Slashdot Mirror


Nature Lover Vladimir Putin Flies With the Cranes

Hugh Pickens writes "Russian President Vladimir Putin is a nature lover. In 2007, the bare-chested president rode a horse through Siberia. In 2008, he fired a tranquilizer gun at a rare Siberian tiger. In 2010, he used a crossbow to shoot darts at an enormous whale in a fog-shrouded bay to collect tissue samples. Now Der Spiegel reports that on his way east to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, Putin stopped at the Arctic Circle to fulfill a mission for which the Kremlin says he prepared assiduously for a year and a half: helping to save an endangered species of crane. In a meadow some 2,000 kilometers northeast of Moscow, Putin donned a white jumpsuit and black aviator goggles before swinging himself into the seat of an ultralight aircraft and as loudspeakers played the recorded call of a mother crane, Putin lifted off and a group of orphaned white Siberian cranes followed, allowing the aircraft to lead them south toward their winter habitat. On the first attempt, only one of the young cranes followed him up, which Putin said was because a high tail wind had caused the hang glider to accelerate too fast. On the second attempt, five birds followed Putin, but only two stuck with him for the full 15-minute flight. Putin's flight, given many minutes of airtime on Russian television, provoked an array of contemptuous jokes on the Internet, one of the most popular being: 'So Putin is off to wintering with cranes. Does this mean he's not going to be back before spring?' The Russian president, however, hit back at critics telling reporters at the conclusion of APEC summit that, 'It's true that not all flew right away, but the ones that didn't fly were the weak cranes' apparently alluding to the errant ways of those involved in protests that have hit Russia over the last year."

285 comments

  1. Good ol' Putin by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If anyone wanted to know what a country would look like if a Bond villain actually won, look no farther than Russia.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Good ol' Putin by Askmum · · Score: 2
    2. Re:Good ol' Putin by Yomers · · Score: 1

      Dr Evil... Cranes... Nope, he would be rather swimming with sharks than.

    3. Re:Good ol' Putin by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Except if Putin were a Bond villian, it would turn out he'd implanted high explosives into the orphaned cranes and was using this "rescue mission" as a cover for attacking Buckingham Palace and the Pentagon with explosive cranes.

      Wait - you don't suppose...?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    4. Re:Good ol' Putin by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wonderful. Thank you, Slashdot, for posting an article glorifying this human piece of garbage. I suppose this is supposed to make us forget that Putin has jailed his critics, restricted the press, and rigged the electoral system to guarantee his victory? The man is nothing more than a bully, and these antics just show what a small, pathetic person he really is. The outlandish antics- tiger hunting, shooting whales, bare-chested horseback riding... he's doing it for the same reason as the guy who buys the really expensive, shiny, loud red pickup. He's compensating for deep insecurities. In his heart, he's nothing but a coward. If he weren't, he wouldn't have to spend all his time desperately trying to prove that he's such a badass. A real leader wouldn't spend all his time glorifying himself. And a real man wouldn't be so terrified by a bunch of girls in a punk band that he'd have to send them to prison for standing up to him.

    5. Re:Good ol' Putin by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If he weren't, he wouldn't have to spend all his time desperately trying to prove that he's such a badass.

      Nonsense. The guy is powerful beyond anyone's wildest dreams and is doing stuff that a) he enjoys; b) appeals as propaganda to the macho sort still prevalent in Russian.

      Russia has become precisely what the left expected Reagan+Thatcher wanted in toppling the USSR: a corrupt, undemocratic kleptocracy with few new freedoms but no social cohesion or state protections, where middlemen and government have their hands constantly down each other's pants, jacking each other off while they kick the common man. It is the neocon dream realised.

      Anyone who thinks that life wasn't better in Russia in the 1970s either 1) was not living there; 2) is one of the very few beneficiaries of business. (Hint: if you're a geek programmer living in Moscow, you're in category #2.) But the Soviet Russia will forever be remembered as it was in the late 1980s, which would be like judging capitalism only from the Great Depression, late 2008, the imperialist drive for profit, the Southern State free market definition of "person", Halliburton, &c., instead of all the good things it has achieved.

    6. Re:Good ol' Putin by janek78 · · Score: 1

      Wait. These articles are able to glorify Putin in anyone's eyes? I thought by now every new piece about how he saved a puppy from a burning house serves only to further ridicule him and make fun of him. He tries so hard that it became a kind of comedy performance. With a lot of these articles, couple years ago, you could mistake them from something from Onion.com. He became a caricature of himself, an iron-fisted evil dictator who's trying so hard people laugh at him.

    7. Re:Good ol' Putin by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Frankly, he's not our problem. He's Russia and possibly the EU's problem.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    8. Re:Good ol' Putin by mumblestheclown · · Score: 2

      Here's not "Good o' Putin." He's a kleptocratic, fascist dictator who has directly caused the death of at least thousands of innocents and whose greed and duplicitous use of right-win poplusm has caused untold millions, both in Russia and in other states, from Uzbekistan to Ukraine, from Syria to Georgia, from Estonia to Africa to suffer. Let's stop the "wink wink" bond jokes and kitsch cutesy comments and unhesitatingly and forcefully condemn this evil man AND THOSE IN THE CORRUPT RUSSIAN MIDDLE WHO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT HIM in the strongest way possible.

    9. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A "real leader"?

      It seems that real leaders everywhere in fact spend all the time on the run from their people. Lying to them, sending them off to war on false pretenses, restricting their freedom of speech, engaging in espionage against their own people, imprisoning them without trial, and conspiring with corporations and the elite to rape and pillage as much of the world's natural resources as they can possibly lay their hands on.

      The more time these people spend *NOT* doing any "leading", the less damage they can do.

    10. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christ, I thought this level of naivite is only posiible in bad holywood movies :(

    11. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If anyone wanted to know what a country would look like if a Bond villain actually won, look no farther than Russia.

      Why not Saudi Arabia?

    12. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike the US where people are detained indefinitely without trial, whistle-blowers are tortured and hunted down,anyone anywhere can be legally killed by drone on the US president's say so - all based on secret evidence presented in secret and the US is itching to start another war of aggression against Iran. Oh and the icing on the cake, the US is arming and training al Qaeda supporters in Syria. Jeez louise, what can possibly go wrong with that?

      Putin's real crime? - he stands up to the US.

    13. Re:Good ol' Putin by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My wife comes from Ukraine. It might not be great now was NOT better in the 1970s. I don't know where you get your facts from but I'd find a new source other than Marxism Today if I were you.

    14. Re:Good ol' Putin by Hentes · · Score: 1

      It's not as much compensating as fitting the expectations of the average Russian. Russia never really had democracy, an so they haven't developed a democratic culture. They don't want a democratically elected leader, they want a strong powerful one. Many of them still think nostalgically about Stalin. So if Putin wants to keep his public support, he has to constantly show power and build his cult of personality.

    15. Re:Good ol' Putin by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      He became a caricature of himself, an iron-fisted evil dictator who's trying so hard people laugh at him.

      Can't be all bad if you're allowed to laugh at him in public. Personally I would like to see a cage match between Putin and Palin, the cage should be mounted on an iceberg in the middle of the barring straight so that both nations can see it.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    16. Re:Good ol' Putin by X.25 · · Score: 1

      Here's not "Good o' Putin." He's a kleptocratic, fascist dictator who has directly caused the death of at least thousands of innocents and whose greed and duplicitous use of right-win poplusm has caused untold millions, both in Russia and in other states, from Uzbekistan to Ukraine, from Syria to Georgia, from Estonia to Africa to suffer. Let's stop the "wink wink" bond jokes and kitsch cutesy comments and unhesitatingly and forcefully condemn this evil man AND THOSE IN THE CORRUPT RUSSIAN MIDDLE WHO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT HIM in the strongest way possible.

      Tell me, how many innocents died due to actions of military directly controlled by various US presidents?

      Make a wild guess.

    17. Re:Good ol' Putin by Tom · · Score: 1

      What this actually proves is that humans are more complex creatures than pop psychology allows.

      We find it difficult to not label things and people. And we prefer simple categories. A fascist dictator who murders people and yet has a thing for the arts and supports starving artists just isn't something we have a category for, so we focus on the one and either forget or re-label the other.

      Of course it can't be that a good person does a bad thing - he was lead by circumstances into a situation he couldn't control. Of course it can't be that a bad person has redeeming qualities - they are only a front to cover up his crimes.

      Book hint: Out of Character.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    18. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh come on, this is all old news. Let's look on the bright side of it. Do you have any idea how important WW2 was for the fashion industry? I am looking forward to the resurgence of very large hats if nothing else. Probably boots as well

    19. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, but he could eventually become a problem if he continues down his path of oppression. Remember, Hitler wasn't an immediate problem for the USA either.

    20. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... what you're saying is that he's a significantly better leader than almost all previous leaders of USA? Well that's settled, then.

    21. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A fascist dictator who murders people and yet has a thing for the arts and supports starving artists just isn't something we have a category for

      Oh please! Protests to the contrary, such people only support art as an extension of their own ego, political or narcissitic needs. We see this in Hitlers "entartete Kunst" (degenerate art) where modern artists would, en-masse, flee the threat of persecution in Nazi Germany. We see it in Stalins censorship of the second part of Eisenhowers Ivan the Terrible.

      While everyone appreciates art according to their own aesthetic and world view; It's with good reason we remember Hitler and Stalin as genocidal maniacs rather than art lovers.

    22. Re:Good ol' Putin by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If anyone wanted to know what a country would look like if a Bond villain actually won, look no farther than Russia.

      You mean, besides when we had Kim-Jong Il and his hirarious sungrasses?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putin' deep into Palin?

    24. Re:Good ol' Putin by ZosX · · Score: 1

      fuck putin. that is all.

      those girls didn't deserve that.

    25. Re:Good ol' Putin by ZosX · · Score: 0

      The poster was referring to ukraine under russian soviet control and said his wife thought it was better in the 70s under communist rule. Maybe you should go read up on your history before you make pointless posts? :P

    26. Re:Good ol' Putin by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      If anyone wanted to know what a country would look like if a Bond villain actually won, look no farther than Russia.

      Why not Saudi Arabia?

      Or Pakistan, where a Christian girl with mental retardation is false charged with blasphemy against a religion that has no relation to her - Islam - and although she is innocent, and has been released from jail, is still facing real danger of being killed by Islamic fanatics

      That, my friend, is a country where Bond villian rules.

      Russia, on the other hand, pales in comparison.

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    27. Re:Good ol' Putin by Viol8 · · Score: 2

      Are you completely braindead as well as brainwashed? I assume you've heard of the soviet union? Jeez...

    28. Re:Good ol' Putin by flyneye · · Score: 1

      From an Animal Farm perspective, he would fly with pigs.
      Two wings good, four legs bad....

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    29. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But why then people in UK/USA protest so much about Putin and not about those? Russ-o-phobia? They believe they help their countries this way? Isn't it hypocrisy? In Russia you can protest (at least in theory) in S. Arabia it's forbidden (even in theory - but it's an "ally" in something). How can people with double standards sleep at night? Some random thoughts...

    30. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What ever is your MENSTUAL problem? There are stories on both Repubmocrat candidates, corporate whiz kids invading your privacy, black hats, Bill Gates and you're losing your stuff over a fluff piece on Putin. Look around, the garbage runs the show and you aren't doing anything in particular but whining about it. OMFG, take a F**KING pill!

    31. Re:Good ol' Putin by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "said his wife thought it was better in the 70s under communist rule"

      Other way around. Her opinion is it was a lot worse then bar a few things here and there. She still remembers food and fuel queues and of having to be very careful what you said in public. The only people who pine for those days are deluded western communists who can spout their rubbish thanks to the free society that was never enjoyed by the citizens of the USSR.

      Isn't it odd how these self style "intellectual" lefties loved the idea of communism except when applied to themselves since hardly any actually went to live in the USSR (and even the ones who did usually did only to escape being tried for treason , eg philby & co). You'd think if it was such a workers paradise they'd have been on the first plane to Moscow as soon as they were out of short trousers.

    32. Re:Good ol' Putin by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

      The outlandish antics- tiger hunting, shooting whales, bare-chested horseback riding... he's doing it for the same reason as the guy who buys the really expensive, shiny, loud red pickup. He's compensating for ...

      I bow to your razor sharp analysis and take my hat off to you. Would you spend some of your precious time and analyse my glorious leader, the old Silvio? In his spare time he er..., well..., hunts and concurs. Although I suspect the prey and trophies are convinced to surrender with incentives. What's he compensating for?

      --

      I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
    33. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasn't alive at the time, but it's always seemed to me that most of the success that Russia had during the 60s/70s came largely from draining the resources of the ex-Soviet bloc countries (Ukraine etc) at their expense.

    34. Re:Good ol' Putin by ZosX · · Score: 2

      I have a friend that lived in unkraine under the soviets and actually thought it was better. Of course he's totally insane, so there is that too.

    35. Re:Good ol' Putin by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      That, my friend, is a country where Bond villian rules.

      Russia, on the other hand, pales in comparison.

      You have to have some sort of ideosyncratic affectations and Rube Goldberg plots to go along with your general miasma of evil in order to be a 'Bond villian'. Having at least one henchman with identifiable qualities and a suitably snappy uniform for your expendable muscle is also a good idea. Neither Pakistan nor Saudi Arabia seem to remotely qualify on those counts. They get plenty of good, mundane, (halal)meat-and-potatoes evil done; but they don't really have any good cults of personality or sinister hijinks to go along with them. In post-Soviet Russia, you have a mediagenic stream of macho stunts by Putin, with occasional cuts to the Medvedev for comic relief, and the odd mysterious death among the living-in-posh-exile Russian plutocrats in London for a change of scene.

      By contrast, neither Pakistan nor Saudi Arabia even rises to the level of having personally identifiable villains. Anonymous crowds of angry guys with scruffy beards? Sure, plenty of those; but no larger-than-life characters to work with.

    36. Re:Good ol' Putin by lisaparratt · · Score: 1

      Good Kings doing Bad Things - reminds me of 1066 And All That.

    37. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Morons like you are utterly unhinged.

      Look around and who has been killing, oppressing, invading, and corrupting around the world. Hint: Russia does not rate very highly compared with some.

    38. Re:Good ol' Putin by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Libya used to be pretty good as well. In particular, Gaddafi's Amazonian Guard pushed him well into Bond Villian territory on style points alone, and his identifiable cult of personality and history of nefarious plotting were icing on the cake.

      The new guys may or may not actually be less villainous; but they certainly are less colorful.

    39. Re:Good ol' Putin by Tom · · Score: 1

      Oh please! Protests to the contrary, such people only support art as an extension of their own ego, political or narcissitic needs.

      I refuse these generic, bland statements.

      If you are talking about one particular person, we can evaluate the evidence and make an informed guess. But saying that all "such people" do things "only" because of (insert favourite pop psychology nonsense) is not a supportable statement.

      All of us have good and bad sides. People can be loving fathers and yet cheat on their wife. Or they can be animal loving, charity-giving, very civilized guys who hit their kids or enjoy BDSM in the bedroom. People can hate porn and violence and yet support gun laws, or the other way around. People can do drugs while objecting to smoking.

      We are complex creatures, and simple statements covering large groups of people are at best a rough approximation of an average quality.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    40. Re:Good ol' Putin by somersault · · Score: 1

      You'd think if it was such a workers paradise they'd have been on the first plane to Moscow as soon as they were out of short trousers.

      Well, there is the teensy matter of the language difference..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    41. Re:Good ol' Putin by etash · · Score: 1

      most people would enjoy the kind of activities he is doing, even if they are designed to appeal to the average russian to give a rise to his. I suppose you'd prefer a russia led by a yeltsin-like drunkard very easily manipulated and a russia in a state of a bordello where everyone has his ways with it. I also suppose that you have a degree in psychology. sure the things you mention he has done are mostly true. So? People there are tough, a country like russia cannot be ruled with our western idealistic democracy, IF you want to have a sovereign country. last but not least, putting 2 girls in jail, killing a defecting agent (which every self respecting secret agency would do to set an example ) etc etc are not as much of a damage as let's say the dead iraqis, afghanis etc. etc.

    42. Re:Good ol' Putin by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 0

      Implying that the Ukraine was ruled like Russia under Soviet control.

      Implying that the Ukraine is ruled like Russia now. (especially when you're talking about freedom to speak your mind!)

      Implying that a "food and fuel queue" is better than there being food and fuel which many people cannot afford.

      On a personal note - if, Violet, you and your partner are lesbians, I appreciate that things were much more difficult in the Ukraine in the '70s. But oppression on grounds of orientation wasn't unusual across the world until the last ~20 years.

    43. Re:Good ol' Putin by khallow · · Score: 1

      Russia has become precisely what the left expected Reagan+Thatcher wanted in toppling the USSR: a corrupt, undemocratic kleptocracy with few new freedoms but no social cohesion or state protections, where middlemen and government have their hands constantly down each other's pants, jacking each other off while they kick the common man. It is the neocon dream realised.

      As others have noted, what we have now does beat what it was (most especially, I might add, for those outside of Russia!), no matter which decade of the USSR you cherry pick.

    44. Re:Good ol' Putin by vovick · · Score: 1

      You have no idea what you are talking about. The only two kinds of people I know that were in a more profitable condition back then were members of the government machine (an incredible amount of people, to be fair) and some scientists that received more funding for their expensive research (this is the reason in my understanding why many of them, especially the older ones, support the Communist party nowadays). I certainly am not saying that every other person got better after the collapse, but everyone I know in several cities spread around the ex-USSR did (except for Grozny which was reportedly a very prosperous and beautiful city several decades ago, but it seems to be an exception and not directly related to the collapse). Since the collaps people got an ability to move around the globe, people can now hear about all disasters happening in their country without the curtain of secrecy, people can go in a store and buy books, electronics and meat for affordable prices and there is no shortage in their supply. Not saying all this is the merit of the current government, but it indeed appears to be the result of destroying the old system.

    45. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because all of their grain was sold to help Russian industrial development. OP didn't claim that life was also better in Ukraine.

    46. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putin is alright.

    47. Re:Good ol' Putin by vovick · · Score: 1

      As an addition to the post, I'll note that I described the situation in cities. The situation with villages and farms may be different (from my alien point of view it didn't change much after the collapse), but by the end of 80s the urban population was the majority (~75%).

    48. Re:Good ol' Putin by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Anyone who thinks that life wasn't better in Russia in the 1970s either 1) was not living there; 2) is one of the very few beneficiaries of business. (Hint: if you're a geek programmer living in Moscow, you're in category #2.)

      Well, life in the Soviet Union was of uneven quality, on geographical as well as political grounds. There were certainly places where life was better then than it is now. There were also many places where it was worse then than it is now. I spent time in both Moscow and Leningrad (as it was then called) for a period as a foreigner in the early 1980s, and formed opinions based on what I saw and what I was told by actual Russians. I'd class it as weird as much as good or bad.

      Taking the "good" side first, I saw no particular poverty (unlike most large Western cities), and the people were all fairly well-dressed and looked healthy enough. The streets were quite tidy, just like Nordic cities of today. Also, the people I met all had jobs or sinecures of some sort, and even the lowliest (cleaners) had some spare money. Basic rents were controlled and cheap, so was food.

      Taking the "bad" side, those I talked to (including our translator) said that it was a privilege to live in "display" cities like Moscow or Leningrad. Moreover, if they lost this privilege, life would be much tougher in the backwoods, and even keeping well-fed could be a challenge. Internal travel was highly restricted, and our translator needed internal permission papers for every place we visited or spent the night. The reason everyone had spare cash was because there were no luxuries available, and there was not much to spend money on after paying for food and rent - except for booze. Booze was cheap and plentiful, and consumed in prodigious amounts.

      Then there was the "weird" side. Whenever we went to a touristy place, we were met by well-dressed most unbeggar-like kids who were determined to haggle - they gave us badges with Lenin and suchlike, and we gave them Wrigley's chewing gum. I still have many of those badges, with their prices embossed on them from manufacture. The staff at every hotel wanted to haggle over our jeans - Levi's only, forget the designer shit - and paid up to 150roubles a pair in cash (a rouble was worth more than a dollar at the time). To break the ice when meeting groups of Russians in a business context, we learned to bring along a few bottles of vodka - it turned the event from a confrontation between potential foes into a meeting of long-lost friends after a couple of bottles were empty. On one of our first restaurant visits, we forgot to "bribe" or tip-in-advance the head waiter, so we ended up waiting a long time for a table. We were then informed that only the set meal was available, and that due to time constraints, we could not have the dessert but that the price was unchanged. The entire restaurant staff came out to indulge in "self-criticism" before we left, just to rub in the lesson and let the other guests know what cheap-skates we were...

      Another anecdote: a colleague left a party early and very drunk in late winter. He woke up the next day in our hotel on the other side of Moscow, with no knowledge or recollection of how he got there (and he didn't know the way). Our translator said that probably the police found him drunk and unconscious on the street, and took him to the correct hotel based on the ID in his pocket. She said that regular Russians would have spent the night in a police cell and would have been released early in the morning (a cold shower for the hangover was mentioned, but perhaps jokingly). Apparently, the main work for the police at night was picking up drunks before they froze to death. Most of my anecdotes from that period tend toward the scandalous; that one is tame enough.

      For a Westerner interacting with regular people, the weirdness overwhelmed the goodness and the badness.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    49. Re:Good ol' Putin by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      I suppose this is supposed to make us forget that Putin has jailed his critics, restricted the press, and rigged the electoral system to guarantee his victory?

      No, no! It's supposed to make us know he does this all in AWESOME ways. As far as dictators go, and my country had its fair share of them, I'd have appreciated it if they at least had been entertaining. The way things are, Putin is posed to eventually chose his successor by organizing a Mortal Kombat-style championship. Wouldn't THAT be fun? :-D

      And a real man wouldn't be so terrified by a bunch of girls in a punk band that he'd have to send them to prison for standing up to him.

      Well, as I read on the case it seems they were condemned on some kind of anti-hate-speech. Russian judges don't seem to distinguish between, say, an antisemite band storming a synagogue to chant white-power songs, and an anti-christian storming a church to chant anti-whatever-it-is-they-do-in-churches-over-there songs, punishing both kinds of cases (as well as anti-muslims storming mosques, religious nuts storming atheist reunions etc.) under the same general rule. IMHO, as long as the rule were applied fairly across the board, there'd be no reason for a distinction to be made exempting "anti-christians in churches" from it. So, the question is: is it applied fairly around?

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    50. Re:Good ol' Putin by dunkelfalke · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As a former Soviet citizen I can attest that for great many people lives indeed were better back then than they are now. Even with the food and fuel queues. What good is all the abundance if you cannot afford anything? USSR, for some time, was certainly not the worst place to live.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    51. Re:Good ol' Putin by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      you are a pathetic individual, you shouldn't be called a human, you are slime.

      Lol.

      Life in the 1970s in USSR? For who exactly?

      For the average man or woman, and the child with potential.

      For the people in the concentration camps in the former USSR in 1970s?

      How's America doing with its private prison population?

      For the incarcerated in the mental institutions,

      While the USSR was certainly ~15 years behind the West in mental healthcare, I strongly recommend a brief study of mental health up to the '60s in Britain or America. Especially for black people in the latter.

      because they were not in lockstep with the party in USSR in 1970s?

      Fair point. Better to drum up false rape accusations. Or just lock 'em up offshore - even further from justice, then!

      For the young kids that were forced to march into Afghanistan in the late 1970s in the USSR?

      I guess "Afghanistan" has more syllables than "Vietnam" so there is that difference. At least Russia has no conscripts today... oh wait.

      For the people living on forver Soviet farms, resembling stone age villages in the 1970s (well, actually this part didn't change much since then).

      You're almost right - those living on farms in the '70s are still living on the same farms in worse conditions today.

      Maybe it was for all the people whose dreams of becoming something more than just a fucking cog in that meat grinder?

      Meritocracy in the USSR was far stronger than in the West. A talented mathematician or engineer would be nurtured and rise to the top (compared with Soviet mathematics and science exams, America's and Britain's secondary education was and now is even more of a fucking joke). Even most party officials were ex-peasants or ex-workers rather than sons of former presidents.

      I have no words to express my disgust with the slime like you.

      It is typical for an irrational position to be defended with fear and anger.

    52. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So yes, it's our problem. Maybe not your's but not everyone is from "where you are" (I'm guessing, somewhere in america?)

      And always remember: You can see russia from Alaska!

      How someone can think that if a empire as russia goes full 1984-zarian-dicatorship with the technological means of the post 2010s isn't "their" problem is beyond me, though. You don't happen to be Unknown Lamer? You're equally clueless.

      PS: Awesome how slashdot just got trolled. Do you even think before putting up a story or do you have the "controversy" this necessary to survive?

    53. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must work for the BBC?

    54. Re:Good ol' Putin by bullgod · · Score: 1

      Our?

      Since when did ./ become the preserve of non-Russians and non-Europeans?

    55. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose this is supposed to make us forget that Putin has jailed his critics, restricted the press, and rigged the electoral system to guarantee his victory?

      Shh! Keep it down! Who knows how many congressmen might be listening and taking notes? Are you insane?!

    56. Re:Good ol' Putin by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      So, for example, all pension rights and right to employment were preserved, with availability guaranteeing affordability?

      If you say everyone is better off, your friends are evidently not representative. Of course, I would not expect visitors to Slashdot to represent the average in America, let alone the average in the former USSR. You can meet people in the South of England who can all honestly say that they were "better off under Thatcher" while many in the north honestly can say exactly the opposite. The key is that the majority are not in the South.

      Can people really hear about what's going on in Russia without a "curtain of secrecy"? Is your opinion that Russian press is so free? You may say we have the Internet, but that is so much noise - and noise which Putin intends soon to filter in his favour. At least shortwave radio and samizdat was selective, and all you had to do was a bit of frequency hopping to escape the jamming. (Contrast the UK where shortwave broadcasts have been obliterated in cities with wideband interference from allowing the sale of knowingly non-conforming PLT.)

      Books? Yes. While the West has always gone too far in protecting the freedom to of private publishers to own the presses even when they come out with any old shit, the USSR was always too paranoid. But having information per se is of no use if you are powerless to turn your knowledge into action.

      Affordability of electronics appeared only from the '80s globally, and that was thanks to a combination of tech advances and cheap labour.

    57. Re:Good ol' Putin by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thank you. It is sometimes hard to explain that "abundance" does not mean "affordability" - indeed, one of the reasons a product may seem abundant is that it is still sitting on the shelves because there are not enough people who can actually pay for it! It is quite different from a rationing system where everyone receives a share of everything, even though it doesn't result in the queues so frequently mentioned by propagandists.

      Marx was early to suggest that capitalism would degenerate into a system where there would be vast production of items that many could not afford. On this he was quite right. Maybe he missed the potential for extending absurd amounts of credit, but that's just given us an extra problem to prolong the pain.

    58. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our? Since when did /. [FTFY] become the preserve of non-Russians and non-Europeans?

      >> The US government needs to...
      > Not our problem

      Follow conversations much?

    59. Re:Good ol' Putin by udachny · · Score: 2

      (a rouble was worth more than a dollar at the time).

      - I would like to qualify this statement with an explanation. NOBODY in Russia was allowed to deal in dollars OR gold. Nobody. Such deals were punishable by law with very lengthy prison sentences and confiscation of all private possessions, sometimes also by death.

      Due to this, the black market for dollars (or any other foreign money that was called the 'valuta') was almost non-existent among the general public, it was of a very limited use.

      Because of that fact only, the government was able to set an artificial, official exchange rate, that had NOTHING to do with the value of Soviet rubbles, nothing at all, the rubbles were printed by the gov't, trillions of rubbles per year. That's the reason everybody was paid similar salaries and similar pensions but there was nothing much to buy in the stores, because nobody really produces anything but everybody gets paid this nearly fixed amount of money, nobody wants to sell.

      We had black markets for products and when people had access to foreign goods, they normally sold them inside the country for multiples of year salaries of general public.

      Imagine buying a foreign stereo system, maybe 1000 rubbles, when the most of the salaries are in the range of 60-120 rubbles per month. Try and figure that out, how dis some people manage?

      That's because even in the most totalitarian states some people manage, there is always division to those who can do something and those who can't. In case of USSR people were stealing quite a lot from their places of work (it was very profitable to be a store manager or a factory director or a farm director, but NOT because you produced to satisfy market demand, but because you had access to items that you could physically remove, steal and sell on a black market).

    60. Re:Good ol' Putin by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "What good is all the abundance if you cannot afford anything?"

      Last time I visited Kiev I didn't notice anyone starving in the street and there were plenty of shops selling electronic equipment and mobile phones. Also my in-laws manage to survive and have money to spare and they're not rich , just normal people working in factories.

    61. Re:Good ol' Putin by Viol8 · · Score: 2

      "Implying that the Ukraine was ruled like Russia under Soviet control."

      It was.

      "Implying that the Ukraine is ruled like Russia now."

      It is. In case you hadn't noticed the Orange revolution failed and Timoshenko is now a political prisoner of the former mafia thug - now president - Victor Yanukovich.

      "which many people cannot afford."

      They can afford it. I suggest you visit there one day. Sure, there are poor people but not on the scale of india or africa and they're a long way from starving.

      "On a personal note - if, Violet, you and your partner are lesbians,"

      LOL. Violate , not violet ;o) But you could say I'm a lesbian in a mans body!

    62. Re:Good ol' Putin by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, I'm reminded of a political cartoon I saw about 15 years ago, that had 3 pictures of a depressed-looking man with a glass of vodka in his hand. The first was captioned "Russia under the Czars", the second "Russia under Communism", and the third "Russia under democracy".

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    63. Re:Good ol' Putin by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      I have a friend who grew up in Georgia, and she tells me the common population wishes the west would take their corruption and money and weapons and get the fuck out... of course, she's a highly educated intellectual who grew up with a mother who taught university and believed in western style capitalism and a father who taught university and believed in easterns style communism, so all those pictures of the police tear gassing the population she sent me were probably photoshopped...

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    64. Re:Good ol' Putin by FilatovEV · · Score: 1
      Although "Putin has jailed his critics, restricted the press, and rigged the electoral system" is the kind of the story most likely to appear in the Western press, it is a debatable opinion at best.

      Although there are a lot of Putin's critics in Russia, yet, a good part of the population (over 60% per Levada Center polls) actually support him.

      Personally, I voted for Putin. And not just because I love him so much (I do not), but because the opposition is too weak. And it's weak not because its leaders are being jailed (they are not), but because they do not understand demands of folks like me.

      Lastly, although I understand that you are a victim of Western MSM propaganda, I find attacks on the President of my country personally offensive. Like it or not, but VVP was elected by over 60% of voters who took part in the election. Either you in the West accept this little fact, or Russia would be better off with China.

      I ask you: This is not fun. Attacks on Putin do not help anybody. Please, stop.

    65. Re:Good ol' Putin by dunkelfalke · · Score: 3, Informative

      I personally know a few people living in Kiev. They hardly get buy, living on $200 per month. Sure, there are a lot of shops selling fancy stuff, but these catering to the rich people since middle class is almost not existant in Ukraine. And if you didn't notice anyone starving on the street, then you have only visited the tourist places, not the back street alleys.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    66. Re:Good ol' Putin by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Well, that is something Viol8 just does not get, see the comment about "there were plenty of shops selling electronic equipment and mobile phones".

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    67. Re:Good ol' Putin by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Piece of slimy pig waste you are.

      I love Russian insults! You make me almost want to respond in Russian!

      1970s wasn't the worst in USSR history,

      Of course. Just as it took Victorian Britain, where children were killed for stealing bread, or pre-Civil War America, where half a population were treated as animals, to give us the UK and US of today. But Stalin was over within three decades and his industrialisation saved as many lives comes WW2 as he allowed to die in the decade before, while the dark ages of British and American capitalism lasted for over a century.

      to have the same history repeat in USA, and so when 80 years from the start it also collapses

      Will this be because there is a bigger superpower to poison the nation with its politics and then engage it in a wasteful military conflict?

      when your relatives are wasted, murdered actually in an equivalent of USSR 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s,

      My father was born in the middle of the Spanish Civil War during the siege of Madrid. Lots of my relatives were "wasted". If you want to go for the "my family had it worse than your family" bullshit, you have picked the wrong person, comrade.

      when it was the iron curtain,

      I cannot travel the world or go up into space because I do not have money. Either way, when I try to board the plane or the boat, I will be stopped by men with guns. Whether my pass says "dollar" or "visa" on it is irrelevant if I have neither. The majority of Americans have never left their country, let alone some bloc of nations.

      the iron fist and for the people

      And how sad it was that Stalin was so paranoid. But the advancement of the USSR was at a pace incomparable with the West, and there was no false hope as given to those today who have a voice but which is easily drowned out.

      who later on had the terrible disadvantage to live in conditions that came out of the destruction of their former 'glory' of a country.

      You are like the son who blames his father for being killed.

    68. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Piece of slimy pig waste you are. 1970s wasn't the worst in USSR history, do you know what it took to get to 1970s in USSR history, cocksucker? 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and 1960s.

      It is typical for an irrational position to be defended with fear and anger.

      - I don't normally will it upon anybody, but I think now it would be a great teaching experience for you, to have the same history repeat in USA, and so when 80 years from the start it also collapses, because such things always collapse, and when your relatives are wasted, murdered actually in an equivalent of USSR 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, then 40 ears later, some despicable slime ball, who never actually knew anything in his life started theorizing on how much better it was, when it was the iron curtain, the iron fist and for the people, who later on had the terrible disadvantage to live in conditions that came out of the destruction of their former 'glory' of a country.

      Your brains a mush.

      EVERY statistic suggests that Russians are much worse off than they were 40 years ago. Poverty, violent crime, alcoholism, infant mortality, corruption...you can scream and stomp your feet all you want, but the numbers contradict your vitriol.

    69. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are talking about one particular person, we can evaluate the evidence and make an informed guess. But saying that all "such people" do things "only" because of (insert favourite pop psychology nonsense) is not a supportable statement.

      Yes it is, you're context was "fascist dictator" which I expanded to encompass another murderous totalitarian.

      People can be loving fathers and yet cheat on their wife.

      Unless these people are married to their daughter, the two are not mutually exclusive. Even then, sex is not love.

      Or they can be animal loving, charity-giving, very civilized guys who hit their kids or enjoy BDSM in the bedroom.

      And in the case of someone who beats their own children yet gives to charity, the public persona is an extension of their ego. How someones sexual preferences have any correlation to charity-giving I have no idea. Animal loving... well each to their own. Seriously, there's multiple accounts of psychopathic individuals who cared for small animals, not that doing so makes one a psychopath.

      People can hate porn and violence and yet support gun laws, or the other way around. People can do drugs while objecting to smoking.

      And they can do so without logical inconsistencies. Where we do see logical inconsistencies we can and do make assumptions about a persons psyche. We're a social species, we evaluate people on availiable evidence all the time and did so long before the advent of what you term "pop psychology".

    70. Re:Good ol' Putin by udachny · · Score: 1

      1970s wasn't the worst in USSR history,

      Of course. Just as it took Victorian Britain,

      Victorian Britain, the USSR history.

      Everything I said still applies, you are what you are.

    71. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - I don't normally will it upon anybody, but I think now it would be a great teaching experience for you, to have the same history repeat in USA, and so when 80 years from the start it also collapses, because such things always collapse

      Considering the "collapse" of USSR is followed by Putin, I doubt GP will suffer or learn anything.

      See, the "collapse" of USSR didn't affect the privileged elite (i.e. Putin) much. Putin probably wouldn't have gained power without the collapse. The collapse was a good thing for him. Given how GP thinks the USSR was great, he's probably one of those elites. So he'll do just fine.

      It's the poor and middle class who would suffer. Businesses suffer as they can't invest, as the economy is destroyed.

      In other words, people like YOU will suffer. You're cutting off your nose to spite your face, while people like Putin just laugh as they run away with the money (and they'll probably reappear later and do it all over again)

      It is not him whose brain is a mush. It is yours.

    72. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you're a puppet of the West if you believe those criminal women are innocent babes.

      I'd like to say "grow a brain and think for yourself" ... but you won't. You'll continue to believe the half-truths you read in the mass media.

      Putin has undone much of the damage done to Russia immediately following the fall of the Soviet Union.

    73. Re:Good ol' Putin by vovick · · Score: 1

      So, for example, all pension rights and right to employment were preserved, with availability guaranteeing affordability?

      My anecdotal evidence suggests that pensioners have always had tough time. Right now the minimum pension is 290 usd. This is a small sum, but it is enough to pay the rent, water and electricity, simple food and occasional expenses like new clothing or replacing a broken TV set. Medicare is free and medicine (though usually simple and not the most efficient) are also free. This is miserable, but bearable existence. This is pretty much the same that was before, though more monetised.
      I have no understaning of the right to work, but the unemployment rate right now is roughly 6%, this is almost two times less than the EU. The unemplyment money is almost nonexistent, but some simple vacations like a caretaker or a social worker are always open and the government is making sure you can get at least _some_ employment. If you are sick and cannot work, you get disability tuition, but it is as small as the pension. Again, this is miserable, but not different from the soviet times.

      Can people really hear about what's going on in Russia without a "curtain of secrecy"?

      I was referring to non-governmental affairs. The governement is as secretive as it was before, but it cannot hide important events happening around the country thanks to the modern communication technologies. It can and it does paint it black and white as it finds more fitting in the news, but you do get to hear or read about stuff like strikes, crashes and arrest if you want to. If you don't, you have the option to watch one of the national channels and be brainwashed the same way as you were before. I agree that improvements in the freedom of speech are partially due to technology and not the collapse.

      that was thanks to a combination of tech advances and cheap labour.

      Are you informed about the problem with the centralized goods distribution in USSR? Technology was there, (at least some) people had the money, but the stores were empty since not enough electronics (not only electronics, but books and some food as well) were assigned to the region. This resulted in the notorious day-long queues and people desperately trying to get a job in the said chain just to share the distributed goods to their relatives. This is something that should never happen in a capitalist society.

    74. Re:Good ol' Putin by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm sure he's correct. Did he have direct ties to the party? Depending on what social class he was a part of, he could have lived with an upper-middle class to rich life style.

      Oh yes, even under communist nations not everyone is treated the same. Far from it in fact.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    75. Re:Good ol' Putin by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Yanukovich is not the nicest man, but his power is not nearly as consolidated as Putin's. Your wild assertion that the Ukraine was treated like Russia under the USSR is simply nonsense - and you're certainly the first person with any Ukrainian association I've heard to claim it!

      If you think that all people of the modern Ukraine are "a long way from starving", you must be visiting Kiev with your eyes closed. To put it in terms you may understand, you remind me of the Cuban fanboy who thinks that Castro's healthcare is accurately represented by the modern hospitals set up for foreigners.

    76. Re:Good ol' Putin by skegg · · Score: 1

      Is it possible that the media that you're consuming paints such a negative portrait of him?

      Putin has reclaimed many of the assets that were pillaged after the fall of the USSR. Assets bought at deeply discounted prices to the detriment of the Russian populace. I'm talking about oil, gas, etc.

      I think Putin is being cast as a villain in the West because he's not allowing influential parties to rape Russia. He's standing in their way from making countless billions, and they want him gone. It's as simple as that.

    77. Re:Good ol' Putin by crazyjj · · Score: 1

      Putin has jailed his critics, restricted the press, and rigged the electoral system to guarantee his victory? The man is nothing more than a bully, and these antics just show what a small, pathetic person he really is.

      Wait, are you talking about Putin, or George W. Bush?

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    78. Re:Good ol' Putin by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      The real problem is, that people are strange things, we are not pure good or pure evil, we fall somewhere in the middle. Why can't we reward people for doing the right thing while punishing people for doing the wrong things.

      Part of the problem is when we have hero's they will let us down, because they are human beings, Now Putin is damn close to being a nasty dictator, but you can admire his environmental activism, at the same time think that he is way to dangerous of a person to be president... Again!!

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    79. Re:Good ol' Putin by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

      jailed his critics, restricted the press, and rigged the electoral system to guarantee his victory?

      Don't get too upset with Putin. That's pretty much par for the course in Democracy too.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    80. Re:Good ol' Putin by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Hitler wasn't an immediate problem for the US. Japan was, and due to a complex set of treaties, that means once we declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on us, thus we declared war on Germany.

      I think on a particular level the US wanted Germany to defeat the Soviet Union, Stalin was just as bad as Hitler. However due to Japan, that mean we needed to team up with the USSR against Germany, so we needed to wast American lives and resources, then we still had the problem with the USSR.
       

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    81. Re:Good ol' Putin by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      the government was able to set an artificial, official exchange rate, that had NOTHING to do with the value of Soviet rubbles

      Q: How does the modern economist determine the value of something?
      A: When a buyer and seller agree on a price.

      Did the Soviet Union force anyone to buy or sell roubles?

      but there was nothing much to buy in the stores, nobody really produces anything

      The fact that you're alive today confirms that people produced. You paint such an obviously false picture.

      but everybody gets paid this nearly fixed amount of money, nobody wants to sell.

      That's silly. Not every worker is incentivised by the (usually false) promise that they'll get paid more if they sell more.

      In case of USSR people were stealing quite a lot from their places of work... you could physically remove, steal and sell on a black market

      You should come to the West - everyone here has the opportunity to do that too, but the stealing occurs on a much grander scale than just nicking a stereo!

      As to your message, are you saying that Russians are somehow inherently more corrupt, or is it merely that you particularly enjoyed the company of thieves?

    82. Re:Good ol' Putin by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I think a mandatory trip to a 3rd world nation should be required for every HS senior student. And not just to the popular photo op tourist attractions. But rather the outer city and country side too. Assuming the hosting nation would even allow for that exposure.

      If by then you don't come back to America, Canada, or Western Europe down on your knees kissing the soil, then you have no compassion let alone human soul.

      I honestly think such a program would dramatically reshape our world view of others and appreciate what it means to hold western values of education, production, and civility.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    83. Re:Good ol' Putin by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "you must be visiting Kiev with your eyes closed."

      Have you ever visited there at all? No , didn't think so.

      Get back to me when you have.

    84. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He seems to have more integrity than a lot of Western leaders, although that's not saying very much.

    85. Re:Good ol' Putin by bossk538 · · Score: 1

      Patton did, but as recently revealed, FDR was well aware of the Katyn Massacre by 1945 and chose to suppress the information and give Stalin whatever he wanted instead.

    86. Re:Good ol' Putin by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 2

      Hm, it sounds like a propaganda opportunity ripe for abuse.

      "It may be shit for you, but you should just shut up and take it because it could be even worse!"

      We want to get better - not compare ourselves with the worst.

      FWIW, it was travel to third world countries which finally turned me from a spoilt rich kid who quite liked the West (even though I often questioned it, at least academically) into someone who despises it. The straw which broke the proverbial camel's back was a stay in Ph on business, living in the executive level of one of the nicest hotels in the area, enjoying a marble bathroom and raised swimming pool, a room at the front offering a rich buffet of infinite food while its back looked over a shanty town from which children would emerge to beg for money on the streets. Meanwhile my co-workers would bring prostitutes back to their rooms in the evenings, promising one that he would take her back with him.

      I resigned from that job soon after returning home.

      Anyone who says that rational self-interest lifts everyone up is a liar or an idiot.

    87. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      HEY! Don't you talk about France that way!

    88. Re:Good ol' Putin by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Oh, it's definitely not good in Georgia now. On the other hand, it wouldn't be tear gas the police would be using under Soviet Rule.

    89. Re:Good ol' Putin by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      I suppose Pussy Riot.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    90. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not doing it beacuse he likes animals. He's doing it soley for the media, to increase his rep with the Russian voters.

      Crazy : Why is he still in charge of Russia? Did the majority really vote him in...

      I guess the people that oppose this get put away. It's a real shame that the democratic world isn't doing anything about it. But then who really has a right to interfere with another country?

      It's up to the people to stand up for their rights but most people suspect (correctly I would say) that even if Russia started doing bad things and jailing the demonstrators, the world will just sit by and watch.

    91. Re:Good ol' Putin by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      You keep denying what I tell you, so I imagine any personal account I give will receive a response like "the children you saw were just trying to trick tourists!" (I've been told that one before after beggars have asked me for money) or maybe "they are just drunks in the street!"

      I could give you links to journalist accounts or films concerning homelessness in Kiev. I could give you academic research. Hell, you could find much of it with a quick search yourself.

      But perhaps you'll say that they died from exposure or disease or crime. Sure, they were "hungry", and that might have made them desperate or weak, but that's not the same, is it?

      How far will you go to justify the deaths in Kiev?

    92. Re:Good ol' Putin by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Well, what can I say? There is profit in revenge, but not for the one who seeks it.

    93. Re:Good ol' Putin by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      Of course there's homelessness there. There's homelessness in london for gods sake. But its hardly 3rd world level and in fact I see more beggars and street kids in london than I ever did in Kiev. Its not like I stay in some posh hotel and only notice the locals when I step over them at the entrance either. I stay with my inlaws in a standard tower block in a standard suburb and they work in factories so they're not rich. If that doesn't give me a taste of normal life there then nothing will. I somehow doubt the authorities clean up the streets just before I come wandering along.

    94. Re:Good ol' Putin by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      You could have merged all three panels and had one guy with one glass of vodka and just put "Russia under the Chekists".

      The USSR and current Russia were not socialist or democratic paradises, they are essentially Secret Police states. Although Chekist is a term from Soviet times, you could probably say that the same thing goes for when it was under the Tsars too. People in Russia like strong authority and believe that that authority can protect them, in return, those sorts of state organizations crop up to provide that.

      To their own credit, former Chekists like Putin are nationalistic and do care about their country. However, they feel they are the proper guardians of the people and the people cannot be trusted to run their own affairs. Their view is paternalistic and even benevolent, but they will not shrink away from use of any and all force to get done what they think needs to get done.

    95. Re:Good ol' Putin by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your feedback.

      This is miserable, but bearable existence. This is pretty much the same that was before, though more monetised.

      Allowances were replaced with cash payments which do not keep pace with now unregulated prices.

      some simple vacations like a caretaker or a social worker are always open and the government is making sure you can get at least _some_ employment.

      Does the government still guarantee to give everyone work?

      Technology was there, (at least some) people had the money, but the stores were empty since not enough electronics (not only electronics, but books and some food as well) were assigned to the region. [...] This is something that should never happen in a capitalist society.

      And yet sometimes shortages do occur in a capitalist society. Logistical problems are solved with technocratic solutions, i.e. an appropriate algorithm. They work equally well on a computer operated by Comrade Bob or owned by Bob Inc.: compare, say, the NHS and Walmart, two organisations heavily involved in logistics, one state-owned and the other private, yet both usually able to get stuff to the right place.

    96. Re:Good ol' Putin by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      But its hardly 3rd world level

      I am not comparing with 3rd world level but with 22+ years ago. (Well, OK, I wasn't. In my first post that you responded to I explicitly mentioned Russia. I don't know as much about the Ukraine and my understanding is that Kiev was not so well off, so maybe standards of living in the Ukraine have not reduced as much as in Russia.)

      more street kids in london than I ever did in Kiev.

      Unless you are very old, you are making shit up. It's true that during its most capitalist period in mid-C19, there were estimates of thousands of street children in London. It remains true that there are some 16-17 year olds sleeping rough, as one would expect in the rich, founding city of capitalism, but it would be hard to "see" them in the sense of knowing they are e.g. 17 and not 18.

      I stay with my inlaws in a standard tower block in a standard suburb and they work in factories so they're not rich.

      To compare, some of my family used to live in a "standard tower block" in Madrid in the 1980s and you could go there from Barajas without seeing any of the homeless people of Madrid. You would also completely miss Canada Real, a shanty town in the south of madrid now hosting (2008 figures) around 40,000 people. It is easy to think you are seeing the whole picture.

    97. Re:Good ol' Putin by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Free markets don't dictate whether or not people are assholes. Because you will always have them even in a hunter gatherer or agrarian society. People determine the economic model to use, not the other way around. That is to say, an economic model doesn't magically turn people into assholes. If all you're left with is scorched earth, the assholes are the last to remain for they are the darwinian survivors of the Human race.

      Peace and civility? That's such a recent and subjective concept. However, a strong economy does in fact improve the human condition. From food, medicine, to shelter. These are undeniable facts of life.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    98. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marx was early to suggest that capitalism would degenerate [...]

      Even if he was correct about a natural progression into communism, the problem is with anyone who tries to bring it about before its time. Real communists should look at people like Lenin/Stalin/Mao/Il/Castro/Pelosi/etc as being as crazy as insane Christians who believe that by killing hundreds of people in some religious setting they can bring about the apocalypse. According to Marx, Communism doesn't work unless it emerges on its own.

    99. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you should both read something like this: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/the-pizkuny-wall-an-iron-curtain-in-the-east-a-780803.html (AFAIK, Spiegel is a centre-right publication in Germany).

      (I've moderated a lot, so I'm posting anonymously.)

    100. Re:Good ol' Putin by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 2

      I am hesitant to respond because you speak with the broad strokes of an amateur, but of course an economic system can encourage or discourage particular sorts of behaviour.

    101. Re:Good ol' Putin by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      As a Muslim, I am not a fan of Putin. In my view, if his bloody corpse will be found hung one day at Lobnoye Mesto (like Najib's corpse in Kabul in 1996) that would make it one happy day for me.

      But your view of Putin is overly simplistic. In the beginning this bloody butcher of my brothers in Chechnya did quite well for Russia. He eliminated cannibalistic influence of Semiboyarschina on Russian politics, he straightened up street crime and criminal gangs, he used rather successfully oil price surge to move Russia forward.

      I visit yearly both Moscow and the small provincial town I was born. Over the 2000s, the progress was remarkable.

      The problem with Putin is not that he maintained Pinochettian regime in the country, the problem is that he evolved from successful Pinochet to unsuccessful one. It was easy for him to fix disastrous Eltsyn economy, because, frankly, almost anything was better than those wild anarchic capitalism years, but the global economic crisis that happened gradually since the day my enemies commemorate today presented him with insurmountable challenge, that he failed to address properly.

      That is a problem. He became an economic failure. That is opinion of the vast majority of business people, who do not give a flying over political rights.

      Your view (on political rights) is the view of the tiniest minority of disgruntled opposition, the losers of Russian politics, like Nemtsov, and chess, like Kasparov, the hasbeens that cannot invent a pasta sauce, not speaking of a role in Russian politics.

      Neither Putin or opposition present any good Russia-specific solution for current times.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    102. Re:Good ol' Putin by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "Unless you are very old, you are making shit up."

      No I'm not "making shit up". Street kids doesn't mean homeless, it just means kids hanging around day and night doing nothing. Go down to any london council estate and you'll see them.

      "It is easy to think you are seeing the whole picture."

      Whatever. I only know what I see. If there are thousands of homeless down in some basement somewhere then obviously they hid from me in the all the time I've spent there. *shrug*

    103. Re:Good ol' Putin by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Your argument has engineered its own demise.

    104. Re:Good ol' Putin by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      but there was nothing much to buy in the stores, nobody really produces anything

      The fact that you're alive today confirms that people produced. You paint such an obviously false picture.

      No he doesn't. I don't think you recall this, but while there were certainly periods where the Soviets could produce food and heavy industry, they always had some trouble with it. And from the 1970's onward, the Soviet Union actually imported a lot of grain from the West, including the US. The actual collective farms were inefficient and the economy itself was stagnant. Grain shipments were a significant reason that detente worked.

      A lot of this was due to the increasing corruption of the period, which the poster mentions. The Brezhnev period was when the Soviet Union ended up crumbling because the collective leadership tolerated corruption like no other Communist regime had before. He was followed up by a bunch of geriatric Politburo members who died off in rapid succession and then there was Gorbachev, but by then it was too late.

      Either way, make no mistake, no one was selling anything because no one produced much of anything in the USSR. Except arms, of course, but you can't eat those.

      but everybody gets paid this nearly fixed amount of money, nobody wants to sell.

      That's silly. Not every worker is incentivised by the (usually false) promise that they'll get paid more if they sell more.

      While I imagine that there are always going to be outliers, I wonder what you think would give incentive to most workers to do work? People will work to provide for themselves and their family. They will also work because they have pride in their work, and they also work to differentiate themselves from others. Nothing tells you that you are succeeding at that like people giving you their money to obtain your goods or services.

      They will also work harder to gain the ability to make their life just a little less bland. I don't suppose you have seen pictures of what most cities in the USSR looked like, but I think the only thing that would keep the suicide rate down would be constant alcohol intake. Which is what happened mostly.

      Who cares about selling anything when they have a set wage that they get no matter what, and they can never achieve any differentiation through those means? They'll sit and do their minimum jobs, and that's it. Why would they work to excel? Universal socialist brotherhood? Now, THAT is silly. Sure, they'll never be impoverished, but they'll never have much of a chance for anything better either. It's numbing just to think about it.

      You might well state, "at least no one starved in the streets," and to that, I could agree it was positive. Still, while I am not a huge fan of the capitalist method of dealing with poverty, I'd have to point out that the Communist method kept everyone just above poverty, and below the opportunity for much more than that.

      In case of USSR people were stealing quite a lot from their places of work... you could physically remove, steal and sell on a black market

      You should come to the West - everyone here has the opportunity to do that too, but the stealing occurs on a much grander scale than just nicking a stereo!

      As to your message, are you saying that Russians are somehow inherently more corrupt, or is it merely that you particularly enjoyed the company of thieves?

      His point was that the way the Soviet system worked, the only way to get anything beyond the minimal amount that the state gave was to steal things they could sell. While, in theory, this made most of them "thieves", it worked much like copying music mp3s or DVDs goes today. Everyone did it. It was how life was made bearable for them. It's how they managed to get something like a nice stereo to make their lives a little more colorful.

      Since the People owned everything anyway, how could you really argue that they were stealing? Do the workers own the means of production, or not?

    105. Re:Good ol' Putin by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      I grew up in a small provincial town in 70s. My father used every single business trip to Moscow to bring home 20-30 kilos of beef (20 hours train)

      Beef was available in Moscow state shops at 2R/kg, while in my town it was available only on local farmers market at 6-7R/kg My parents had a combined salary of ~250R. If one assumes that a typical programmer of my age gets $10K a month, the price of beef in 70s in my town will translate into nowadays $100/kg=$250/lb. Butter was available only over acquaintances in local food distribution systems.We lived on bread, milk, potatoes and rice. My parents, college professors, had to grow fruits and vegetables in our local garden: that was the only source.

      Moscow and St-Petersburg fared much better than that.When I met a group of Moscovites for the first time in my life in 1980, it was an international "pioneer camp" and I mistook them for foreigners: because their physical appearance was much healthier than appearance of other provinicial folks in my group: Chita, Kabardino-Balkaria, Rostov, Omsk. I walked to one of the fat tall guys in expensive glasses and applied my school English for the first time in my life: "Are you from Finland?", I said (one of the countries presented in my camp was Finland). He replied in Russian: "No, I am from Moscow".

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    106. Re:Good ol' Putin by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Thing is... not everyone is laughing at him. We might be, but Russians are not. The Russians have always had a cultural tendency to view a strongman positively, and Putin is working hard to prove he is literally a strong man. While, yes, these are stunts, this isn't self-glorification as much as it is his justification for rule. This is the real campaigning he is doing. In the US, you have to prove you are going to fix the economy to win an election (even though the Presidency isn't really in control of the economy). In Russia, you need to prove you are strong for the people.

    107. Re:Good ol' Putin by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but you need to back down a bit. Udachny may be angry, but he's got personal ties to this discussion. Just like I wouldn't try to sell you on how Franco created order from chaos in Spain.
      Cut him some slack, regardless if you agree or disagree.

    108. Re:Good ol' Putin by vovick · · Score: 1

      Allowances were replaced with cash payments which do not keep pace with now unregulated prices.

      Having a capitalist society, even a corrupted one, does not necesserily mean that pensions and other social payments are not adapted to the cost of living. I don't have exact data, but once in a year or two they give pensions a little nudge to keep up with the prices. You don't want the potential voters die from famine or illnesses. They give a significant (20%? 30%?) increase before major elections. Generally speaking, among the pensioners I know (a rather modest amount, though) more and more of them approve of Putin's reign openly, partially because of biased news and shows, partially because of fear to lose the little privileges they now have. I don't know about other ex-soviet countries, though, but imagine something like this happens in most of them.

      Does the government still guarantee to give everyone work?

      I am not familiar with the law, but there are so-called employment/occupation centres (centry zanyatosti) which offer simple work I wrote about earlier, usually as low-grade social or municipal workers, i.e. government-regulated jobs. I have never heard of a case that people cannot find any job at all. To get a well-paying job without a good employment history or connections may be tough, but something that will get you money for rent and bread seems to be offered everywhere.

      And yet sometimes shortages do occur in a capitalist society.

      Nothing is ideal and corruption will alway exist to some degree in any human society, however, the difference between USSR and Russia for the lower/middle class is huge. Just googling "USSR queues" seems to give a good impression of the desperation people were in.

    109. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia has become precisely what the left expected Reagan+Thatcher wanted in toppling the USSR: a corrupt, undemocratic kleptocracy with few new freedoms but no social cohesion or state protections, where middlemen and government have their hands constantly down each other's pants, jacking each other off while they kick the common man. It is the neocon dream realised.

      America will arrive by the end of the decade if America doesn't wake the hell up. In fact, now that I think about it, almost everything you said exactly applies to American politics today. And if you disagree, I beg you to open your eyes and start learning about the massive and rampant corruption which is currently driving this country today.

    110. Re:Good ol' Putin by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Granted. I don't tend to get emotional about personal experiences (among family or strangers), so I wouldn't care if you tried to tell me how great Franco was or even that my family were collateral damage. I may tell you some things that have happened, but calmly.

      Looking at what I've said, I understood udachny to describe that his family owned a village and that the village was nationalised and his family killed (perhaps for owning it). I said that the village could have been taken without killing his family. While I did say that I was sorry to hear about the deaths, I see that what I said may have sounded flippant.

      Putting it as plainly as possible, Stalin was a vicious, paranoid bastard whose means were completely disproportionate to his aims. I am personally opposed to capital punishment or forced labour - I think enough people are sufficiently good and productive that even those who refuse to work can be fed. No matter my opionion on treatment of private property, and no matter that I think udachny (as roman_mir) sometimes trolls, I shall take his words at face value today and say clearly, udachny, that I am sorry that your family was killed. Perhaps your ideology or your experience will not allow you to detach the ideology from the means, so perhaps my words are meaningless. Perhaps you are more angry now. But there you go. I do also appreciate your responses.

    111. Re:Good ol' Putin by tftp · · Score: 1

      People in Russia like strong authority and believe that that authority can protect them

      In part they are correct. Governments exist to see the big picture and to practice controlled violence to maintain peace on a larger scale. For example, governments oppress criminal gangs. Individuals cannot do that for many good reasons. People do not want Wild West because it would quickly - within weeks - morph into rule of strongmen. We call such countries "failed states."

      those sorts of state organizations crop up to provide that.

      "Those sorts" of state organizations exist in the USA as well, they are called police, sheriff's department, national guard, FBI, and tens of other TLAs that are authorized to do law enforcement.

      However, they feel they are the proper guardians of the people and the people cannot be trusted to run their own affairs.

      You are correct. They do not trust the democracy on a scale above a city. But there is a good reason for that. Democracy is a very weak system, by design; it welcomes with open arms every two-bit villain that wants to destroy it. Naturally, many villains show up to try their skill in gaming the system. In Russia many were successful at that; some got elected, other installed their people at key positions, third had other people corrupted with money and power. A corrupt democracy is not a democracy at all; and the worst part is that the people of all walks of life are willing to corrupt the system. Some do so because they collect the money; other do so because they want the $service done and see no other way than to gild a hand - and in the end they pay the former group, sustaining the corruption. Basically, democracy will not survive in a society if that society is not valuing democracy and is not willing to fight for it. Every bribe moves the society away from democracy.

      Putin's approach is closer to benevolent monarchy. As long as a wise monarch has absolute power he can install his trusted people into key positions, who then repeat the process. This method is better because the trusted leutenants are personally responsible, and if they get corrupted they will be severely punished. (Simply being fired from a top government job is no picnic for them, but a prison term is also a possibility.) Many say that such a "manually operated" system is hard to run because the man at the top has to blindly trust others. The people cannot make the right decision for him - but on the other hand they cannot make a wrong decision either. I agree that the system of this kind is not self-sustaining; you always have to have trusted, honest people at every vertex, or else the branches below become corrupted. But what else can you do if the people of your country are not willing to suffer for democracy? If the police stops you for speeding and you can give a bribe that is less than the fine and leaves no traces in your driving record it takes a lot of bravery to choose the fine over just giving the cash to the corrupt cop. Bribes make *your* life easier in the short term, and that's why they are so contagious.

      In the end, though, government is not supposed to be a plaything for budding leaders. It is supposed to be a stable and fair system, like an OS in a computer, that enables you to do things and then steps away. Many people in Russia are happy with this worldview. Some are not, however -- like kernel hackers they want control; but instead of signing up for LKML and growing up within ranks they want to take a shortcut, find an exploitable hole and get root in one easy step.

    112. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but you need to back down a bit. Udachny may be angry, but he's got personal ties to this discussion.

      Says you. I say he should go further. udachny/roman_mir is not known to care for other people's personal ties and anecdotes. He's also the guy who supports individuals acting on their own free will instead of being coerced by the collective.

      So by his own principles it is completely fine if not encouraged that people fire back (you can't force your morals on him - that would be that coercion)

      And for the most part, I think roman_mir is fine with that. That's one good thing about him: he's very consistent, even if what he does goes against what "conventional" people think.

    113. Re:Good ol' Putin by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      He's doing a good job of filling the Kim Jong-Il shaped hole in our hearts.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    114. Re:Good ol' Putin by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Why would I ever use a pronoun to include myself in the /. collective? Just because you are in a minority of /. users does not mean I have to carefully word everything I say. My guess is that you lack the ability to view things from another person's perspective, and it has become a barrier to your understanding of basic human communication. Asperger's much?

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    115. Re:Good ol' Putin by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      No he doesn't. I don't think you recall this, but while there were certainly periods where the Soviets could produce food and heavy industry, they always had some trouble with it. And from the 1970's onward, the Soviet Union actually imported a lot of grain from the West, including the US. The actual collective farms were inefficient and the economy itself was stagnant. Grain shipments were a significant reason that detente worked.

      Import/export was a tiny proportion of Soviet GDP, and in import terms consisted mainly of grains, certain chemicals and high tech. Grain was paid for with exported fuel. The USSR supported 300 million people mostly self-sufficiently, with the majority of trade being with Eastern Europe. If you regard that as not really producing anything, something is clouding your perspective.

      A lot of this was due to the increasing corruption of the period, which the poster mentions. The Brezhnev period was when the Soviet Union ended up crumbling because the collective leadership tolerated corruption like no other Communist regime had before.

      Indeed. Considering something almost on-topic for Slashdot, I would say that the rot set in earlier, not long after the USSR could have been said to claim first place in the space and computing race: Khrushchev's technology policy suggested that it was acceptable to copy from and build on what the West. This guaranteed eternal catch-up (like Linux on the desktop ;'().

      While I imagine that there are always going to be outliers, I wonder what you think would give incentive to most workers to do work?

      Why does the academic work? Why does the healthcare worker work? He is clearly bright enough to do something which requires much less effort and is much better paid.

      They will also work harder to gain the ability to make their life just a little less bland.

      Absolutely. Most people, given the right circumstances, can enjoy their work.

      I don't suppose you have seen pictures of what most cities in the USSR looked like, but I think the only thing that would keep the suicide rate down would be constant alcohol intake.

      That's just your senses being dulled by the horrible flashiness of modern Western nations. Have you seen film of North England in the '80s? Almost everywhere in the '50s? Relaxing is taking a walk, having a swim, chatting with your friends, reading a book, going to the threatre/cinema, etc. Not always shiny flashing lights and loud music.

      Who cares about selling anything when they have a set wage that they get no matter what, and they can never achieve any differentiation through those means?

      Wages were absolutely not set "no matter what" - better positions got better wages, and the USSR was far more meritocratic than the West, automatically giving free education to those who excelled at school. But wages were not set in typical free-market terms, i.e. you would not get paid more for selling more. Why would you? There is no social advantage in getting people to buy more than they feel they need.

      Universal socialist brotherhood? Now, THAT is silly. Sure, they'll never be impoverished,

      But that's the point: "universal socialist brotherhood" is the closest to a guarantee against impoverishment for you and your children.

      but they'll never have much of a chance for anything better either. It's numbing just to think about it.

      In the West, you need intelligence and money to climb higher. In the USSR, you needed only intelligence. Now you also had not to open your mouth against the Party, even when the Party was full of shit - can't argue with you on that one - but how far are most people able to go with freely and honestly criticising their boss? Being unable to speak up against the state in a centrally planned economy is as being unable to speak up against your boss in a free market economy.

    116. Re:Good ol' Putin by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Russia is still a long way off 1984.

    117. Re:Good ol' Putin by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      For starters, Ukraine wasn't a Soviet bloc country. It was a part of the USSR.

      And you would be wrong. If you look at the raw data, RSFSR was essentially subsidizing other Soviet republics. The idea of "draining resources" is particularly silly, given that the territory of RSFSR is where most resources were on the first place.

      You should understand that USSR wasn't a Russian imperialist project. It was a Soviet imperialist project. Russians were but subjects, same as any other nation in it. About the only advantage they had was that their language was the language of the state, but this was mostly a convenience thing - the government needed a single language to get things to work together smoothly, and, of course, they took the one that was most widespread.

    118. Re:Good ol' Putin by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Putin's approach is closer to benevolent monarchy. As long as a wise monarch has absolute power he can install his trusted people into key positions, who then repeat the process.

      Except for the fact that it's not benevolent, and he's not wise, yeah....

    119. Re:Good ol' Putin by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Don't go overboard. He's certainly trolling, but the reason why his trolling is so good is precisely because it does touch upon a grain of truth. There were certainly quite a few people for whom guaranteed bread on the table, a roof above their heads, and school and university for their kids, were preferable to what they suffered through in the 90s. There is a reason why commies almost won that presidential election in 1996, you know (and probably have actually won, if not for electoral fraud to conceal it).

    120. Re:Good ol' Putin by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      What's long and green and smells of sausage?

    121. Re:Good ol' Putin by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Crazy : Why is he still in charge of Russia? Did the majority really vote him in...

      It's kinda complicated, but yeah, the majority of people did vote him in.

    122. Re:Good ol' Putin by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      This is interesting. My USSR anecdotes would mostly come from family business city trips - my mother represented a certain foreign car manufacturer in Russia the late '60s. I heard about the differences with the towns and villages but did not hear direct stories. It is sometimes hard to remind myself and others that we compare one place 40-50 years ago with another today.

      (FWIW median annual salary in the UK is ~$34300.)

    123. Re:Good ol' Putin by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Please don't talk about Russians as some single entity. There are plenty of Russians who don't view "strongmen" positively, and who don't like Putin or his policies.

    124. Re:Good ol' Putin by amirishere · · Score: 0

      mod parent up. very insightful about everyday living in Russia in the 70s.

    125. Re:Good ol' Putin by tftp · · Score: 2

      A stupid monarch is a bane of all monarchies. The last Russian Czar is a perfect example. There are just a few monarchies remaining in the world, and in none of them the monarch is actually ruling the country.

      I would classify Putin as "doing what he can, to the best of his abilities." I don't know all his motivations, of course. With regard to wisdom, the alternative is worse. Should we, perhaps, elect Vladimir Volfovitch? Or perhaps a hopeless idealist and a certified weakling Yavlinsky is a better candidate? Maybe we should all march under red banners of comrade Zuyganov? But those are the major alternatives. None of them will be able to keep oligarchs under control. Under Yeltsin the country was ruled (robbed?) by private interests. That's why Khodorkhovsky kissed the tarmac; his financial crimes were, of course, a lie. He was guilty of acting against Russian interests, and he was rich enough to be dangerous. Putin was able to tell oligarchs to either accept supremacy of the state or get out. Without Putin the country by now would be ruled by Berezovsky and Co, for their personal financial gain. How would that be better?

    126. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who buys the really expensive, shiny, loud red pickup

      Or the guys who buys $500 cellphones, $40 phone covers, $600 tablets, shiny white electronics, super thin laptop, expensive headsets or speakers colored in piano black.

      Welcome to capitalism. Some good, some bad, all opinion.

    127. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Portugal there was a man called Francisco Ferreira, better known as "Chico da CUF" for having worked at the CUF, who was born in 1911 and was such a hard-line communist, in the times when being a communist would get you in jail, that he went into exile right in the soviet union in 1936, where he lived for 26 years. As all westerners that were fooled into believing that communism was the answer to every problem, he firmly believed that life in the soviet union would be like in the propaganda pamplets. He managed to rise among the ranks to the point he was made a soviet comissar and worked for Radio Moscow as a propaganda broadcaster. He then continued to work as a soviet propaganda broadcaster in Cuba, and only returned to Portugal in 1970, when an amnesty was granted to all political exiles.

      What's interesting about Chico da CUF's story is that, after having experience what communism was really about for about 3 decades, he found himself disillusioned with what communism actually meant and how it rolled out to the point he spent the rest of his life as a dedicated anti-communist. He wrote his biography, depicting his experience in the spanish civil war fighting for the international communist, in the soviet union fighting in WW2 and then in the post-war both in the USSR and Cuba. For publishing his life experience, exposing communism for the fraud that it is, Chico da CUF was violently attacked and persecuted by the portuguese communist party, to the point of getting death threats if he didn't retracted his report on the life in a communist regime. Portugal's communists are so pissed off at Chico da CUF that his name alone is still villified up to this day, as one of the party's most notorious traitors.

    128. Re:Good ol' Putin by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I would classify Putin as "doing what he can, to the best of his abilities." I don't know all his motivations, of course. With regard to wisdom, the alternative is worse. Should we, perhaps, elect Vladimir Volfovitch? Or perhaps a hopeless idealist and a certified weakling Yavlinsky is a better candidate? Maybe we should all march under red banners of comrade Zuyganov? But those are the major alternatives.

      Our problem is that we stick to "major alternatives". They all suck. Saying that Putin sucks less than the others may be true, but it's no reason to keep voting him in again and again. We need fresh blood. The problem is that the present system is rigged against newcomers, and occasionally they stoop down to outright voting fraud and intimidation by courts to keep it that way.

      I'd vote for Navalny in a heartbeat if he stood for next elections. Problem is, I doubt that they'd even let him register, or that my vote would be counted fairly even if he was on the ballot.

    129. Re:Good ol' Putin by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      He managed to rise among the ranks to the point he was made a soviet comissar and worked for Radio Moscow as a propaganda broadcaster. He then continued to work as a soviet propaganda broadcaster in Cuba [...] he found himself disillusioned with what communism actually meant

      This is like becoming a company PR flunky then becoming "disillusioned with what capitalism actually meant".

      And then, of course, wanting to promote your book about it.

    130. Re:Good ol' Putin by tftp · · Score: 1

      Our problem is that we stick to "major alternatives". They all suck.

      I thought for a moment you are talking about Obama and Romney :-) Yes, this problem is everywhere. Once people come to power they want to retain it. In the USA presidents are selected by a small group of people (leadership of the two parties, and other important people.) Those guys keep power forever, even though their selected presidents come and go.

      I'd vote for Navalny in a heartbeat if he stood for next elections.

      People who want power are the least competent to have it. Navalny is extremely power-hungry. My concern is that he would rule as lawyers do, by consensus. Can Russia, the homeland of Czapkovs, be ruled by consensus? I don't think so. Navalny may be a genius of PR, and PR may be all that he needs to gain power - but that's a far cry from what it takes to keep power (unless willing to become a doormat) and especially from what it takes to manage the country. On the other hand, we'll never know until we try... and that try may be fatal to the country. As they say, the demon that you know is always better, and the old horse won't damage the furrow. But I'm cautious and conservative by nature, not prone to experiments, and I don't fix things that are working well enough. In the end it's up to the voters, and if they want to risk it all for a chance... here is the flag, and here is the drum.

    131. Re:Good ol' Putin by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      long green sausage

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    132. Re:Good ol' Putin by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Import/export was a tiny proportion of Soviet GDP, and in import terms consisted mainly of grains, certain chemicals and high tech. Grain was paid for with exported fuel. The USSR supported 300 million people mostly self-sufficiently, with the majority of trade being with Eastern Europe. If you regard that as not really producing anything, something is clouding your perspective.

      The self-sufficiency of the USSR was there, but at a level that would have been intolerable to populations in Western countries. The reason for the small import/export was also based as much on their lack of access to hard currency for trade as it was from any sort of successful self-reliance. A country that contained a place with as fertile a breadbasket as the Ukraine does not need to import grain to support its people unless it is grossly mismanaged, particularly when its industry was based so much on being able to produce equipment for large scale agriculture.

      It should also be pointed out that the quality of the goods that were made was miserable, another consideration for lack of trade.

      Further, it is important to point out that trade between Eastern Bloc countries was by command as much as anything. Arrangements between those countries was based more on keeping it in the alliance and the lack of a need to produce a value-based hard currency as anything.

      Why does the academic work? Why does the healthcare worker work? He is clearly bright enough to do something which requires much less effort and is much better paid.

      Absolutely. Most people, given the right circumstances, can enjoy their work.

      Sure, presuming the right circumstances. Which almost never happens. Why does the industrial worker work? Or the shopkeeper? Or the food service employee. Not everyone can be an academic or a doctor. Someone has to clean up the toxic waste. Someone has to move pallets and maintain warehouses. Economies are not made up of people who are academics or doctors, they are made mostly of, as any good communist knows, workers. What most communists don't realize is that there are necessary tasks that few people will find any satisfaction in. And for those people, the fact is that they are not starving (usually) just means they have more cycles to think about how much their lives actually are not very interesting.

      Why do people form companies to pick up dog poop or toxic waste? Do they feel a calling to deal with animal feces or carcinogens? Perhaps they are motivated in some degree to keep things clean, but what they are in it for is the money to be made from doing something that no one else will do. That's why capitalism, for all it's many crappy qualities, works and communism doesn't. It makes sure people are motivated to do necessary jobs that are not particularly... motivating... on their own, and never will be.

      That's just your senses being dulled by the horrible flashiness of modern Western nations. Have you seen film of North England in the '80s? Almost everywhere in the '50s? Relaxing is taking a walk, having a swim, chatting with your friends, reading a book, going to the threatre/cinema, etc. Not always shiny flashing lights and loud music.

      I am not particularly impressed by flashiness, and indeed, my aversion to the urban atmosphere plays much into my dislike of the USSR's cities and towns. They are grey, and prefab. The West did have that sort of thing too, until they realized that it really stinks. They were impressed by the neat ability to build fast, but quickly realized that living and seeing grey boxes every day could easily become dreary and depressing. The communist countries cared more about rapid urbanization and industrialization and they never stopped.

      The fact is, I will say this about flashiness, in cities, it can make life at least interestingly bearable. It at least provides a veneer of culture and life where you'd otherwise live in tiny apartments in a grey warren.

    133. Re:Good ol' Putin by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Hangs on the wall, reeks of herring

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    134. Re:Good ol' Putin by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      This is probably true for retired seniors. These people were fucked pretty badly.

      For working class though... Dunno, my mom is an elementary school teacher, my dad was a coal miner. I'd say living in SU in 80ies sucked, way more than it sucks for them now (not exactly a great measure of improvement, but whatever we have...).

      They probably would have more problems balancing the budget now, but the standards of living are way higher.

      Like, they can easily afford living the way they did in nineties, even without my help, but its just not what they are after now.

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    135. Re:Good ol' Putin by OhSoLaMeow · · Score: 1

      "Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines".

      But this weasel can FLY!

      --
      They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
    136. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe it was a practice run

    137. Re:Good ol' Putin by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      Well, he's right that it is deeply rooted in our culture though.

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    138. Re:Good ol' Putin by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I haven't noticed the guy to be power hungry. Indeed, he has been specifically dodging the positions of "official" authority within the opposition movement so far. His own explanation on that was that he doesn't want to divide the movement in the current stage where it's in everyone's interest to have a fair political system to compete on. He said he'll compete against the others as a politician - as opposed to a human rights / anti-corruption activists - when and if such a fair system is established. I like that.

    139. Re:Good ol' Putin by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Are you sure you grew up in a small provincial town in the USSR in the 70s?

    140. Re:Good ol' Putin by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I think that our culture is much more complicated than that. There were always plenty of more "pro-freedom" currents in Russian history - Pskov and Novgorod Republics, various Cossack states, Siberia and Far East.

      What our government has always liked though is to claim that they're acting in a way deeply rooted in our culture. In that sense, Uvarov's "authocracy & orthodoxy" of old is not really different from today Putin's claims to some kind of carte blanche mandate from the entire nation. I'm Russian, too, and I certainly never gave him mine.

    141. Re:Good ol' Putin by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Hehehe
      the commuter train coming from Moscow of course :-)

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    142. Re:Good ol' Putin by tftp · · Score: 1

      Perhaps. I'm not following his travails closely. But the problem is that revolutions tend to eat their children. If - let's imagine - the opposition wins and Putin disappears, the opposition will be immediately at each other throats. A timid but smart PR guy will be sidelined pretty soon; perhaps even murdered and the government will be framed for that. Useful idiots and all that. Navalny goes into Mausoleum, Limonov goes to Kremlin. All kinds of filth will seep upward through the cracks in the movement. (I don't want to say that there are only angels around Putin today; but it could be much worse.) You are mad that Yeltsin gave away much of wealth of Russia, for example? You haven't seen anything yet.

      That's basically why I don't want changes. They are not likely to be good for anyone except a handful of new bosses, same as old bosses. I just can't see how Kasparov is going to rein in the entrenched, abusive "siloviki" (Army, MVD, etc.) Do you, I'm just curious? Maybe there is a silver bullet somewhere and I just don't see it? Or, perhaps, Kasparov will be personally biting corrupted bureaucrats? :-) [I don't think he bit anyone, but it was a good setup.] At this time I can only think of Koba's methods, such as take money, get convicted, enjoy your 10 years shoveling snow near Magadan. But that will not work politically, of course - the people will not want to elect a leader who will force them to work and be honest. This is yet another problem of democracy - it elects not leaders who are good for the country in the long term but leaders who are good for the voters in the short term.

    143. Re:Good ol' Putin by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I hear that angle a lot, and yeah, seeing Limonov in Kremlin would also make me shiver. But then if we never try to change things for better for the fear of getting something worse instead, then nothing will ever improve - and that sounds like a dead end to me. You have to take those risks sometimes.

      Then again, perhaps my perspective is just more naive while yours is more cynical. If I had to guess, you're probably older than me - I'm 28, so while I've seen '91 and '93 and what followed, it was as a young kid without much understanding of what's going on - I can, of course, reflect on it now, but that's obviously not the same.

      On the other hand, my parents have lived through it, and while they also voice worries about who would come instead, they have a very strong antipathy towards Putin - from their words, largely because his policies remind them of some of the more annoying Soviet stuff they've seen back in 70s.

      Personally, I think that a coalition between more pragmatic liberals (i.e. not the old guard dissidents with their idealization of America that never existed in a way they picture it, but people who actually know what the West is and are conscious about what parts are worth using as a model), and more moderate civic nationalists, would stand some chance at securing and holding power and actually improving things - provided that they actually do what they promise to do. Navalny is actually a compromise figure in that scheme - he's very obviously a liberal, but he was also kicked out of Yabloko back in the day for promoting some nationalist policies there. So he could serve as the guy bridging the moderates of those two factions.

      All that said, I'm still fairly pessimistic about this, after how the December protests fizzled. Right now I more or less expect to see another decade of Putin, and wouldn't be at all surprised about at least one more decade for someone he designates as successor.

    144. Re:Good ol' Putin by tftp · · Score: 1

      I'm 28, so while I've seen '91 and '93 and what followed, it was as a young kid without much understanding of what's going on - I can, of course, reflect on it now, but that's obviously not the same.

      I was in Moscow in those years. In 1991 I and my friends took a car and drove around the White House when tanks and other light armor was still deployed. I don't remember what I did in 1993, but most likely I was at home, calling plague on both their houses.

      my parents have lived through it, and while they also voice worries about who would come instead, they have a very strong antipathy towards Putin - from their words, largely because his policies remind them of some of the more annoying Soviet stuff they've seen back in 70s

      It is indeed common, I agree. At the same time note how many people (25% or so) support Communists - and those guys wrote the book on "annoying Soviet stuff" :-) I remember even photos of Stalin in truckers' cabs and in buses. Sometimes I wonder if majority of voters even understands what they want. What would an ideal, honest candidate have to say? "Brothers and Sisters. Our country needs your honest, hard work to survive. Effective immediately after my inauguration, ..." - and who is going to vote for that guy??? And if the candidate doesn't promise to do what it takes to clean the house ... guess what, the house will remain dirty.

      I think that a coalition between more pragmatic liberals [...] and more moderate civic nationalists, would stand some chance at securing and holding power and actually improving things

      Doesn't that define Putin, by the way? A pragmatic liberal and a moderate nationalist? I am not quite sure, though, how to frame a liberal. Putin is certainly a liberal compared to Brezhnev or Zhirinovsky; and at the same time he is a bloody butcher according to Novodvorskaya. Looks like a well centered position to me :-)

    145. Re:Good ol' Putin by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It is indeed common, I agree. At the same time note how many people (25% or so) support Communists - and those guys wrote the book on "annoying Soviet stuff"

      Don't read too much into those numbers. I voted for commies in the most recent elections, but this was solely so as to make them work harder to rig up that 50%+ for the "right guy", and because I didn't think they could do too much damage in 4 years even if, by some miracle, they'd get elected instead (and yet for sure they'd do quite enough to get kicked out in 4 years). The trick is to break this cycle of electing the same guy because "who else?". Whoever the next candidate is, if he replaces the incumbent because of fair elections, he'll have to be mindful of his actions since he'll be facing the same threat at the end of his term.

      I know quite a few people of the age similar to mine and younger who did the same as me. It was basically either that or Prokhorov, and when you believe that both suck as genuine candidates and consider your vote as a protest vote, commies make sense because you know they have a larger serious electorate to begin with, and you want to be a part of a bigger snowball for it to be more annoying.

      Doesn't that define Putin, by the way? A pragmatic liberal and a moderate nationalist?

      If you go by what he says, then perhaps. If you go by what he does, not really. And by "liberal" I mean politics as well as economics. Economics-wise, he's a liberal alright!

    146. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you despise the west so much why did you return home?

    147. Re:Good ol' Putin by Tom · · Score: 1

      Yes it is, you're context was "fascist dictator" which I expanded to encompass another murderous totalitarian.
      [...]
      Unless these people are married to their daughter, the two are not mutually exclusive. Even then, sex is not love.

      And "fascist dictator" and "animal lover" are not mutually exclusive, either. Just like you admit further down for psychopaths.

      Where we do see logical inconsistencies we can and do make assumptions about a persons psyche. We're a social species, we evaluate people on availiable evidence all the time and did so long before the advent of what you term "pop psychology".

      Both true. The point is that our evaluations do not always make sense. We evaluate based on our experiences. Other people do not have to agree, nor function according to our model of the world.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    148. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dunno, willing to give anyone a shot who hasn't murdered opponents though.

    149. Re:Good ol' Putin by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      i seriously doubt there's no one in the shadows behind him. There always are. Sounds a bit conspiracy perhaps but no one does that by himself. That means owing people, that means people have leverage. People who know how to pull the lever or they wouldn't have been much help in the first place. I wouldn't wanna face him in a fistfight but i doubt he did it all by himself.
      I don't think Russia in its current state would be good off with a wuss in charge either. Where did all that red army go ?
      having a heart for animals can only be considered a plus imo, if it's real and not a facade it means at least having a heart
      plus ... he just boldly tells the u.s. or the e.u. to go frack themselves sometimes, i think that counts for something as wel, if not for lulz at times

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    150. Re:Good ol' Putin by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      (a rouble was worth more than a dollar at the time).

      I would like to qualify this statement with an explanation. NOBODY in Russia was allowed to deal in dollars OR gold. Nobody. Such deals were punishable by law with very lengthy prison sentences and confiscation of all private possessions, sometimes also by death.

      Due to this, the black market for dollars (or any other foreign money that was called the 'valuta') was almost non-existent among the general public, it was of a very limited use.

      Not in my experience. Almost everyone we met was willing and eager to exchange their spare roubles for a well-known hard currency (US/UK/German/etc.). Mind you, such transactions were rather more discreet than those which merely exchanged roubles for jeans (the illegality you mentioned). We enquired from our translator as to why this was so, and mostly got evasive answers. The only plausible explanation entailed the official Beriozhka shops, in which almost anything Russian or foreign could be bought for hard currency, and which were frequented mostly by foreigners and the Russian elite. But anyone could go there and buy stuff with no questions asked, if they had some hard currency to spend. It appears that having a few packages of Marlboro cigarettes or a bottle of Johnnie Walker scotch visible on your shelf was an astounding status symbol in Soviet days.

      It was yet another weirdness - vicious punishment for getting caught in a certain action, but official facilitation for disposing of the results of that action.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    151. Re:Good ol' Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This reminds me of a joke we used to say. I'll do my best with the translation:

      A russian and an american meet in a bar and start drinking together. After a few shots:
      the american: - Obama is a looser. When we see him we always shout slogans against him.
      the russian: - Putin is a looser as well and we swear at him as he passes.
      After a few more drinks:
      the american: ...and we throw eggs and tomatoes at Obama
      the russian: That's nothing. When Putin passes we pee on him from the tall buildings
      After a few more drinks:
      the american: Well, I slightly exagerated. We don't like Obama and we shout slogans against him but we don't really throw eggs and tomatoes...
      the russian: I also exagerated. We pee when Putin passes just that we pee ourselves

  2. Meh by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    This crap is already plastered all over Russian news sites, now it's here as well. Thanks, dear submitter, now we'll have to wade through another round of silly jokes (because there's no other kind given the context).

  3. I could have sworn I typed "slashdot.org" just now by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is News for Nerds?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  4. Let's say it's all publicity by maweki · · Score: 2

    Even if it were all publicity, I must say, that I am impressed. Look what every other politician would do for some PR like that. Everybody can go around kissing babies. Doesn't matter what you think of him, but you have to commend his commitment.

    1. Re:Let's say it's all publicity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He sure knows how to do a few things.

      Putin is that fucking awesome president which you really don't want to be leading your country.

    2. Re:Let's say it's all publicity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahem Talking about kissing babies, I think you know Putin's no ordinary politician here as well: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=1760111n

    3. Re:Let's say it's all publicity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No other politician could get away with it, they would look too ridicules. But Putin doesn't have to worry about looking ridicules because he doesn't have to worry about elections.

  5. Fuck this guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He should rather care about independent journalists - the most endangered species in Russia.

    Is /. being paid for these kind of articles?

    1. Re:Fuck this guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No dissing el presidentski, he's got the power. Including the power of restoring life! But at the price of someone's voice, sadly. No free lunch and all that. Apparently a bunch of cranes died during filming, says one biologist girl involved. After some intimidation, they suddenly hadn't died. But she curiously hasn't any will to speak left.

    2. Re:Fuck this guy by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Assume they were US-funded. So what? A proper nation still reflects free speech. Russia, like other dictatorships, hires public relations firms in the US.

      Putin jails his detractors, or murders them.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re:Fuck this guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hypocritical thing about this is that you (as an American) have asuperficial and a 'yawn, who cares' notion to any and all evil acts the US carries out.

      You simply *don't get it* that in your country, a tiny rich elite calls the shots and makes most of their money by creating wars and stealing the loot. And because you tolerate that, you yourself are complicit in those war crimes and actions.

      Just like what the US is doing to Syria right now.

      Americans are a hypocritical and brainwashed lot - even if Putin was executing every LBGT person right now, his crimes this past century would be far less serious than the evil shit America has done ever since 2001.

      So get off your high horse and wake up and smell the coffee.

    4. Re:Fuck this guy by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      What, exactly is, the US doing in Syria right now? Please educate me.

  6. Great by should_be_linear · · Score: 4, Funny

    If only he tried to look like crazy dictator little less.

    --
    839*929
  7. Kim Jung Ill - Coincidence?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    These are exactly the same types of activities that Kim Jung Ill seems to excel at.

    1. Re:Kim Jung Ill - Coincidence?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this modded down?

    2. Re:Kim Jung Ill - Coincidence?? by mellyra · · Score: 1

      Why is this modded down?

      maybe because the only activity Kim Yong Il excels at is spinning in his grave?

  8. Re:Jews did WTC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some people stay up for New Years. You stayed up to post this.

  9. Oh... he used an aircraft to fly? by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Funny

    Somehow that's a little disappointing.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:Oh... he used an aircraft to fly? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Except if you look closely, you'll notice the propellers aren't turning.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  10. 8 hours later... by betterprimate · · Score: 1

    Lil' Putin had a cocaine come down and/or woke up.

    Hopefully our Russian brethren will too.

  11. Re:I could have sworn I typed "slashdot.org" just by Deus.1.01 · · Score: 2

    The Russians have bought Chelsea and TVR...you think they can't buy ./?

    --
    My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
  12. need to afraid of Russia by FrontDoors · · Score: 1

    Putin very cool man, and dangerous, and clever and so on - so YOU ( USA ) need to afraid of Russia.

    1. Re:need to afraid of Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unless the cranes are filled with dynamite and trained to cross the ocean, I don't think I'll lose any sleep over it.

    2. Re:need to afraid of Russia by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      How many divisions does it have?

  13. Re:I could have sworn I typed "slashdot.org" just by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "This is News for Nerds?"

    No, it's stuff that matters. ;)

  14. Yawn. by betterprimate · · Score: 2

    So basically he does what every heartland North American can do? Where's our photo op?

  15. Wow that happened like two weeks ago.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The new slashdot mods are behind the curve.... (From a 12.36 Yr Slashdot Vet)

    1. Re:Wow that happened like two weeks ago.. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      The new slashdot mods are behind the curve.... (From a 12.36 Yr Slashdot Vet)

      Vladimir Putin has Slashdot ID #0.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  16. Re:I could have sworn I typed "slashdot.org" just by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    The Russians have bought Chelsea

    Chelsea CLINTON??

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  17. Re:I could have sworn I typed "slashdot.org" just by CountBrass · · Score: 1

    What's dotslash?

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
  18. Re:I could have sworn I typed "slashdot.org" just by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Agreed. I read the submission twice. Then checked some comments. Then went back and read the submission a third time. I was sure I was missing something, somewhere. This has nothing to do with tech or nerds. It barely even qualifies as politics, for that matter. This belongs on Good Morning America or some other drivel.

  19. It's a lesson to the west by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He was KGB (now FSB), an *insider*, not a terrorist, not an outside invading army. He didn't take power by scaring the people with acts of terror.

    Russia simply is a monitored society with a big secret police. He simply leveraged running the secret police into election rigging, ballot stuffing and in some provinces, the vote count was against him in the evening and for him in the morning, huge impossible swings in key elections.

    So while UK, USA and the west are all building up their surveillance and secret police, to protect against this big threat of terrorism, the reality is far more dangerous.

    The biggest threat to freedom is and always will be, the power hungry individual with police/military apparatus under his control.

    1. Re:It's a lesson to the west by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      election rigging

      So who, do you think, really won election in Russia? The choices, other than United Russia, were:

      1. Communists (KPRF -- YA, RLY, second largest number of seats in the parliament).
      2. Clowns with disturbingly fascist tendencies (LDPR).
      3. Socialists (Just Russia).
      4. US-worshipping Libertarians (Yabloko).

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  20. What a douche by Alioth · · Score: 0

    Putin is a douchebag who is afraid of a few teenage girls.

    1. Re:What a douche by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is not quite right, I guess Putin doesn't care about these. You see, they weren't teenage girls and they have "protested" (personally, I believe them to be simply a bunch of attention whores) numerous times before, their leader even in a group sex session while being pregnant. Nobody cared until they tried to "perform" in the church and the church is a powerful institution in Capitalist Russia.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  21. In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vladimir Putin casts YOUR ballot for you.

    whilst riding a zebra.

  22. I have two words for Mr. Putin. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Pussy Riot!

  23. Anyone else think this was being ironic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I read cranes, I was actually expecting industrial cranes and I couldn't shake that the entire time when reading it.

  24. Re:I could have sworn I typed "slashdot.org" just by Deus.1.01 · · Score: 2

    In Soviet Russia, dot slashes YOU!

    --
    My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
  25. Hypocritical BS from western dupes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL, as if the little twerps in this thread have ever experienced 'real journalism' in their lives. Sure, the little prostitutes of the MSM in Europe and the US are the golden standard - don't make me laugh. Don't stick your nose where it doesn't belong (ie. Russia) and clean up your own shit first OKthnx.

    1. Re:Hypocritical BS from western dupes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF is MSM???

  26. In ex-Soviet Russia.... by yuje · · Score: 1

    President assassinates YOU!

  27. So, Putin action man and finder of sunken treasure by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 1

    is now reenacting the movie Fly Away Home?

  28. Who made you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has Slashdot been purchased by Russia Today? Could've fooled me....

  29. Re:I could have sworn I typed "slashdot.org" just by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 1

    He means the Russians can buy the current working directory.

    --
    Take off every 'sig' !!
  30. magnificent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about fresh news of Kim Cheng Un or Lukashenka?

  31. PUTIN? TECH? DA FUQ?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enough /. for this month then.

  32. Only a minority of the cranes is still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    behind Putin.

  33. And yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he appears to be mortally scared of pussies.

  34. Fuck Putin by ZosX · · Score: 2, Informative

    2 years in prison for a song protesting him? I hope he burns in hell and history remembers him for the despot he is!

    1. Re:Fuck Putin by ZosX · · Score: 0

      And fuck whoever posted this puff piece glorifying that human piece of trash!

    2. Re:Fuck Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're dense. You know there's a lot more to that than simply "oh, they were just protesting him!" They've done that before, as have plenty of others. What's the charge again? Oh yeah, "premeditated hooliganism motivated by religious hatred". I guess that's what you get when "a song protesting Putin" actually means "crashing a church and performing explicit songs denouncing religion and Putin". Don't underestimate the power of organized religion in Russia. It's still wrong, but you're really misreprenting the issue and cherrypicking facts. By twisting that story and presenting it like you are, you're just spreading FUD. Stop being an idiot.

    3. Re:Fuck Putin by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Ya. Putin totally deserves to burn in hell.

      Putin: maybe ordered a couple assassinations, jailed some protestors for a few years

      Stalin: murdered tens of millions of Jews, Germans, Polish, POWs, civilians (his own and other countries), ordered thousands of executions including his "friends" who all got "replaced" every few years, intentionally caused a famine that killed millions more...

      Perspective is a wonderful thing.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    4. Re:Fuck Putin by Richard+Dick+Head · · Score: 1

      Don't underestimate the power of organized religion in Russia....

      dafuq??

      I have to admit, I bought this line of shit for a few minutes, then realized what happened later.

      It's still wrong, but you're really misreprenting...

      There it is. See it? That first clause? Something made of straw man? Pff....too bad nothing can be done, right? Oh well, I guess Senor Putin is just fun and games and can't be bothered...

  35. Unlikely as it seems by Kupfernigk · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Just before I joined the R&D department of one UK company in the early 1980s, one of the engineers left to go and live in the Soviet Union. The Thatcher recession had just started (a recession deliberately started by her government to justify a reduction in worker rights), the future of British industry looked bleak, and while installing equipment for the company at a Russian research institute he was offered a job. He also fell in love with his translator, to be fair. But the conditions of life for a research engineer obviously looked more attractive than prospects in the UK at the time. Before anyone asks, during his original stint there (several months) he was living in a standard engineer's apartment in a housing block, under their normal conditions, and was actually paid by the USSR government. So he knew exactly what he was going into.

    That things have changed dramatically since, for a variety of reasons, shouldn't negate the fact that there were good parts of the Soviet Union, and under some conditions socialism worked quite well. It is equally possible, and equally misleading, to create a dystopic version of both the USA and the UK simply by focussing on the rust belt, inner cities, areas of house price collapse and places with a large incidence of extremists of one persuasion or another.

    The point about Putin for the average Russian is that Eltsine let his mates steal virtually the entire wealth of the country, and Putin has got a significant amount of it back. He has doubtless enriched himself in the process, but at least he has prevented the "last one out turn off the lights, if no-one has stolen them" end game of his predecessor.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Unlikely as it seems by Viol8 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "(a recession deliberately started by her government to justify a reduction in worker rights),"

      What utter cobblers. The recession was a result of the previous labour govns spend spend spend policy (sound familiar?) combined with bloody minded unions who went on strike or work to rule over their "rights" at the drop of a hat and made UK industry even more uncompetetive than the lazy morons had managed even up until that point. You're obviously old enough to remember the power cuts in the 70s as I am due to endless miners strikes which - thanks to Thatcher - finally ended as she switched britain over to a lot more gas generation so the country could no longer be held hostage by a bunch of inbred ditch diggers.

      "the future of British industry looked bleak,"

      Mainly thanks to the unions. But lets not let reality get in the way of your left wing blinkered nonsense.

    2. Re:Unlikely as it seems by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can't believe that most people still believe this.

      Imperialist interference in Middle East -- oil crisis -- inflation -- increase income to management but refuse to pay more to workers -- strikes -- hardship -- blame response to injustice rather than cause.

      The '70s, dominated at the start and at the end by a Tory government, was the start of the tedious neocon war on labour which ended up with Britain becoming the laughable shell of a nation that it is today.

      You're right about one thing, though: the complete failure of Tory policy was somewhat mitigated by the fortuitous appearance of Scottish gas. That and accounting for public asset sell-offs in order to appear as though the budget had been balanced. Thatcher was an interesting prime minister in only one sense: she had a peculiar ability to seduce pathetic, authoritarian, second-rate males into following her silly policies and turning Britain into a nation of corporate welfare queens.

    3. Re:Unlikely as it seems by udachny · · Score: 2, Interesting

      he was living in a standard engineer's apartment in a housing block, under their normal conditions, and was actually paid by the USSR government.

      - my grandmother was pushed back in the queue for a new apartment (she lived in a so called 'vremianka' - temporary accommodations, that means a shack with all amenities OUTSIDE the fucking house, and it was actually in the middle of a large industrial city with a million people, where many lived this way), so she was pushed back in the queue 3 times and waited for a total of 22 years before she got a 'scheduled' apartment, a 1 bedroom actually. Not bad, ha? In a capitalist country she could have bought herself a 1 bedroom in much less time than that just by working almost anywhere, and she wouldn't have to wait for 22 years, given the fact that in capitalist countries it was (still is) possible to get a loan, a mortgage.

      So why was she pushed back into the queue? Oh, because the housing was built very slowly, but when it was built and she was ready to move in, 3 times there were circumstances, I remember 2 of them: 1 was that they brought in some families from Cuba and placed them there, because of the 'Cuban brothers' who were also Communists of-course, their gov't needed to be shown how well people are treated in USSR.

      Another time was actually simpler than that, somebody with real connections to a local (regional) party leader wanted to have an apartment for their offspring. You think they had to wait for years for this?

      Your former colleague, I wonder who got fucked and pushed back in the queue so that back in UK he could tell tails about the wonders of the Soviet planned economy.

      --

      Oh, and I don't even care much about that, I am much more angry with that former country for what it did to a bunch of relatives of mine, 7 of who got killed only on one side of the family because they had a farm and even hired help to do farming. On the other side of family, where a person owned a shoe factory and obviously it was stolen - nationalized. Another side of family, who actually interestingly enough had in their possession part of a forest and a river and even a village (yeah, they owned a village) in a beautiful place near Moscow. That part of family lost a number of people as well, who couldn't run away quickly enough.

      So never mind housing accommodations. As to Thatcher, she inherited a situation, which was so dire, here is what the former PM (before she came to power) said about it:

      We used to think you could spend your way out of recession and increase employment by boosting government spending, I tell you, in all candour, that that option no longer exists. And in so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion⦠by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy, followed by a higher level of unemployment as the next stepâ¦

      That was by a former UK PM, James Callaghan, at the 1976 Labour Party conference.

    4. Re:Unlikely as it seems by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "I can't believe that most people still believe this."

      Yes, because believing lies instead peddled by the left to justify their own botched policies is much easier isn't it.

      "Imperialist "

      Oh dear, we're down to student debating society level already. What next , "patriarchal" or perhaps something ending in "ist" or "ism"?

      "becoming the laughable shell of a nation that it is today."

      Right, because 13 years of Labour mismanagement had nothing to do with that did it. You are REALLY in denial.

      "pathetic, authoritarian, second-rate males"

      Unlike the creme de la creme of manly intellect at the top of Labour at the time such as Micheal Foot, Kinnock or Tony wrong-about-everything Benn, oh , wait....

    5. Re:Unlikely as it seems by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Yes, because believing lies instead peddled by the left to justify their own botched policies is much easier isn't it.

      Eh? Heath was captain of the ship until 1974 - he steered us with America and Europe and set the scene. The next few years were just the inevitable response from the unions ("you've fucked up and we're not taking it any more"). Thatcher's irrationally angry response seemed to be not to address policy but to destroy the unions at all costs, even if she had to ruin Britain in the process - which she succeeded in doing, though with a temporary lift caused by sell-offs and North Sea gas.

      Oh dear, we're down to student debating society level already. What next , "patriarchal"

      What problem do you have with the word "imperialism"? It merely describes subjugation of other nations to obtain cheap resources, labour or military advantage. Unless you think the Imperium Romanum comprised a bunch of undergrads, the word has sound basis.

      Right, because 13 years of Labour mismanagement had nothing to do with that did it. You are REALLY in denial.

      No, I quite agree - Labour's acceptance of banking deregulation and contracting out state services so that private corporations could perform unnecessary jobs at twice the cost had a lot to do with it.

      Although, in the scheme of things, Britain's contribution to global economic depression was minor - it's just not that relevant any more.

    6. Re:Unlikely as it seems by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "Eh? Heath was captain of the ship until 1974 - he steered us with America and Europe and set the scene"

      Then wilson and callagham came along, rolled over to the unions and pissed our industry up the wall.

      "What problem do you have with the word "imperialism"? It merely describes subjugation of other nations to obtain cheap resources, labour or military advantage"

      Nothing is wrong with the word itself when used in its proper context. - which would generally would cover most large nations on the planet at some point in their history. Its when its aimed pejoratively and specifically at the west and britain in particular that I get pissed off. If the USSRs subjugation of eastern europe wasn't imperialist I don't know what was.

    7. Re:Unlikely as it seems by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 4, Informative

      my grandmother was pushed back in the queue for a new apartmen

      That sounds unfortunate. Many people have to wait up to a decade for new social housing in the UK, especially since Thatcher sold much of it

      In a capitalist country she could have bought herself a 1 bedroom in much less time than that just by working almost anywhere, and she wouldn't have to wait for 22 years, given the fact that in capitalist countries it was (still is) possible to get a loan, a mortgage.

      Certainly not in the UK - mortgages are such that no single person on minimum wage would be able to save up for a ~10% deposit, let alone be offered a 90% mortgage.

      1 was that they brought in some families from Cuba and placed them there, because of the 'Cuban brothers' who were also Communists of-course, their gov't needed to be shown how well people are treated in USSR.

      Yeah, the BNP complain about immigrants taking social housing in the UK all the time too.

      Another time was actually simpler than that, somebody with real connections to a local (regional) party leader wanted to have an apartment for their offspring. You think they had to wait for years for this?

      Probably not. In my local town, planning corruption is awful - you can pretty much do what you want wrt/ buildings if you grease the right palms. Not sure about assignment of housing per se. Knowing an MP mysteriously seems to sort out most local hurdles in a few days, though. Feeling nostalgic yet?

      7 of who got killed only on one side of the family because they had a farm... owned a shoe factory... in their possession part of a forest and a river and even a village...

      I assume this was a Stalinist kulak purge. I am sorry. It would have been sufficient to nationalise these things and there was no need to harm the old owners.

      As to Thatcher, she inherited a situation, which was so dire, here is what the former PM (before she came to power) said about it:

      You mean that Labour's Callaghan inherited a situation made awful by Tory Heath. While Callaghan tried to reform policy (not in the cleverest manner!), Thatcher decided to destroy Britain out of irrational hatred for certain parts of society.

    8. Re:Unlikely as it seems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're happy that a "slimy pig waste" as you called him gets to walk free another day, saying the things he says, helping keep the government you despise around just a little longer?

      You're happy he goes another day without being confronted with serious personal consequences to his beliefs that might change the way he thinks?

      You're happy socialism gets to run free because free market loving capitalists choose to do nothing and back off?

    9. Re:Unlikely as it seems by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Then wilson and callagham came along, rolled over to the unions and pissed our industry up the wall.

      How, over 5 years, do you think they "pissed our industry up the wall"?

      Its when its aimed pejoratively and specifically at the west and britain in particular that I get pissed off.

      Britain was an expert imperialist in C19. Recent UK and US behaviour in the Middle East has been imperialist. A spade is a spade.

      If the USSRs subjugation of eastern europe wasn't imperialist I don't know what was.

      It was.

    10. Re:Unlikely as it seems by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      You're happy he goes another day without being confronted with serious personal consequences to his beliefs that might change the way he thinks?

      Ah, the free market in practice: hit them until they agrees with you.

    11. Re:Unlikely as it seems by Viol8 · · Score: 0

      Ignore her - she's just a clueless marxist apologist. Probably a student. No amount of facts or personal anecdotes will persuade her that her beloved communist system was anything more than an evil experiment that caused millions of deaths and even more misery.

    12. Re:Unlikely as it seems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The recession was a result of the previous labour govns spend spend spend policy (sound familiar?)"

      Very familiar rhetoric indeed.
      Though anyone who'd look at he historic record of government debt will see that it is increasing much faster since the introduction of free-market/neoliberal economic policies since the early '80s.

    13. Re:Unlikely as it seems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're coming off a bit like Alan Partridge on the Irish, friend.

      Funny how those stupid, lazy Scots still moping around in their pit villages twenty years on disagree, then. For many of those bastards, their only posterity has been the destruction Thatcher ushered in in the name of her extremist free market ideals. How many jobs in how many cities were lost over her cold inflexibility in the name of more convenient capitalisation? Parasites and robbers take what they refuse to pay for, but they don't often ascend to a position where they can command local police to take it for them. I often then about how if they'd only called it an energy company instead of union, if they'd exchanged one type of principle for the other, people like you would be lapping at their boots.

      You can harp on about being against the miners now that history has shown the outcome, but it's a poor show of character in light of the cost.

    14. Re:Unlikely as it seems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your freedom against government oppression has nothing to do with consequences that may come to you when you are dealing with another individual.

    15. Re:Unlikely as it seems by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      clueless - definitely.

      Marxist - hell no.

      apologist - perhaps. I don't get angry at people as much as some do. For example, Franco's actions clearly caused deaths in my family, but I don't really feel anything against Franco. It just happened. It is life.

      student - well, I am doing a law degree for amusement. But many years ago I took mathematics. And I have written accounting systems, handling far too much money. I have started up and sold a fairly successful business. I have been a clear capitalist in the past. It is behind me now.

      facts - well, we've been very short on them.

      anecdotes - kinda why I'm here, although it's hard to appreciate anecdotes from people who have such an obvious drum to beat.

      beloved - no, but I think I would have preferred to have lived in late Soviet Russia than Thatcherite Britain or any time during Franco's Spain.

      communist system - it simply wasn't.

      evil - blah.

      experiment - no more an "experiment" than capitalism, except that capitalism died when limited liability companies came to pass, then died harder when the government decided it had the right to create money. What we have today is good only to the extent that it is well-mixed.

      caused millions of deaths - what counts as a death "caused" by capitalism? is everyone who died prematurely because they couldn't afford the best healthcare or food a casualty of capitalism?

      misery - resembling above.

    16. Re:Unlikely as it seems by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The free market is no better than anarchy. Thanks for clarifying my point.

    17. Re:Unlikely as it seems by Viol8 · · Score: 0

      "I have been a clear capitalist in the past. It is behind me now."

      Oh right, a road to damascus conversion due to self inflicted guilt or some other BS and now you're trying to make up for it. *yawn*

      "from people who have such an obvious drum to beat."

      You mean people like that russian guy who's grandmother had first hand experience? Yeah , what would he know. He only lived there.

      You're priceless.

      "is everyone who died prematurely because they couldn't afford the best healthcare or food a casualty of capitalism?"

      Ah , the usual twisting of logic. Because someone gets private treatment then in your lefty brain that means someone else suffers whereas in actual fact it usually means theres more public money available for everyone else because that person did use not public funds.

      Anyway , its been fun but I have work to do so enjoy dreaming about your communist nirvana. Or better yet - go live in cuba or north korea.

    18. Re:Unlikely as it seems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the free market in practice: hit them until they agrees with you.

      Nice strawman, but free market has nothing to do with it. In fact, "hit them until they agrees with you" can happen in any market when other methods do not achieve desired results.

      He may argue for it, but he does not represent "free market"... nor am I. I'm just pointing out he's backing off instead of standing up for his beliefs, and that by default makes you, the "slimy pig waste" according to him, the winner (so congratulations)

    19. Re:Unlikely as it seems by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Oh right, a road to damascus conversion due to self inflicted guilt or some other BS and now you're trying to make up for it. *yawn*

      Yeah, not wanting to be a cunt is so boring. *yawn*

      Then there's the fact that life's much more enjoyable when you aren't chasing the dragon, and you're helping to build a world that's better for everyone. Sure, it's more challenging, but I wouldn't expect a capitalist to want a challenge.

      You mean people like that russian guy who's grandmother had first hand experience? Yeah , what would he know. He only lived there.

      You mean the second-hand story by sockpuppeted troll roman_mir about the 22 years taken to get moved into better housing? Well, I guess it's worse than Britain in 2012 - here 1 in 4 authorities only take ~10 years to move people to adequate accommodation.

      Ah , the usual twisting of logic. Because someone gets private treatment then in your lefty brain that means someone else suffers whereas in actual fact it usually means theres more public money available for everyone else because that person did use not public funds.

      I'm referring to a state without a public healthcare system. In my "lefty" brain, anyone who dies prematurely because of a lack of state healthcare counts as a death "caused by capitalism". Similarly for lack of housing or good nutrition. And analogously for misery.

      If government rules "cause" deaths then we must include rules which enforce property rights.

      Or better yet - go live in cuba or north korea.

      I have as many choices for a communist state as you have for a capitalist one. You're getting more of a flavour of what you want, though - I'll grant you that.

      Evil always triumphs over good because evil can choose to do good or evil.

    20. Re:Unlikely as it seems by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I assume this was a Stalinist kulak purge. I am sorry. It would have been sufficient to nationalise these things and there was no need to harm the old owners./quote.

      Why exactly would it even be necessary to nationalize a farm and a shoe factory?

    21. Re:Unlikely as it seems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      anarchy, a system where the government doesn't exist, the opposite of free market, which relies on government protecting freedoms of individuals against the collective and supporting private property rights.

      Between individuals there is no concept of rights. I am now very interested in you, personally speaking, you have gained my attention, I want to get to know you closely.

    22. Re:Unlikely as it seems by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      I'm not arguing that it's necessary to nationalise, but whether - having decided that it's necessary to nationalise - you then need to kill the old owners.

      Re nationalisation, Stalin's answer for the farm would probably be something like:

      1) Because they'll overprice their shit, use some of the profits to exploit employees who would otherwise starve because they have no rights over the fertile land, and cream off the rest some for themselves while doing fuck all work;

      2) Because large scale farming is more efficient than small scale, and we want to industrialise the nation, not continue to serve peasants.

      1 was typically used as a reason to kill the old owners - they were enemies of the bla bla and would continue exploiting others. But, contrary to some of the apparent attitudes of the arch-capitalists in this thread, there is no such thing as someone who deserves corporal punishment for being "evil".

      2 is true, but sudden mass nationalisation caused a painful period before increased efficiency was reached. It brings to mind the way landowners pushed people into the cities during the British industrial revolution, ending smallholdings on the one hand and filling the cities on the other. But the pace in Britain was slower, still causing a huge amount of social anguish but more spread out in time and space.

    23. Re:Unlikely as it seems by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Between individuals there is no concept of rights.

      That's.... weird. So if a group of people try to harm you, that's bad. And if a single person tries to take your pony, that's bad. But if someone tries to rape you and murder you, that's OK? Or does that come under property rights? If so, does that mean I can sell myself into slavery?

      I am now very interested in you, personally speaking, you have gained my attention, I want to get to know you closely.

      I am just bashing out nearly random words on a keyboard while doing some work which doesn't require 100% attention. Is that all it takes to make someone personally very interesting? Either your standards are low or your life sheltered.

    24. Re:Unlikely as it seems by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Interesting considering the UK lost most of its industry back when Thatcher was in the government. The auto industry is just one example of many. The UK today has what? A banking sector and nearly no oil and gas reserves.

    25. Re:Unlikely as it seems by Falconhell · · Score: 0

      If you think you have made any valid points in this discussion you are deluded. Just preaching right wing lunacy that a lot of people are tired of. Its been fun watching your antagonist cut your pathetic arguments in to little pieces.

    26. Re:Unlikely as it seems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      collective is by definition much more powerful than an individual

      Which is why collectives are a good thing, and people and systems naturally move towards it.

      Collectives are more powerful, and can be more productive

      10 men can dig a bigger ditch than 1 man can

      Or you organize the 10 men to each do different tasks, so 10 men end up accomplishing more than 1 man can. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

      The collective cannot be punished in any meaningful manner

      That's a good thing. Why would anybody want to be punished? Are you a masochist? People want to live better and feel good, not be punished and feel bad.

      Forming collectives is natural. It's logical. After thousands of years of human history trying different things (from unrestrained free market capitalism to to Nazi Germany to communist USSR), it's found to be the most efficient way to do things.

  36. And I have four for you by Kupfernigk · · Score: 2

    Paul Chambers, Bradley Manning. We really need to start working on the plank in our eye before removing Mr. Putin's.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  37. Re:I could have sworn I typed "slashdot.org" just by Limecron · · Score: 1

    I was waiting for the day after CmdrTaco left that I'd stop reading Slashdot, and I think I've found it.

    Peace out, y'all.

  38. Rather strangely by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1

    They have also bought The Independent, and as The Guardian slowly goes down the tubes and loses all its principles, The Independent seems to be emerging as the last British newspaper with any credibility. Some at least of the oligarchs seem to have the ambition to become English gentlemen, just as those English gentlemen turn out to be pretty obnoxious themselves.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Rather strangely by Deus.1.01 · · Score: 1

      We'll...
      Just be glad that there aren't Australians.

      --
      My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
    2. Re:Rather strangely by Deus.1.01 · · Score: 1

      *They aren't

      --
      My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
    3. Re:Rather strangely by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Hasn't buying in to English Gentry been the ambition of the vulgar nouveau riche for at least a couple of centuries now? Back in the day, more than a few American industrial fortunes went into obtaining distressed-but-honorable lineages...

  39. Propaganda bots at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like bots are online now: http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/08/27/0555219/russias-former-kgb-invests-in-political-propaganda-spambots

  40. 2 things we know after this. by will_die · · Score: 1

    There are two things you will learn after reading the summary.
    1) This was the weirdest slashvertisment ever.
    2) If that joke is one of the most contemptuous and popular ones they need alot of practice and have a great lack of humor.

  41. Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to come to slashdot for new and interesting articles. This article and quite a few others I've seen on slashdot over the last few months have been quite old. Why wasn't this posted closer to when it actually happened? I've already read this article and several versions of it. Why are slashdot's standards slipping?

    slashdot /3
    I'm done with you.

  42. Re:I could have sworn I typed "slashdot.org" just by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

    I propose we change the Slashdot logo for one day in October into all capitals and white-on-red, just like all of the other tabloids.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  43. Re:I could have sworn I typed "slashdot.org" just by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    Either someone at Slashdot is a major league communost or Putin-apologist, or actually thinks this retread of 20 year old show science is something novel.

    May we expect a piece on the cool scientific discoveries of Dr. Mengele next?

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  44. Fuck you, Slashdot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's this? Technology? Science? Computers? Idle?

    Fuck no, this is propaganda by a very questionable world leader.

  45. Advertisment money for slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sometimes I feel bad for visiting slashdot with a ad-blocker.

    Now that I read this story I have to say: I won't for at least the next five years. What kind of drunken, stoned, moronic idiot without any clue of what's going on in the world posted this story?

    Of course, unless slashdot works with Putin to log IPs if "unpersons" who need to get "vaporized". This is so irrelevant for this page and clumsy in regard to conscience and politics it's beyond words (and thoughts, as they probably are forbidden in russia by now as well).

  46. Putin this, Putin that by Penurious+Penguin · · Score: 1

    First I must state that by general default, I consider every global leader one of the following:
    1. An Actor
    2. A Power Proxy
    3. A Prostitute
    4. A Fool
    5. Insane
    6. In Extremis, Moribund, or Dead -- AKA -- Doing their job, Trying, or Successful

    However, Putin is difficult to fit into any particular of my standard categories. Unlike most Big-Time politicians or leaders, he seems possibly interested in the longterm survival of his own nation -- quite unlike what seems the case elsewhere. He is one of the few yet unyielding to the flaccid and stagnant vernacular of conventional diplomatic bitch-speak -- the lingua franca of the Ministry of Confusion; He has exhibited unusual loyalty, albeit to a pretty rough group, but at least domestic; He has made what seems attempts at preventing the assets of his country from being overtaken by those with no portfolio of doing their own nations any good -- at least not by any means of self sacrifice. He is also capable of swinging more than a tainted pen (judo?) -- an uncommon attribute of politicians these days. (OK, fine; Rumsfeld was a wrestler. You got me on that.)

    The world of Man being the laboratory of deception that it is, affords an easy image of Putin as an actor on the stage of geo-absurdity. The FSB, like the CIA, Mossad, etc., routinely engage in covert (and overt) criminal activity, some of which is arguably unforgivable. Maybe Putin is full of shit. Maybe not. From what I've seen, anyone not going along with the suicidal protocol of western bandits is villainized. I don't live in Russia and I don't know as much as I'd prefer to. I do, however, suspect Goldman Sachs and Friends would not fare so well over there; but again, I can only 'suspect'.

    As an American seeing 'my' leaders only able to utter a word of sense under the contingency of inevitable contradiction, I can't help but to at least appreciate his abstinence from the parody I've come to expect as the height of political eloquence here.
    I can't disagree with those who are upset about the Pussy Riot affair, but it is difficult for me to point a finger while sitting in a nation that not only has the largest prison population in the world and an entire industry built upon it, but boasts of liberty while doing so. And I think that for those who've had their coffee, the forecast suggests no improvement.

    --
    Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
    1. Re:Putin this, Putin that by FilatovEV · · Score: 1

      Thanks for a thoughtful comment. It's positive to know that not everybody in the United States trusts the MSM coverage of Russia.

    2. Re:Putin this, Putin that by BCoates · · Score: 1

      Goldman Sachs and Friends would do just fine there, assuming they're not already. Russian-style crony capitalism is what they're trying to institute in the US. Putin isn't acting in opposition to western corporatism, he's just ahead of the game, plus a childish veneer of macho strong-man PR.

  47. You Know, I have one simple request.. by na1led · · Score: 1

    and that is to have cranes with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!

    --
    -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
  48. Re:I could have sworn I typed "slashdot.org" just by Rakshasa-sensei · · Score: 1

    Seems to me most people are just jelly of the guy and don't like his politics, but if given a chance to do the flying would be super-exited and talk about the experience for ages afterwards.

    Seriously, the guy gets to do awesome fun things.

  49. This is stale news by NSN+A392-99-964-5927 · · Score: 1

    EOF

    --
    All cows eat grass!
  50. Re:I could have sworn I typed "slashdot.org" just by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This belongs on Good Morning America or some other drivel.

    slashdot crew has career ambitions y'a know.

  51. Re:I could have sworn I typed "slashdot.org" just by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Can we have Jo, 22, from Leicester's opinion as the third comment on each story? OO

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  52. Putin, merely a Cal Worthington wannabe? by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    Apparently Putin thinks that he is Cal Worthington

  53. Censorship over there and right here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For "bad behaviour" you do not have to look as far as russia. Looking as far as slashdot is enough.

    Slashdot is not moderated, it's also censored.

    I wrote a topic Fuck Slashdot. It's not modded down, it's gone. Simply gone, even if "Fuck this" or "Fuck that" is something some geeks tend to say to express they dislike something. "Fuck Putin" is ok, apparently and left standing.

    I also submitted a "Ask Slashdot: Do we need a moderation system for editors" which would indicate when an editor might need to get fired due to add too many stupid stories that do not match what the community wants.
    It's gone as well. What are they afraid? An open debate?

    This is censorship and from the same cake that Putin also takes stuff from.

    In this light it's probably no surprise a horrible story like this one here pops up. The editors simply have no real "feel" for democracy.

    Of course, this post is probably going to get CENSORED as well.

  54. Re:I could have sworn I typed "slashdot.org" just by virgnarus · · Score: 1

    An ultralight, some loudspeakers, and having his antics displayed on television sets and subsequently joked about on the internet. Is this not enough tech-related material for you?

  55. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  56. Yawn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nature Lover Vladimir Putin Flies With the Cranes

    Let me know when he sleeps with the fishes... but don't send the pictures (or it never happened), that's pron we could do well without.

  57. Authoritarian rule for the Internet generation by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 1

    No, these are the types of activities that authoritarian rulers everywhere do. The exception might be some really poor African or Asian country where majority of the citizens live in rural villages whose only means of electronic communication are dirt cheap dumb phones. For the rest of the non-democratic world, the leaders have to somehow show their soft or human side. People want leaders who give the impression of being just another bloke who happened to carry the "burden" of leadership. So here you get the Great Leader and/or Leaders visiting factories, having a face-to-face "chat" with some poor but smiling farmer, or playing basketball or whatever is the most popular sport in the country.

    Of course leaders of democratic countries also do this but not to the stage-managed extent shown in countries like North Korea. For example, Obama seemingly dropping by a fastfood restaurant, when we all know that the shop has been secured in advance by the Secret Service.

  58. Is this a cultural thing? by Dave+Emami · · Score: 1

    A question, in all seriousness, to any Russians in the audience: does Putin doing these sorts of stunts actually increase his appeal to voters (I presume that's why he wants publicity of him doing these things), or is the reaction more along the lines of "there goes Putin, making himself look macho again"? Obviously national leaders have hobbies, just like anyone else does, but he's racked up a long list. Sometimes it seems like he's trying to get himself into Mountain Dew commercials.

    --

    "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
  59. Russian Gaddafi/Saddam hybrid by kbahey · · Score: 1

    If Putin was in the Middle East, he would be a hybrid of Libya's Gaddafi and Iraq's Saddam.

  60. Far left loon, meet far right loon. by noobermin · · Score: 1

    Yes, the unions magically make things worse as the Bush tax cuts magically put us into recession. Fuck those poor people for wanted a say in their wages! They should slave all day and just make ME wealth while I pay them a pittance because I BUILT THIS without any help!

    On the other hand, you have our pal who believes gubermint creates recessions because contracting and thus LOSING profit I would have had otherwise from better demand is better for us because I want to remove my worker's right so I can make MORE profit...makes sense...

    I don't know, could recessions be caused by...gasp, actual market forces? No it has to be some nefarious plot by either the gubermint or corporations, economics be damned.

    It's okay, your (plural you) only soapbox is slashdot. Loons from either side (save the Tea Party exterminsts) haven't made their way to a place where they can actually make important decisions, so I'll only mock your ignorance without worrying that you'll make decisions that will affect my day-to-day life.

    1. Re:Far left loon, meet far right loon. by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      It's the usual. Hitler started blaming the unions then he started blaming poor people, the old and the sick for the crisis. The same pattern seems to be repeating again.

  61. Lies. by zmooc · · Score: 1

    I find it rather odd that slashdot fails to mention that originally a russian biologist named Maria Gontsjarova blogged about this propaganda stunt. What she said was "somewhat" different from the so-called facts slashdot mentions here.

    Her first report stated that several cranes were injured during transportation in cages while at least one died when putin steered his planes propellor into it. Somehow these reports were "corrected" to the "official" version shortly after. I suppose you can imagine the mechanisms Putin has in place for "correcting" information on the blog of a student. Glad to see slashdot supporting the Russian propaganda machine! Keep up the good work!

    http://www.rferl.org/content/claims-rare-cranes-died-during-putin-stunt/24701513.html
    http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8801623

    --
    0x or or snor perron?!
  62. Reincarnation? by WebManWalking · · Score: 1

    Top politician in his country, loves to brave the cold, does judo, loves nature, ..., OMG, he's Teddy Roosevelt!

  63. Chuck Norris would've sang the mother's call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for full 3D audio realism.

    Then he would've manually compensated the hang glider for the sudden gust of wind, and kicked the crap out any cranes that were dumb enough to stay behind.

  64. Good for him by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    I applause his effort, in atleast taking a personal interest in such things, too many presidents today seem to just forget all about the environment they live in...
    Surely Obama could have done a better job with the oil spill, but he just didnt care about the wildlife or sealife.... I wonder how Putin would have done in his place....
    lined up the board of directors for that oil company and shoot them all???

  65. KGB training turned Putin into a nature lover. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All that KGB training turned Putin into a nature lover. My God; who would have guessed that.
    Does not seem to make up for all the human life destroyed by the KGB and Putin, though.

  66. I think I speak for everybody when I say by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 1

    meh

  67. Nature Lover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [quote]Russian President Vladimir Putin is a nature lover.
    In 2007, the bare-chested president rode a horse through Siberia.
    In 2008, he fired a tranquilizer gun at a rare Siberian tiger.
    In 2010, he used a crossbow to shoot darts at an enormous whale...[/quote]

    I'm a woman lover, but the last time I shot one with a tranquilizer gun she didn't seem to agree.

  68. World laughs at America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America's President plays golf, Russia's hunts and flies ultralight aircraft. Then people wonder why America is mocked

  69. "Left wing blinkered nonsense" by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    Viol8, you really do come over like a childish Daily Mail reader. I guess that you didn't actually work in industry, you just read about it in the Mail. I did. For a "lefty" I didn't do too badly either - they don't usually make blinkered lefties technical directors, nor do they get funded by the DTI to represent the UK abroad - but I digress a little.

    Yes there were major union problems in the 70s and 80s. They were almost all caused by underqualified, poor quality managements who didn't understand the first thing about negotiation, many of them accountant-led. A friend of mine who went to work for Leyland post-graduation soon left, citing the utter incompetence of his bosses. In the US, in my experience at the time, manufacturing was product-led and the job of the bean counters was to count beans. Successful companies like Thorn EMI tended to have high quality managements. Funny that.

    The early 70s power cuts were the result of the poor management of the coal industry and the excessively combative approach of civil servants. It's interesting that Ted Heath actually sympathised with the miners, as did a couple of his more forward thinking ministers, and wanted to negotiate. He was sabotaged by Wilson and his own civil servants. Have you ever met a miner? Thought not.

    The recession was caused by a sudden policy change to "strict monetarism" , an economic policy so disastrous that it hasn't been applied in this depression, in which an increase in the money supply is being managed by central banks. As a result, instead of using North Sea Oil money to pay for a transition from lower tech to higher tech industry, it was frittered away on giving sweeteners to high earners and friends of the Conservative Party. That notorious purveyor of left wing nonsense Michael Heseltine got it. Thatcher and her cronies didn't. I still feel, as someone who attended a few meetings with Heseltine and his policy makers at the DTI, that he was the best Conservative Prime Minister we never had. A Heseltine/Clark government could have seen off Blair.

    Mind you, Blair and Brown weren't in the room when the SEC allowed the banks to deregulate in 2004, which led to the present crisis. It's funny how in the UK people like you blame Labour, when US economists actually point to the the precise meeting at which the second disastrous deregulation step allowed Lehmann and Bear Sterns, aided and abetted by S&P and Goldman Sachs, to create the housing bubble. Blinkers? Yup, you have them.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  70. More roman_mir hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, it didn't take long to find this (in case anyone doesn't already know, "udachny" is a sock puppet of "roman_mir").
     
     

    that in capitalist countries it was (still is) possible to get a loan, a mortgage.

    You have on multiple occasions, voiced opposition to the very notion of mortgages. You have claimed many times that the contribute to the "destruction of currency" - or some such similar mantra of your religious sect. Yet here, you are supporting the notion of someone getting a loan or a mortgage.

    You can't have it both ways. Do you support, or oppose it? And why did you contradict yourself? People claim that you are a great example of consistency, yet you just said something that is diametrically opposed to what you have said before.

    How do you plan to use slashdot as a tool for recruiting more followers to your religion when you can't voice the message consistently?