Perm-36 was in full swing until 1988. And now the russian government tries to phase out the Gulag museum there, so that the people who like to remember the soviet union as a nice, cosy place to live, can more easily forget the crimes against humanity and say that "living space was free and everybody had food and it was not so bad after all".
There was rent as well as utilities. As i said - rent was quite reasonable, but it was NOT universally free. Maybe it was free for some people who got their apartment from their employer (you?) but not "guaranteed by the state". I have actually paid rent to the soviet government, so there is no argument here.
As far as a "certain amount of personal living space" guaranteed by law you are talking about - it might have been in the law (i really do not know), but you could easily be "waiting in line" for getting such an apartment for DECADES. While living with your parents, grandparents and children in a 1 room apartment.
If it was free, how come I HAVE PAID RENT to the soviet govenrment?
YOU brought the dissidents into the argument, saying that even they were guaranteed living space. I just asserted that even if it was guaranteed, it was in Gulag, which hardly qualifies.
Stop romanticising the Soviet era, we already got that you are the type of Russian shill who yearns back those "golden" years.
No it wasn't guaranteed - you had to kiss ass and behave politically "correctly" and even then not guaranteed. If you spoke "wrong" or had some relatives that were considered "anti-socialist" or any other reason, you did not get it. Or if the apartment just wasn't available - which happened a lot. And no, you didn't get it for free (there was rent, albeit quite affordable). Stop talking about things you don't know about.
Depends who you mean by "they". Not everyone had an apartment of their own. You had to kiss lots of ass and act politically "correct" to get one. And even then it wasn't guaranteed. And political correctness was a totally different thing than the PC in western world.
Exactly what i though reading "has started placing banner advertisements on websites"... "which will appear instead of paid-for ads". Does that mean the City of London police - whatever that is - has taken upon themselves above the law and are essentially cybercriminals? So they con the sites as well as someone who has actually paid for the ad space?
You added a comment "Those who can't create, litigate." to an article about Bose suing Beats. In the context of the article, i read your comment - "Those who can't create (Bose), litigate". If this is not what you meant, could you explain what it IS that you meant?
Not true. Some new technology is cool, but not all. Relevant case in point is the engines used in supercars, where you will often see naturally aspirated V8s, V10s etc used not because they are the latest, most efficient tech, but because they sound great, and people expect a supercar to sound awesome, efficiency is secondary.
Also, put some encrypted files on each. From ROT13 to something serious. Make sure the encrypted content is creative commons so that you can't be accused of copyright violation.
Also - "Had the key been leaked Nokia would not have been able to ensure that the phones accept only applications approved by the company." This choice of words implies that the money somehow miraculously prevented the key from leaking. The key already HAD LEAKED. All nokia got for the money was a promise that the leaked key won't be misused.
I got a ticket in Switzerland for ~1000$. I crossed a solid white line to pass a truck with a motorcycle (there was plenty of room, I was not over the speed limit) I also had no highway toll sticker.
Well. There were three arguments here. Lets backtrack to where it started.
Someone said that cars don't last 20 years with the exception of a Volvo perhaps. To which i replied that Volvos aren't very "sturdy" any more since they share the technology with Ford.
That got sidetracked with the arguments whether Volvo has used Ford engines (they have) and the number of cylinders in a Volvo. That being settled - I have had in my family and company different cars. During the warranty period we had to visit Ford's and Volvo's dealership several times. Ford even had some EZrust galvanic processing applied so that all the doors were replaced under warranty. With Honda and Subaru - not a single time, just scheduled service.
T6 Drive-E FWD Starting at: $38,150 MSRP 2.0 Liter, 4-Cylinder, Supercharged & Turbocharged, Direct Injection 302 hp
Yes, there are a couple of 5 or 6 cylinder models as well, but you cannot say that ""T6" is a turbo V6 engine. No, they don't sell any 4-cylinder models here."
Volvo doesn't sell any cars with 4-cylinder engines in the US? Really? Don't let the fact that it is called "T5" or "T6" fool you. Some of them have 4 cylinders despite the name, for instance: http://www.volvocars.com/us/al... (this is a US site)
Of course if you compare their reliability with a typical American car, they are reliable. If you compare it with Japanese, they are not.
Anyway, the argument was that Volvo does not use Ford engines, but in fact they do use them in most of the current models. Also other parts of the current model range share stuff with Ford lineup. The Geely stuff will start coming later this year.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, lets settle on "labour camp", not Siberia.
Perm-36 was in full swing until 1988. And now the russian government tries to phase out the Gulag museum there, so that the people who like to remember the soviet union as a nice, cosy place to live, can more easily forget the crimes against humanity and say that "living space was free and everybody had food and it was not so bad after all".
I am talking of a much smaller place called Perm-36 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Sigh.
There was rent as well as utilities. As i said - rent was quite reasonable, but it was NOT universally free. Maybe it was free for some people who got their apartment from their employer (you?) but not "guaranteed by the state". I have actually paid rent to the soviet government, so there is no argument here.
As far as a "certain amount of personal living space" guaranteed by law you are talking about - it might have been in the law (i really do not know), but you could easily be "waiting in line" for getting such an apartment for DECADES. While living with your parents, grandparents and children in a 1 room apartment.
If it was free, how come I HAVE PAID RENT to the soviet govenrment?
YOU brought the dissidents into the argument, saying that even they were guaranteed living space. I just asserted that even if it was guaranteed, it was in Gulag, which hardly qualifies.
Stop romanticising the Soviet era, we already got that you are the type of Russian shill who yearns back those "golden" years.
I am saying: no, there was no guaranteed living space, and no, it was not free
You: there was a kid who got an education
Nice argument.
Yeah, sure they could get a place to live. In Gulag. I personally know people who were "given a place" to live in Siberia as late as 1988.
1500/2.5=650? Is that some kind of American imperial units math?
No it wasn't guaranteed - you had to kiss ass and behave politically "correctly" and even then not guaranteed. If you spoke "wrong" or had some relatives that were considered "anti-socialist" or any other reason, you did not get it. Or if the apartment just wasn't available - which happened a lot.
And no, you didn't get it for free (there was rent, albeit quite affordable).
Stop talking about things you don't know about.
Depends who you mean by "they". Not everyone had an apartment of their own. You had to kiss lots of ass and act politically "correct" to get one. And even then it wasn't guaranteed. And political correctness was a totally different thing than the PC in western world.
Exactly what i though reading "has started placing banner advertisements on websites" ... "which will appear instead of paid-for ads". Does that mean the City of London police - whatever that is - has taken upon themselves above the law and are essentially cybercriminals? So they con the sites as well as someone who has actually paid for the ad space?
You added a comment "Those who can't create, litigate." to an article about Bose suing Beats. In the context of the article, i read your comment - "Those who can't create (Bose), litigate".
If this is not what you meant, could you explain what it IS that you meant?
So - according to you - Beats create and Bose doesn't? What are you doing on slashdot?
"New technology is cool."
Not true. Some new technology is cool, but not all. Relevant case in point is the engines used in supercars, where you will often see naturally aspirated V8s, V10s etc used not because they are the latest, most efficient tech, but because they sound great, and people expect a supercar to sound awesome, efficiency is secondary.
He said "cool" not "efficient".
Also, put some encrypted files on each. From ROT13 to something serious. Make sure the encrypted content is creative commons so that you can't be accused of copyright violation.
What does a fleshlight app do? How does it... um... work?
Also - "Had the key been leaked Nokia would not have been able to ensure that the phones accept only applications approved by the company."
This choice of words implies that the money somehow miraculously prevented the key from leaking. The key already HAD LEAKED. All nokia got for the money was a promise that the leaked key won't be misused.
And over ear headphones not being popular somehow deterred you from buying them until Beats made them popular?
I translated this to "farts" automatically.
I got a ticket in Switzerland for ~1000$. I crossed a solid white line to pass a truck with a motorcycle (there was plenty of room, I was not over the speed limit) I also had no highway toll sticker.
Well. There were three arguments here. Lets backtrack to where it started.
Someone said that cars don't last 20 years with the exception of a Volvo perhaps. To which i replied that Volvos aren't very "sturdy" any more since they share the technology with Ford.
That got sidetracked with the arguments whether Volvo has used Ford engines (they have) and the number of cylinders in a Volvo. That being settled - I have had in my family and company different cars. During the warranty period we had to visit Ford's and Volvo's dealership several times. Ford even had some EZrust galvanic processing applied so that all the doors were replaced under warranty. With Honda and Subaru - not a single time, just scheduled service.
Well, i might not have an idea, but i can read. It is an amazing skill. If you bothered to click the link, you would see specs for current s60:
T5 Drive-E FWD
Starting at:
$33,300 MSRP
Engine Description 2.0 Liter, 4-Cylinder, Turbocharged, Direct-Injection
240 hp
T6 Drive-E FWD
Starting at:
$38,150 MSRP
2.0 Liter, 4-Cylinder, Supercharged & Turbocharged, Direct Injection
302 hp
Yes, there are a couple of 5 or 6 cylinder models as well, but you cannot say that ""T6" is a turbo V6 engine. No, they don't sell any 4-cylinder models here."
Volvo doesn't sell any cars with 4-cylinder engines in the US? Really?
Don't let the fact that it is called "T5" or "T6" fool you. Some of them have 4 cylinders despite the name, for instance:
http://www.volvocars.com/us/al... (this is a US site)
Of course if you compare their reliability with a typical American car, they are reliable. If you compare it with Japanese, they are not.
Anyway, the argument was that Volvo does not use Ford engines, but in fact they do use them in most of the current models. Also other parts of the current model range share stuff with Ford lineup. The Geely stuff will start coming later this year.
Unlimited. Although speed is capped at 2mbit/s for that price - but that is enough speed for my mobile.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki...
Lots of Volvos listed.
Which contain lot of components by Ford.