduced to a mere charade that needs to be somehow gone through lest the international community view India as intransigent?

To be sure, a crisis of confidence is likely to arise after the Pathankot attack. The will to advance the dialogue process and to take bold initiatives to normalise relations on the part of the government – even to pluck the low-hanging fruit – may have taken a blow.

Clearly, the government’s priority at the moment will be to ensure that Modi’s personal prestige is not affected. Looking ahead, therefore, it remains to be seen how long the dialogue can be sequestered – as it ought to be – from such lateral hits from across the border.

The only way the dialogue process can be insulated and be made uninterruptible will be by making it the finest foreign-policy flower of a national consensus. Here, the onus is entirely on the government to reach out to the Opposition.

Peace in the time of Pathankot

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s stunning embrace of Nawaz Sharif in Lahore on Christmas Day has done more for galvanising the peace process in the subcontinent than any other intercession since Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s time. All of a sudden, tensions had eased, there was hope and optimism in the air. It augured a much-needed release from the prison walls of hate and distrust that have marked India-Pakistan relations in the last few years. The impromptu act of camaraderie was particularly significant as it came in the wake of relentless bickering and recriminations.

http://www.nature.com/protocolexchange/labgroups/82117

Modi’s latest stratagem is the most audacious gesture in our post-Independence diplomatic history; more so because of his political antecedents. It requires courage to brush off the objections of one’s strongest supporters, whose life’s work has been anti-Pakistan hysteria. Modi not only belied the media-inspired and allegedly liberal perceptions of his hawkishness but also discomfited a pussyfooted Congress. The Congress has historically been ambivalent or blatantly opportunistic not only in its secular stance — be it the Shah Bano case or not meeting with murdered MP Ehsan Jafri’s wife — but even in improving relations with Pakistan. The Congress’s Pakistan policy has invariably been moderated, if not controlled, by the hawks on our side.

The most heartening aspect of the casual interaction of the two PMs was their determination not to allow stray provocations to disrupt such meetings. Both governments will have to be wary of the spoilers

in our midst. A leading functionary of the ruling party muddied the waters straightaway by invoking the idea of Akhand Bharat, which is ideologically linked to the right and Hindutva, and is anathema to people on either side of our borders. It immediately provoked Pakistan’s extremists to respond with “Ghazwa-e-Hind” — the Islamisation of India. Another worthy, a minister in the present government, made a barely veiled attack on the “uncontrolled growth” of the Muslim population.

Such a gratuitous statement conveys the message that when Muslims even within our borders are viewed with suspicion as “the other”, it is futile to expect a thaw in relations with predominantly Muslim Pakistan or Bangladesh.

Striking an altogether different note, Ram Vilas Paswan pitched for a “mahasanghatan” of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh with a common currency and open trade a la the European Union. Going by what Europe has achieved, this mahasanghatan is eminently doable. Almost every country in Europe was embroiled in the two internecine World Wars that killed millions; yet today, 19 of these countries have a common currency and in 26 countries, citizens can move freely. Importantly, in the last 70 years, no guns have been used to settle issues between the countries of western Europe. Should that not be our goal?

Critics who believe that the encounter in Lahore was devoid of serious content miss the point that behind the bonhomie was a serious attempt to forge a new relationship based on goodwill, trust and mutual give-and-take. The seeming spontaneity was grounded in “emotion recollected in tranquillity”, the realisation that the two nuclear-wielding entities cannot afford to walk an alternative path.

The ordinary Indian and Pakistani can now dream of the mouth-watering prospect of open borders that, to quote then PM Manmohan Singh, allow one to have breakfast in Amritsar, lunch in Lahore and dinner in Kabul. Fraternity in the subcontinent will not only help in tackling the overwhelming menace of terrorism but also the other curse of the region, poverty. If Kashmir were no longer a mutually debilitating bone of contention, both countries could scale down defence expenditure and scale-up investment on health and education.

PM Sir, in the face of the recent dastardly terror attack by Pakistan in Pathankot, the only hope for our benighted countries is your statesmanship and steely determination to blaze a new path in our relations, irrespective of the hurdles.

https://databox.worldbank.org/profile/Buy-Back-Links/h4kj-c9fj/app_tokens/18841

climate change, climate change summit, climate change deal, landmark climate change deal, climate change pact, narendra modi, narendra modi on climate change deal At the international fora, Modi has also been pushing for India’s old initiative, the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, to effectively deal with terror networks. (Reuters)

Prime Minister Narendra Modi engaged in an exceptionally busy and a highly personalised style of diplomacy in 2015 with an aim to recalibrate India’s external engagements that saw boosting of ties with major powers like the US, China, France and Japan, and a thaw in relations with Pakistan after prolonged bitterness.

From Pakistan to the US, from African continent to the G20, the government tried to adopt an innovative approach to diplomacy in sync with India’s interests in trade, defence as well as to address its terror-related concerns though the basic contours of foreign policy remained the same as during the previous UPA government.

The government’s handling of ties with Nepal following internal turmoil in that country, after promulgation of Constitution there, drew strong criticism with questions being asked over effectiveness of its “neighbourhood first” approach which it asserted was at the core of its foreign policy.

From the embrace of Lahore to the siege in Pathankot: India and Pakistan in 2016

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s unforeseen plan to visit Lahore in Pakistan on Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s birthday caught most people off-guard. Even as officials suggested the visit was impromptu while he was on his way back from Kabul in Afghanistan, not many were convinced. It is believed that the stopover was chalked out when the two leaders met in Paris on the sidelines of the climate change talks, and the national security advisors of India and Pakistan did the final penciling in of the plan when they met in Thailand. 

However, this move to build an environment of rapprochement was not unexpected. The ‘strong-man’ persona around Modi, largely built up by his supporters, in 2014 made it seem that a much more aggressive stance on Pakistan may be imminent. This was never to be once the Modi-led BJP swept the polls and dislodged the stuttering government of the Congress led United Progressive Alliance (UPA), as the realities of the Pakistan question were eventually to take over the post-victory euphoria.

http://locast.mit.edu/healthdiary/user/19191/

Modi’s trip to Pakistan was precariously drawn out. He did not go to Islamabad, which diluted the political weight of the visit and kept him away from the power centre of the Pakistan Army in Rawalpindi. His office made sure that clarity was achieved over his stopover being to wish Sharif on his birthday along with blessing his granddaughter on her wedding, adding a personal touch of support to Sharif’s political weight in Pakistan itself that is often at odds against the country’s extremely powerful military complex.

Strengthening of democratic institutions in Pakistan’s fragile political establishment is perhaps what India tried to support during this manoeuvre. Pakistan’s current Army chief, General Raheel Sharif (not related to Nawaz Sharif), is a popular figure amongst many in Pakistani polity and society. His popularity, along with the history of a very powerful Army that has launched three successful coups since gaining independence in 1947, is seen by India as an increasing threat not just to its interests, but Pakistan’s civil institutions as well. This distribution of power hold in Pakistan is one of the challenges that not just India seeks to understand and wisely support the correct actors, but even Pakistan’s close allies such as the United States, which on poor internal advice continues to provide both weapons and financial aid to the country, remains worried about.

To put it in some perspective, the recent call made by General Raheel Sharif for “complementary governance” in its fight against terrorism (which historically has conveniently ignored any action against groups that Pakistan Army and ISI themselves sponsor) was greeted with contempt from the Nawaz Sharif camp. An aide of Nawaz Sharif, Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party leader Mahmood Jan Achakzai replied in parliament that such a statement by the army was against the spirit of the constitution, and that any attempts to create foreign policy from outside the parliament will not be supported.

“If both Sharifs are on the same page, we will support them unconditionally, but if there are any differences between them then we will support the civilian Sharif," Achakzai had said.

Achakzai’s statement offered a distant yet interesting view of the fractured lines between the civilian and military power complexes. There is very little doubt that as far as Pakistan’s India policy goes, it is the Pakistan Army that orchestrates majority of it. However, Nawaz Sharif’s moves to try and recover some of that decision making away from the army should get the backing of the Indian government.

Now, days later after the Lahore visit, familiar events that we have seen take place every time India and Pakistan move towards a dialogue process, unfolded at the Indian Air Force’s base in Pathankot in the state of Punjab, about 40 km from the international border. Terrorists widely reported to be from Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed outfit infiltrated parts of the base in an audacious attempt to sabotage IAF assets. Seven Indian soldiers lost their lives as they fought back, and now 40 hours later, no clear picture is yet available as the operations to clear out the area continue, with reports suggesting two more terrorists still remaining at large.

This cyclic occurrence of terror activities emitting from across the border, more than often brandishing the stamp of militant outfits actively supported by the Pakistan Army and its spy agency the ISI, must have been expected by New Delhi at some level. While most such reactions are usually expected to come via infiltrations from across the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu & Kashmir the fact that such a bid seems to have been made via the international border instead, targeting Punjab, has added fresh optics for Indian military preparedness to factor in.

Another pertaining question that rises from the Pathankot siege is the selected target. An IAF base has not been attacked in such a manner since 2001 when terrorists tried to penetrate the Awantipur base in Quil Pulwama, J&K.  Even then, the four militants had tried to infiltrate by masquerading as policemen, and reports have been suggesting a similar situation may have taken place in Pathankot as well. However, attacking a fortified military installation in Punjab as a terror target may also have other underlying reasons, such as exploiting ease of access points developed across the international border in order to avoid the heavily militarized LoC districts.

For Modi, the challenge now is how to balance the existence of the Lahore opening with public opinion post-Pathankot at home. With the Foreign Secretary level talks slated to be held on the 15th of this month now looking to be the first casualty of the air base attacks, Modi and his team would ideally want to break this trend and double-down on engagements with the Sharif government and confront Pakistan on terrorism face to face. However, business as usual in such a manner is an unacceptable outcome for domestic political optics as well. The next few days may (or may not) present some intricate insight into Modi’s developing Pakistan policy, and whether it is going to offer any out of left field takes on our troubled neighbour. This may set stage for the India–Pakistan dynamics for rest of the year.

 Mumbai, Jan. 5 (ANI): Expressing grave concern over the Pathankot terror attack, the Shiv Sena on Tuesday alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi's 'chai' (tea) with his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif cost the nation seven martyrs.

Launching a frontal attack on Prime Minister Modi, the Shiv Sena asked the former to introspect the security situation in the country post the Pathankot attack.

"Having tea with Nawaz Sharif is Prime Minister Modi's personal prerogative, but for that tea we have given seven of our brave soldiers. Why these soldiers were martyred and why the nation is not fighting? We need an answer," said the Shiv Sena editorial.

"The terrorists attacked the air base at Pathankot and even after 72 hours, the war hasn't ended. This is a matter of grave concern, as the borders of the country are no more secured as the internal security has failed completely; this is the clear proof of that," it said.

The BJP ally in its mouthpiece said Pakistan has destroyed India's credibility by sending the terrorists to Pathankot.

http://in.usgbc.org/people/buy-backlinkse/0011045234

"Home Secretary can't confirm as to how many terrorists are there in the air base. It clearly shows that the government is completely in dark regarding this attack," it added.

The Shiv Sena further said Pakistan has betrayed Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

"Eight days ago the Prime Minister visited Lahore and met his counterpart Nawaz Sharif. We had warned him at that time that Pakistan can never be believed and you would be betrayed and now you see we have been betrayed," the editorial said.

"Jaish-e-Mohammed attacked the air base just after Prime Minister Modi's return from Pakistan," it added.

Criticising Pakistan for condemning the Pathankot attack, the editorial said Islamabad is 'faking by doing so'.