Not that we _help_ Snowden... He is not welcomed and not granted an asylum. Also, Putin has publicly said that there's nothing news-worthy in Snowden's revelations, because it's the way all secret agencies in all countries work.
I find it strange that it comes down to the discussion of whether Russia is a "bastion of human rights"... Nobody's claiming that in Russia. We know our weaknesses and we work on them.
RT is not the Russian television. It's a Russian-funded and owned American opposition television. They capitalize on the stories that are omitted by the mainstream American media (because quite seriously, who would care about Russia?).
First, in the Russian press, there's no THAT clear distinction between commentaries and news.
However, the Russian press is diverse. I wonder what was your rationale for choosing the "Pravda"? (It's not even pro-gov!)
Also, I wonder why would you read the Russian press for the purposes other than getting informed about the local (regional) situation (which MIGHT be appreciably different from what is reported in the West).
I could advise you the following venues, which follow different editorial policies:
(1) lenta.ru
News/commentary website with opposition-leaning agenda.
(2) rusrep.ru
Magazine for the "middle class". Often runs interesting reports.
When it comes from the United States, it's fringe. When it comes from Russia, it's news. Because Russia itself is considered fringe in the West. Misplaced perceptions account for the fact that the same thing could be news, or not news, depending on its origin.
Meanwhile, transhumanist magazines like hplusmagazine.com make no distinction between the American and Russian contributors. The transhumanist community is genuinely international, and that's a positive fact if you consider it.
So, when a Western company hires a Russian freelancer to do a 100$ job, it's okey. But when a Russian software company sells its product worldwide, it's all fishy and KGB. Indeed, why are Russians allowed to run software-related businesses? All coders from Russia should work for Western companies for food.
Ok. Your argument makes sense. However, perhaps overtaxing the riches would give Putin just the same amount of bad press (and which is worse, bad economy and low investments). There are no easy solutions to the mess.
p.s. By the way, is that +10 or -10db? That's either a very good or a very bad signal-to-noise ratio, but from your nickname it's not evident which one is implied.
It's not about cultural differences; it's about different views on the history.
Let me reiterate my major points: (1) violations of the rule of law started in 1990s with the deeply flawed privatization program, and the violations during the partial re-nationalization of 2000s were just another aspect of the same problem. [Ergo, oligarchs are just as "bad" as Putin is.] (2) while concerns about the rule of law are valid, the major underlying question which spurs the debate is ownership of the large post-Soviet assets.
I totally agree that the Rule of Law is preferable to the alternative. But the large underlying problem of the fair ownership of the Soviet assets has no easy solution [until it's solved one way or another].
You made a number of points. Let me strike a line across them to assuage your concerns.
After the fall of the Soviet Union a lot of Russia's state-owned resource-driven economy was privatized. It was a very murky process, in the result of which a few people grabbed huge industrial assets while paying a tiny fraction of the price. One of them is Khodorkovsky.
After Putin was elected in 2000, he has taken measures to curb the influence of the said oligarchs. That resulted in a lot of complaints about the rule of law (and selectivity of its use) in Russia from the Russian liberals and Western states.
The Western media maintain that the only cure to the situation in Russia is the respect for the rule of law (and down with Putin btw).
However, that's a mistake, and as a slashdotter, you should see why. The mistake is that the privatization of 90s and partial re-nationalization of 2000s of the natural-resource-extraction-driven economy is prone to generate conflicts of interests between powerful figures. The conflict will persist until the economy itself will not change. (Why not to privatize everything and end the story? Okey, let's do it; then there are the Communists who would be happy to make a law to nationalize the said assets: then it would be legal!)
The Kaspersky lab is a good example of the new type of the economy, which is not based on gaining control over Soviet-era industrial assets. If more of the Russian economy was like that, there would be less space for the conflict between oligarchs and the authorities.
While I understand your concerns about the rule of law in Russia, you should understand too, that supporting Russian companies such as Kaspersky lab will indirectly strengthen the rule of law in Russia.
What you should be primarily concerned with as a slashdotter is whether they are making better (and cheaper) software than other AV companies or not. Hope this helps.
I had a couple of Martin Gardner's books in my childhood, and I read them a lot. Childhood is a great time to read Gardner, because all children are hobbyists in their hearts.
As I considered it now, I thought the book was rather rigorous in the sense of morals. There were no explicit sex scenes and no explicit dirty contents. Despite discussions of bigamy.
Like, it's the reason why nobody will ever build nuclear thermal rockets. True, their performance is superior both in terms of specific impulse and thrust to the chemical rocket engines. But it's not much enough fun. Why spending a lot of resources to research a technology which wouldn't be good enough yet to get us to Mars.
It's convenient to think about advanced rocket engines as the ways to maximize both specific impulse and thrust at the same time. Thermonuclear rocket engines would have greater specific impulse and greater thrust than the gas core rocket engines; there is no tradeoff, but these are two distinctly different approaches. The question is rather, like, shall we first upgrade our space technology to "level 3" or to "level 4" while skipping "level 3" -- not an easy question if we couldn't build on "level 3" when upgrading to the "level 4".
Which option do you believe should be researched first: gas core reactor rocket engines or thermonuclear rocket engines?
While the gas core technology is simpler and would allow practical interplanetary flight within the Solar System, shouldn't we (the Humankind) research first the thermonuclear rocket engines technology that would make interstellar flight feasible?
Thanks in advance!
In his novel Marooned in Realtime, which deals with a technological Singularity, Vernor Vinge muses that a civilization might choose to retreat into a virtual reality buried deep below a planet's surface instead of expanding outward.
What if it turns out to be, rather, The Orchid Cage by Herbert W. Franke?
Thanks for your opinion. It was important for me to hear that. Thanks for the videos, too. I have posted them on our website, for my friends to have a look.
1) Public opinion polls, including independent ones by the Levada-Center, very pretty close to the official elections results. Which makes allegations of fraud dubious for me. I prefer to trust statistics, than emotions. The elections were free and fair -- for me; as a 1986-born, I've seen no better. Sorry. And if you want some scholarly opinion, look no farther than Stephen Cohen: "though these elections were not free and fair, they were the freest and fairest in 15 years" http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/30/election_fraud_galvanizes_russian_opposition_communist
2) And albeit it's a trivial defense, I really do not care that much about speech freedom and such. I care more about economical fairness. Why medical nurses are so low-paid, stuff like that. You can see the my pol. views via the political compass: http://evagen.livejournal.com/39052.html
What I really care about is freedom of conscience. I can tolerate the situation where I either cannot say something or I could but my voice would not count. But I cannot tolerate the situation when I am forced to say something I do not want to say. That speaks about freedom of conscience, rather than freedom of speech. As for speech freedom, I help my friends to run an independent political website, which is fine for me.
Other than a bunch of personal accusations, your comment makes a serious mistake of treating every view in favor of the strong Russian statehood as a part of pro-Kremlin cheerleading. It's very obvious that you are unaware of the "patriotic opposition" concept and the viewpoint espoused by Sergey Kurginuan.
The more serious criticism of your comment is:
1) I do not care if personally you take any steps to support those in Russia who want more rights. But when you hire the Government of the U.S. to do that job it's an entirely different beast. First, the U.S. state is not accountable to a citizen of Russia like me. Overall, the U.S. Government is a very weak parody on the world government, and shouldn't attempt fixing things it's not supposed to take care of. Second, there's no way for an ordinary U.S. citizen to verify claims made by the U.S. Government in regards of the Russian stuff, which leaves the open way for a massive disinformation campaign which currently takes place.
2) "all the while supplying a broken Russian Army with arms and equipment" which is very well, but the Soviet Government has paid your country for that equipment, which makes it an ordinary business deal for you, rather than a sacrifice or donation as you have implied. Yes, the U.S. had some good business deals with us during the WWII, which is very well but why should we be grateful?
You have made some good points and some debatable ones. But I need to notice that I am not merely a Russian, but a working Russian, too. And right now I cannot provide any good reply. I will try to make a proper reply within a day or two. Thanks for your notice.
Slashdot Mirror
Good deal.
I find it strange that it comes down to the discussion of whether Russia is a "bastion of human rights"... Nobody's claiming that in Russia. We know our weaknesses and we work on them.
RT is not the Russian television. It's a Russian-funded and owned American opposition television. They capitalize on the stories that are omitted by the mainstream American media (because quite seriously, who would care about Russia?).
First, in the Russian press, there's no THAT clear distinction between commentaries and news.
However, the Russian press is diverse. I wonder what was your rationale for choosing the "Pravda"? (It's not even pro-gov!)
Also, I wonder why would you read the Russian press for the purposes other than getting informed about the local (regional) situation (which MIGHT be appreciably different from what is reported in the West).
I could advise you the following venues, which follow different editorial policies:
(1) lenta.ru
News/commentary website with opposition-leaning agenda.
(2) rusrep.ru
Magazine for the "middle class". Often runs interesting reports.
(3) izvestia.ru
Pro-gov-leaning newspaper. Interesting reads.
(4) mk.ru
A popular newspaper (more to the tabloid side). News/commentaries.
However, for purposes other than showing off, you would have to learn Russian to be able to read the press.
When it comes from the United States, it's fringe. When it comes from Russia, it's news. Because Russia itself is considered fringe in the West. Misplaced perceptions account for the fact that the same thing could be news, or not news, depending on its origin.
Meanwhile, transhumanist magazines like hplusmagazine.com make no distinction between the American and Russian contributors. The transhumanist community is genuinely international, and that's a positive fact if you consider it.
So, when a Western company hires a Russian freelancer to do a 100$ job, it's okey. But when a Russian software company sells its product worldwide, it's all fishy and KGB. Indeed, why are Russians allowed to run software-related businesses? All coders from Russia should work for Western companies for food.
I do not say that you should love Putin. Just that you shouldn't shy away from software produced in Russia because of him.
Smart coding makes wonders, they say.
Ok. Your argument makes sense. However, perhaps overtaxing the riches would give Putin just the same amount of bad press (and which is worse, bad economy and low investments). There are no easy solutions to the mess.
p.s. By the way, is that +10 or -10db? That's either a very good or a very bad signal-to-noise ratio, but from your nickname it's not evident which one is implied.
It's not about cultural differences; it's about different views on the history.
Let me reiterate my major points: (1) violations of the rule of law started in 1990s with the deeply flawed privatization program, and the violations during the partial re-nationalization of 2000s were just another aspect of the same problem. [Ergo, oligarchs are just as "bad" as Putin is.] (2) while concerns about the rule of law are valid, the major underlying question which spurs the debate is ownership of the large post-Soviet assets.
I totally agree that the Rule of Law is preferable to the alternative. But the large underlying problem of the fair ownership of the Soviet assets has no easy solution [until it's solved one way or another].
You made a number of points. Let me strike a line across them to assuage your concerns.
After the fall of the Soviet Union a lot of Russia's state-owned resource-driven economy was privatized. It was a very murky process, in the result of which a few people grabbed huge industrial assets while paying a tiny fraction of the price. One of them is Khodorkovsky.
After Putin was elected in 2000, he has taken measures to curb the influence of the said oligarchs. That resulted in a lot of complaints about the rule of law (and selectivity of its use) in Russia from the Russian liberals and Western states.
The Western media maintain that the only cure to the situation in Russia is the respect for the rule of law (and down with Putin btw).
However, that's a mistake, and as a slashdotter, you should see why. The mistake is that the privatization of 90s and partial re-nationalization of 2000s of the natural-resource-extraction-driven economy is prone to generate conflicts of interests between powerful figures. The conflict will persist until the economy itself will not change. (Why not to privatize everything and end the story? Okey, let's do it; then there are the Communists who would be happy to make a law to nationalize the said assets: then it would be legal!)
The Kaspersky lab is a good example of the new type of the economy, which is not based on gaining control over Soviet-era industrial assets. If more of the Russian economy was like that, there would be less space for the conflict between oligarchs and the authorities.
While I understand your concerns about the rule of law in Russia, you should understand too, that supporting Russian companies such as Kaspersky lab will indirectly strengthen the rule of law in Russia.
What you should be primarily concerned with as a slashdotter is whether they are making better (and cheaper) software than other AV companies or not. Hope this helps.
Israeli security officials at Ben Gurion airport are legally allowed to demand access to tourists' email accounts and deny them entry if they refuse
What if I do not use email? Would I be allowed to enter Israel, or would I need to set up a fake account?
I had a couple of Martin Gardner's books in my childhood, and I read them a lot. Childhood is a great time to read Gardner, because all children are hobbyists in their hearts.
As I considered it now, I thought the book was rather rigorous in the sense of morals. There were no explicit sex scenes and no explicit dirty contents. Despite discussions of bigamy.
Definitely worthy book.
Like, it's the reason why nobody will ever build nuclear thermal rockets. True, their performance is superior both in terms of specific impulse and thrust to the chemical rocket engines. But it's not much enough fun. Why spending a lot of resources to research a technology which wouldn't be good enough yet to get us to Mars.
It's convenient to think about advanced rocket engines as the ways to maximize both specific impulse and thrust at the same time. Thermonuclear rocket engines would have greater specific impulse and greater thrust than the gas core rocket engines; there is no tradeoff, but these are two distinctly different approaches. The question is rather, like, shall we first upgrade our space technology to "level 3" or to "level 4" while skipping "level 3" -- not an easy question if we couldn't build on "level 3" when upgrading to the "level 4".
Which option do you believe should be researched first: gas core reactor rocket engines or thermonuclear rocket engines?
While the gas core technology is simpler and would allow practical interplanetary flight within the Solar System, shouldn't we (the Humankind) research first the thermonuclear rocket engines technology that would make interstellar flight feasible?
Thanks in advance!
In his novel Marooned in Realtime , which deals with a technological Singularity, Vernor Vinge muses that a civilization might choose to retreat into a virtual reality buried deep below a planet's surface instead of expanding outward.
What if it turns out to be, rather, The Orchid Cage by Herbert W. Franke?
Any way... where can I watch the video?
Sorry, it was actually my comment.
Thanks for your opinion. It was important for me to hear that. Thanks for the videos, too. I have posted them on our website, for my friends to have a look.
1) Public opinion polls, including independent ones by the Levada-Center, very pretty close to the official elections results. Which makes allegations of fraud dubious for me. I prefer to trust statistics, than emotions. The elections were free and fair -- for me; as a 1986-born, I've seen no better. Sorry. And if you want some scholarly opinion, look no farther than Stephen Cohen: "though these elections were not free and fair, they were the freest and fairest in 15 years" http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/30/election_fraud_galvanizes_russian_opposition_communist
2) And albeit it's a trivial defense, I really do not care that much about speech freedom and such. I care more about economical fairness. Why medical nurses are so low-paid, stuff like that. You can see the my pol. views via the political compass: http://evagen.livejournal.com/39052.html
What I really care about is freedom of conscience. I can tolerate the situation where I either cannot say something or I could but my voice would not count. But I cannot tolerate the situation when I am forced to say something I do not want to say. That speaks about freedom of conscience, rather than freedom of speech. As for speech freedom, I help my friends to run an independent political website, which is fine for me.
The more serious criticism of your comment is:
1) I do not care if personally you take any steps to support those in Russia who want more rights. But when you hire the Government of the U.S. to do that job it's an entirely different beast. First, the U.S. state is not accountable to a citizen of Russia like me. Overall, the U.S. Government is a very weak parody on the world government, and shouldn't attempt fixing things it's not supposed to take care of. Second, there's no way for an ordinary U.S. citizen to verify claims made by the U.S. Government in regards of the Russian stuff, which leaves the open way for a massive disinformation campaign which currently takes place.
2) "all the while supplying a broken Russian Army with arms and equipment" which is very well, but the Soviet Government has paid your country for that equipment, which makes it an ordinary business deal for you, rather than a sacrifice or donation as you have implied. Yes, the U.S. had some good business deals with us during the WWII, which is very well but why should we be grateful?
You have made some good points and some debatable ones. But I need to notice that I am not merely a Russian, but a working Russian, too. And right now I cannot provide any good reply. I will try to make a proper reply within a day or two. Thanks for your notice.