Question: Is there a specific way to define Indian society?
About the article "India", section "Society".

Candidate passages:
XAML uses a specific way to define look and feel called "Template"s; differing from Cascading Style Sheet syntax, it is closer to XBL. 
An information society is a society where the creation, distribution, diffusion, uses, integration and manipulation of information is a significant economic, political, and cultural activity.
The aim of an information society is to gain competitive advantage internationally, through using IT in a creative and productive way.
The knowledge economy is its economic counterpart, whereby wealth is created through the economic exploitation of understanding.
People who have the means to partake in this form of society are sometimes called digital citizens.
Basically, an information society is the means of getting information from one place to another (Wark, 1997, p. 22).
As technology has become more advanced over time so too has the way we have adapted in sharing this information with each other.
Information society theory discusses the role of information and information technology in society, the question which key concepts shall be used for characterizing contemporary society, and how to define such concepts.
It has become a specific branch of contemporary sociology. 
Native American identity in the United States is an evolving topic based on the struggle to define "Native American" or "(American) Indian" both for people who consider themselves Native American and for people who do not.
Some people seek an identity that will provide for a stable definition for legal, social, and personal purposes.
There are a number of different factors which have been used to define "Indianness," and the source and potential use of the definition play a role in what definition is used.
Facets which characterize "Indianness" include culture, society, genes/biology, law, and self-identity.
An important question is whether the definition should be dynamic and changeable across time and situation, or whether it is possible to define "Indianness" in a static way.
The dynamic definitions may be based in how Indians adapt and adjust to dominant society, which may be called an "oppositional process" by which the boundaries between Indians and the dominant groups are maintained.
Another reason for dynamic definitions is the process of "ethnogenesis", which is the process by which the ethnic identity of the group is developed and renewed as social organizations and cultures evolve.
The question of identity, especially aboriginal identity, is common in many societies worldwide.
The future of their identity is extremely important to Native Americans.
Activist Russell Means bemoans the crumbling Indian way of life, the loss of traditions, languages, and sacred places.
He remarks that there may soon be no more Native Americans, only "Native American Americans, like Polish Americans and Italian Americans."
As the number of Indians has grown (ten times as many today as in 1890), the number who carry on tribal traditions shrinks (one fifth as many as in 1890), as has been common among many ethnic groups over time.
Means says, "We might speak our language, we might look like Indians and sound like Indians, but we won’t be Indians."
There are several way to define the notion of folding, giving different interpretations.
By convention, the napkin is always a unit square. 
In his original proof Turing formalized the concept of "algorithm" by introducing Turing machines.
However, the result is in no way specific to them; it applies equally to any other model of computation that is equivalent in its computational power to Turing machines, such as Markov algorithms, Lambda calculus, Post systems, register machines, or tag systems.
What is important is that the formalization allows a straightforward mapping of algorithms to some data type that the algorithm can operate upon.
For example, if the formalism lets algorithms define functions over strings (such as Turing machines) then there should be a mapping of these algorithms to strings, and if the formalism lets algorithms define functions over natural numbers (such as computable functions) then there should be a mapping of algorithms to natural numbers.
The mapping to strings is usually the most straightforward, but strings over an alphabet with "n" characters can also be mapped to numbers by interpreting them as numbers in an "n"-ary numeral system.