Just a note: that was a colleague of mine, and I could ask more people from the former Soviet countries to weigh in. There's a big community of them where I live.
I lived in the USSR and traveled extensively (dozens of cities in Russia, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Armenia, Kazakhstan; Poland, Hungary).
If you're talking about one of the satellite states like Poland or East Germany, I wouldn't argue with #5 (more personal freedom). I haven't lived there long enough to know well, but, at least on the surface, Warsaw, Krakow and Budapest in the early 80's looked much more "free" than the USSR. Unlike the USSR, where the Police or even the "People's patrol" could detain you if you had long hair, an ear ring (if you were a man) or your clothes were too "hippy", as well as force you to "fix" those "issues".
As for #6 (Less surveillance and government spying): maybe you forgot what East Germany was infamous for (hint: the Stasi). The technology wasn't there, but what they could achieve just with the good old snitching was impressive. The rest of the "Communist" countries weren't that far behind.
#7 (Better infrastructure): Even in Poland and Hungary with the exception of the "showcase" buildings, etc. the infrastructure wasn't in great shape (don't even start me on the Russian "infrastructure" - it's like Russia is always ready to fight a foreign invasion).
#8 (Lower incarceration rates): I'm not sure whether to laugh or be sad. The USSR had about 10 million of people in prisons/camps/forced settlements between 1930's and 1950's. Starting with the 60's the government became smarter: they would just declare a dissident crazy, or not let him/her find any normal job, or - at best - force them out of the country.
#9 (Less oppressive laws): This is getting ridiculous. In the 30's through the 50's people were shot or - at best - sent to Siberian work camps for just being nobility or well-off, or questioning _anything_. It got better in the 60's, but still couldn't be compared to the US.
You must've been very young during those times. I can't find any other explanation for your naïveté.
PS. The US isn't perfect, it has lots of problems, but - in that regard - it's still better than the USSR or its allies were. That said, I always find it very ironic when the Americans speak of the "Evil Empire":)
"Any eastern european communist country in the 80's had uniformly for every citizen: 1) Higher standard of living 2) Lower unemployment 3) Better healthcare 4) Better education 5) More personal freedom 6) Less surveilance and government spying 7) Better infrastructure 8) Lower incarceration rates 9) Less oppressive laws"
"The US stopped a war between Japan and Russia. A war the Japan was winning." Which one is that? 1904-1905? The US stopped it? This is why I like the Internet - you learn something new every day.
"From what I've seen, the US has been a moderating force in the region since the 1900s, from keeping Japan from attacking Russia, through WWII, to keeping the peace in the area." It has done such a great job in 1904 when the US stopped "Japan from attacking Russia" and later, in 1937 when it kept "the peace in the area" by stopping Japan from invading China, as well as in Dec 1941, when it persuaded Japan from attacking anyone else and everybody lived in peace and harmony from then on...
" "hull shot", where a NATO sub came so close to a Soviet sub that it was able to shoot photos of the hull. " There's photos made by Soviet subs of US carriers/subs/etc. as well. This kind of argumentation is pointless.
She definitely wasn't noble. First, her last name was "Rosenbaum" - the number of the Jewish noble families in Russia was under 10 and this wasn't one of them. Second, her father was a pharmacist, a bourgeois.
I don't think that was an ad hominem. Ad hominem is an attack on the characteristics or the authority of a person _without addressing the substance of the argument_. What was the substance of the argument? Ayn Rand's philosophical views, which - as AC and kilfarsnar argued - were influenced by the traits of her personality.
Just get a soundbar w/ a sub - they're cheap these days and sound very nice.
You might see no value in connecting your TV, but I do: I use Amazon, Netflix, Pandora, BBC and some other apps and find them great. Chromcast doesn't work on Linux. Why would I buy anything else, if my TV can do it? Skyping using your TV's webcam is great. If your connection is fast enough, it's like having those people right in your living room. Worried about privacy? Just cover it with something (not pretty - I know).
1. Yes, if you buy crap just b/c it's cheap, you're a "schmuck". 2. There's not that many brands that make hardware with no defects. Especially if it's something new. 3. You get what you pay for. Want excellent hardware/software? Pay a lot. Not 100% guaranteed though (as you noted yourself). 4. The article demonstrates that: a) if you connect your "smart" tv directly to the Internet, you deserve to get owned. If you connect through your W/LAN which isn't firewalled, you deserve to get owned. OK, maybe "deserve" is a little too harsh, but I think you get the idea. b) Samsung TV's are vulnerable to DNS poisoning and drive-by downloads. Do you think other brands aren't? c) Skype sessions are vulnerable to remote code injection. How is that Samsung's fault exactly? d) Samsung TV's lack strong authentication. Bad indeed. I don't think Samsung is the only brand to have this problem though.
Slashdot Mirror
"China has modified the weather publicly. Russia has modified the weather publicly."
Source?
Just a note: that was a colleague of mine, and I could ask more people from the former Soviet countries to weigh in. There's a big community of them where I live.
I lived in the USSR and traveled extensively (dozens of cities in Russia, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Armenia, Kazakhstan; Poland, Hungary).
If you're talking about one of the satellite states like Poland or East Germany, I wouldn't argue with #5 (more personal freedom). I haven't lived there long enough to know well, but, at least on the surface, Warsaw, Krakow and Budapest in the early 80's looked much more "free" than the USSR. Unlike the USSR, where the Police or even the "People's patrol" could detain you if you had long hair, an ear ring (if you were a man) or your clothes were too "hippy", as well as force you to "fix" those "issues".
As for #6 (Less surveillance and government spying): maybe you forgot what East Germany was infamous for (hint: the Stasi). The technology wasn't there, but what they could achieve just with the good old snitching was impressive. The rest of the "Communist" countries weren't that far behind.
#7 (Better infrastructure): Even in Poland and Hungary with the exception of the "showcase" buildings, etc. the infrastructure wasn't in great shape (don't even start me on the Russian "infrastructure" - it's like Russia is always ready to fight a foreign invasion).
#8 (Lower incarceration rates): I'm not sure whether to laugh or be sad. The USSR had about 10 million of people in prisons/camps/forced settlements between 1930's and 1950's. Starting with the 60's the government became smarter: they would just declare a dissident crazy, or not let him/her find any normal job, or - at best - force them out of the country.
#9 (Less oppressive laws): This is getting ridiculous. In the 30's through the 50's people were shot or - at best - sent to Siberian work camps for just being nobility or well-off, or questioning _anything_. It got better in the 60's, but still couldn't be compared to the US.
You must've been very young during those times. I can't find any other explanation for your naïveté.
PS. The US isn't perfect, it has lots of problems, but - in that regard - it's still better than the USSR or its allies were. That said, I always find it very ironic when the Americans speak of the "Evil Empire" :)
Russia has so much of their own "Alaska", they can barely keep it under control.
So, let's assume that in ten days, you learn some logic. It won't help, will it?
"Strawman or do you have a crystal ball?"
Some people don't need crystal balls. They have brains.
"Any eastern european communist country in the 80's had uniformly for every citizen:
1) Higher standard of living
2) Lower unemployment
3) Better healthcare
4) Better education
5) More personal freedom
6) Less surveilance and government spying
7) Better infrastructure
8) Lower incarceration rates
9) Less oppressive laws"
5 through 9? Don't be ridiculous.
IIRC spiders eat bedbugs, so you might be hurting your own efforts.
You stupid by the way? Cause you need to remember that if you try to fuck with somebody, be ready that somebody will fuck you up.
"The US stopped a war between Japan and Russia. A war the Japan was winning."
Which one is that? 1904-1905? The US stopped it? This is why I like the Internet - you learn something new every day.
"From what I've seen, the US has been a moderating force in the region since the 1900s, from keeping Japan from attacking Russia, through WWII, to keeping the peace in the area."
It has done such a great job in 1904 when the US stopped "Japan from attacking Russia" and later, in 1937 when it kept "the peace in the area" by stopping Japan from invading China, as well as in Dec 1941, when it persuaded Japan from attacking anyone else and everybody lived in peace and harmony from then on...
" "hull shot", where a NATO sub came so close to a Soviet sub that it was able to shoot photos of the hull. "
There's photos made by Soviet subs of US carriers/subs/etc. as well. This kind of argumentation is pointless.
RED ALERT! RED ALERT! Russian hackers with bad grammar detected!!! Grammar Nazis report to your stations immediately!!!
Marx "demanded a totalitarian state"? USSR supported "the Republican Fascists in the Spanish Civil War"? Are you high?
"most of the food grown in the US is not fit for human consumption. its to send off to some factory to make a food product out of it"
Source?
She definitely wasn't noble. First, her last name was "Rosenbaum" - the number of the Jewish noble families in Russia was under 10 and this wasn't one of them. Second, her father was a pharmacist, a bourgeois.
I don't think that was an ad hominem. Ad hominem is an attack on the characteristics or the authority of a person _without addressing the substance of the argument_. What was the substance of the argument? Ayn Rand's philosophical views, which - as AC and kilfarsnar argued - were influenced by the traits of her personality.
Or, better, a m1n1wall for $200-something. Set it up. Connect your router.
Just get a soundbar w/ a sub - they're cheap these days and sound very nice.
You might see no value in connecting your TV, but I do: I use Amazon, Netflix, Pandora, BBC and some other apps and find them great.
Chromcast doesn't work on Linux. Why would I buy anything else, if my TV can do it?
Skyping using your TV's webcam is great. If your connection is fast enough, it's like having those people right in your living room. Worried about privacy? Just cover it with something (not pretty - I know).
1. Yes, if you buy crap just b/c it's cheap, you're a "schmuck".
2. There's not that many brands that make hardware with no defects. Especially if it's something new.
3. You get what you pay for. Want excellent hardware/software? Pay a lot. Not 100% guaranteed though (as you noted yourself).
4. The article demonstrates that:
a) if you connect your "smart" tv directly to the Internet, you deserve to get owned. If you connect through your W/LAN which isn't firewalled, you deserve to get owned. OK, maybe "deserve" is a little too harsh, but I think you get the idea.
b) Samsung TV's are vulnerable to DNS poisoning and drive-by downloads. Do you think other brands aren't?
c) Skype sessions are vulnerable to remote code injection. How is that Samsung's fault exactly?
d) Samsung TV's lack strong authentication. Bad indeed. I don't think Samsung is the only brand to have this problem though.
"The main protein in milk and meat is casein [wikipedia.org]. "
Have you actually read what that article says?
All the protein powders that I tried tasted awful*. Chicken/turkey breast isn't much better either**. So, athletes and the like might be interested.
* unless mixed with milk/etc.
** unless marinated/etc.
"in biblical times, it was equivalent to when we say "a million" today; it means "a hell of a lot"."
I'm pretty sure the Romans could count to 40.
You haven't really thought that through, have you? :)
There's no point in having laws since criminals don't obey them? Seriously?
PS. Google "purpose of law" or something, will you?
A nice strawman you built there. No one had the expectation that "criminals would obey gun laws".