It's ok I wasn't insulted but I hate to see my words being mangled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Basil77
Printable View
It's ok I wasn't insulted but I hate to see my words being mangled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Basil77
Ну, в Евроньюз Россию вообще почти не показывают. Так, какую-нибудь гадость выудят и покажут под рубрикой "No Comment." Совещания Медвепутов смотреть действительно занудно, но по НТВ по-моему ничего так новости -- в любом случае, то, что у них там в Европе творится тоже не всегда интересно. Ну, Греция на грани банкротства, right. Ну, англичанам чего-то не сидится, подумывают выйти из Евросоюза (был такой сюжет в начале января). Нам-то от этого ни горячо, ни холодно.Quote:
Originally Posted by Basil77
In terms of language and race, ethnicity, yes. Let's not forget that Russian is part of the Indo-European language family, so Chinese is indeed very different. Russian culture was based on the Byzantian, i.e., Greek culture, so... All you have to do is look at the Cyrillic alphabet and the Latin one and compare them with Chinese hieroglyphs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Оля
In terms of culture, on the other hand, I wouldn't call it an "abyss." I think it's ultimately counter-productive to set oneself apart so much. All it takes is to get to know a bit of their culture, like watch "The House of Flying Daggers" or something. Very distinct and unique and special culture, no doubt, but not so alien. I think it says something that they like "The Dawns Here Are Quiet" so much. I used to love the Japanese anime "Sailor-Moon" as a teen so, clearly, I could relate very well to the problems and feelings portrayed in it.
Ну и зря, он недавно на каком-то совещании так угарно про "в граните отливают" зажОг! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Basil77
Мне Медведев одного нашего царя напоминает. :oops: Даже некоторое внешнее сходство, кстати, есть.
@Оля&starrysky
Да ёлки, я же написал, что смотрю ящик только на кухне. :) Вот представьте, прихожу я вечером с работы, сажусь ужинать, и тыкаю ленивчиком в ящик. Евроньюс мило бубнит гнусавым голосом, и я спокойно съедаю свой ужин, ничто не мешает пищеварению :). Если же я включаю новости на ВГТРК, к примеру, то там немедленно появляется морда господина Сечина, который бодро рапортует премьеру об очередных многомиллиардных прибылях от продажи нефти или физиономия Чубайса, открывающего очередную конференцию по нанотехнологиям :evil: . У меня немедленно портится аппетит и появляется непреодолимое желание запустить в ящик табуреткой. Ну и на хрена мне после этого сдались новости по федеральным каналам? :tease:
BTW, I'v just noticed, this thread should win the award "The greatest off-topic ever" on this forum! :D
Ой правда! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Basil77
Интересная мысль. :thumbs: Симпатяга, в общем, только под Путина косит малость. Их много там таких сейчас, как не послушаешь -- ну точно такие же интонации и паузы.Quote:
Originally Posted by Оля
Good point. I could easily name maybe a dozen European composers off the top of my head but no Asian ones. And the same applies to all cultural things. Hence, we certainly have beeen influenced much more by the European culture than Asian. I've just been reading two interesting articles on Chinese and Japanese, after which Russia and the Russian language/culture look really European. :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
Why Chinese Is So Damn Hard?
So You Want To Learn Japanese
Да нет, просто и того и другого одна и та же команда имиджмейкеров (тьфу, слово противное) обрабатывает.Quote:
Originally Posted by starrysky
As far as I am concerned I consider Russians (at least those who look reasonably European) to be European.
(Unless you are too "special" to want to be included with the rest of us plebs on this scruffy old continent, lol!)
:roll: :mosking:
The cultural and political stuff is technicalities and all of the countries in Europe feel that they are a bit "special" and not like the others, for one reason or another!
But I suppose there are ethnic minorities in the Russian Far East that should not really be included...
Apparently Caucasus is technically European, but I feel like they are more of a borderline case, like Turkey...
Perhaps the Tatars feel less European than other Russians, in light of having a different religion (or?) and a mixed background? I don't know much about it...
With Ukraine there is no question at all.
Oh, one more thing. Starrysky, Novosibirisk is NOT technically in Europe is it? Are there a lot of minority people there, or mostly Russians?
Дык, есть огромная разница между филосовским понятием свободы и термином "политическая свобода". Первое имеет абсолютно субъективное значение. Второе - калька с английского (например "Charter of Rights and Freedoms") и имеет юридически очерченные границы. Отсюда и неразбериха.Quote:
Originally Posted by Оля
Разумеется личное. Похожий пример с переносом контекста в политическую плоскость - "Труд облагораживает!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Оля
Сдаётся мне, что если бы во времена образования США были зомбоящики, возможно транслировали бы и такие диспуты. Сейчас страсти уже улеглись. В 70-х в СССР тоже не было вопроса о руководящей роли партии.Quote:
Originally Posted by Оля
Ya, mun! *)Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
I suggest we put aside all the misreadings and misunderstandings. I think there's no big gap between Russian and European cultures. I also think that the individualism of Europeans and the collectivism of Russians are both stretched out of real proportions. Perhaps it used to be that way in the past, but not anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Moscovite = someone from MoscowQuote:
Originally Posted by Оля
Muscovite = a phyllosilicate mineral of aluminium and potassium [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscovite]
* ОсвобождаетQuote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
Agreed, you think so. But you're not an average European :tease:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
The difference may indeed be smaller nowadays than before, but again I'm saying that Russian mentality differs from both European and Asian ones. There are cultural, historic and linguistic reasons for this as I pointed out. Russia cannot be classified as 'purely European' or 'purely Asian'. This is my main point. The rest is just irrelevant details.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
And my view upon the past and the future of this situation. Cultures mix up and dissolve in each other. People travel more, people talk to people from the other side of the world, people marriage people of different nationality, culture or race and give birth to a new generation that in theory can inherit both cultures but in practice it inherits none. So if we will track this tendency to some point in the future we would discover that cultures, languages, traditions, etc are dead.
No, the Urals are the border for the European part of Russia. It's mostly Russians here in Novosib, I couldn't tell the percent but I don't see a lot of people of Asian descent here -- just a random student from Kazakhstan or Altai. I wouldn't answer for other Siberian cities, like Irkutsk (which is near Lake Baikal) because there are Buryats there. But it seems a safe bet that Russians are a majority in all big cities, except Kazan. Kazan is the capital city of the Republic of Tatarstan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazan, apparently, it's around 50% Russians, 50% Tatars there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
Sorry.... :rose:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Yes, if globalisation continues, that would be the likely outcome. But of course it won't happen over night. One step per generation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
It would start with regional blocks, then eventually go global.
Do you think it might be a good idea to start forming an artificial 'global' cultural context that would encompass the languages-cultures-traditions that we have today? I think, if left totally uncontrolled, there would be one culture that eats 'em all, won't you think? For example, I would prefer children all over the globe start learning something like Esperanto as their foreign language rather than English. What would you say?Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
Unfortunately, this process cannot be organized, or so I think. It's an evolutional process and will continue by its own laws. It's up to us, however, to decide how much of our local cultural heritage will be incorporated into this 'world' culture.
What concerns the language, I think that English is the most probable candidate for 'universal language'. It's not decided by overall number of speakers (there are more people speaking Chinese, for example, but it's unlikely that Chinese will become universal). Any artificial language will also fail (why learn an artificial language if we've got many 'natural' ones). Even the English language will be changed in the end (even though it's the most probable candidate for 'universal language').
I think that in the end there will be a phonetic alphabet with latin letters based on English (Native English speakers are not that numerous compared to Spanish or Chinese and since everybody learn English now, but not all do it properly, there are no doubts that the language will be changed. (You can visit any international forum, by the way, where one can find people from all parts of the world, but the rules say that 'all posts are to be made in English'. You will see how English gets transformed by this 'fresh blood' into something new).
One of the issues with that is a language is learnt in the context of a culture. English is widespread now due to the IT culture. d u expec r futer gens speak tther bffs ws tis typ olang?
I think there might be many ways to implement a move to a neutral artificial language. For example, the UN can make that language one of their official languages requiring all their documents being translated to that language. That would breed a new generation of translators. I think, that might be a smart political move to some of the countries which oppose a very specific culture, but still want to go global.
Interesting!Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
As for a united world: Some countries tried "Workers in all nations, unite..." for a while until 1990...
So after that, it was clear road ahead for "Capitalists in all nations uniting... very fast..." Spearheaded by the US and it's interests and culture. If there must be a globalised culture I'd prefer it to be something more neutral.
Also known as "globalism", and certainly driven by motives of constantly increasing profitability. It pushes a fast-paced super-productive lifestyle, standardisation of everything, "lowest-common-denominator" culture and a very universal set of values and views. The digital revolution helped it happen faster than anyone could have expected.
A lot of people don't really support this, but what can they do? English is the language of globalism.
Globalism spooks me, even if I am on the right side of the fence, so to speak.
Personally, I am AGAINST English as lingua franca. Particularly in Europe, but also in the world.
It reinforces the power of certain countries that currently are or have been imperialistic... It pushes their culture and values at the expense of other cultures or values.
RE English: The ludicrousness of me (Swedish) speaking the language of a country on another continent with people from a neighbouring country (Russia) is a good example! I feel like a muppet to be speaking English!
If I could, I'd prefer to speak some other language. Particularly Esperanto which belongs to no country and all people. I wouldn't mind speaking Russian either, if I could speak it to a decent level. Simply in recognition of the fact that it's a large local language in Northern Europe which I also come from.
In todays world, if you come from one of the smaller (population wise) European countries and want a professional career, you MUST become fluent in English.
I had a very cynical view of languages in school, and concluded that all the other langauges I was studying were of secondary importance to English. I only made an effort in English. (That's partly why I flunked out of Russian I think. Unlike French and Spanish you cannot "coast" in Russian, it's too hard, complicated and different from a non-Slavic perspective... )
ONE of the reasons I have chosen to learn Russian is that it is in fact the most commonly spoken mother tongue on the European continent. English is actually only number 4 or something like that.
My grandparents in Sweden all studied German as their first foreign language. If anyone took a second foreign langauge, it was French.
The importance of English is a Cold War legacy, and business driven. It has been CONSCIOUSLY pushed by English speaking countries because they know that it serves their interests very well.
I don't know Esperanto but I support its' ideals and the fairness of of having a "neutral" language that is nobodys, and that is also A LOT easier to learn than English.
Pbly wrse )Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
001011001011110101111000111011010010100101
And yes, there will be about two dozen people who speak it. :) IQuote:
I think there might be many ways to implement a move to a neutral artificial language. For example, the UN can make that language one of their official languages requiring all their documents being translated to that language. That would breed a new generation of translators.
You won't be able to change it for those who already lives. You should separate children and their parents to bring a new culture into this world. Would you do that?Quote:
I think, that might be a smart political move to some of the countries which oppose a very specific culture, but still want to go global.
Christian missionaries acted like that (but they only taught children in schools, not permanently isolated them)
I don't mind globalism, btw.
It will help to get rid of racism, nationalism, etc.
There are many drawbacks, of course, but I really think that people should be citizens of the planet Earth, not some petty country.
I think it's too grim a prognosis. I'll give you an example from the real world. The official language of Israel is Hebrew. However, that language was artificially resurrected and modernized to become a live language. That was a purely political move to settle a dispute between native Yiddish-speaking and Ladino-speaking population.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
If it's GOOD, yes... But I don't trust the current leaders of the world to create good globalised world. I think there's a fair risk it would be a very creepy society with no privacy, no meaningful culture, slaving away in an office or factory to generate more profits for a global corporation and soothing your unease with gadgets if you are lucky enough to be able to afford them. Only a very tiny clique actually reach the lifestyle that everyone is dreaming about and even if they do, it comes at a very high personal price.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
As a someone with a nominally Christian upbringing I also cannot help seeing that there are some very uncanny similarities between the future globalised world as it is shaping up, and the prophecies of the book of Revelations. Only a few minor things would have to happen and you'd have exactly the situation that it is predicting... Make of it what you want, I am just making an observation.
It might have worked with the Jews, but it won't work with me and people like me, for example. How can you 'persuade' or force me to start using another language? I'll ask you what will I benefit out of it in the first case and I would resist in the second one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
You should start with children (remember when did they start to brainwash children in the USSR). But it's parents who form up a new person. If parents don't cooperate (and they won't cooperate) all your efforts would be in vain.
No brainwashing needed, it's already happening with English it's just done in a much less obvious way than what you are referring to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Check what kids are watching on TV, where they want to go on holiday (Disneyland) what clothe they want to wear. (same style as "Hannah Montana" etc)
They are brainwashing themselves thanks to media.
Don't know whether this is a "conspiracy" or not and you probably haven't seen the results in Russia yet. But I have heard Scandinavian kids of 6-7 using English expressions and saying short sentences in English. No way that would have happened 20 years ago.
The generation after that might be bilingual from early childhood and then English takes over.
Unless the current development is stopped.
I would say to you: "Dear parent, do you want your children be exposed to the [INSERT THE BAD ADJECTIVE] culture of [INSERT COUNTRY] through their [INSERT THE EVEN WORSE ADJECTIVE] language? You, my dear parent, might think that evil is inevitable for them to adapt to the living in the global world? Well, guess what! Your counterpart parents all over the globe go through the same emotional struggle. And the cultural stress of the new language is on the internationalism, multiculturalism, blah-blah-blah. So, your little one is poised to embrace the globe whilst preserving his own identity. Isn't that just fantastic?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
So, to make this wonderful dream happen, my dear parent, all people over the globe must do their part and contribute to form the better future. Are you on board?
And for the spiritualistic parents make up something like: "New Age - New Language!"
(Or something like that, as I'm no good at pulling slogans off my sleeve.)
By the way, do you know the slang name for TV in Russian? Зомбоящик (a zombie box).Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
I know what are you talking about and this is not new.
Conspiracy is an intentional thing, this one is just an 'evolution'. It simply is and there's really nothing we can do about it. You can't shield a child from TV, street ads, internet etc. But I think it's parents' duty to explain a few things (the earlier the better):Quote:
Don't know whether this is a "conspiracy" or not and you probably haven't seen the results in Russia yet. But I have heard Scandinavian kids of 6-7 using English expressions and saying short sentences in English. No way that would have happened 20 years ago.
1. TV is lies, lies and more lies. NO EXCEPTIONS!
2. Advertisements are more lies. NO EXCEPTIONS!
With these things every parent MUST brainwash his or her children every day.
I would say: "I ain't buying nothing dude. Get lost" :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
To be serious: It's an axiom: you can't change this world to the better intentionally.
Alright, but you were bought into the idea of cryptocracy and anarchy, so you are a potential buyer. It's only a matter of smart marketing and wise pricing. :mosking:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Well, I have a rather strange point of view on the matter.
I'm thinking that the globalization institutions and agents that we have now will finally win, but this at the same time will be their end. They were created to function in a divided nations environments. If their globalistic dreams come true one day, they will discover that they would not be able to function (in their present form) in a new society.
Consider it: one currency, one market, one language, one government, one set of laws everywhere. One thing that pops immediately in mind - no currency trade, no difference in prices and laws, no customs. Well, our technological advances doesn't stop - we travel faster and much more - transportation costs will get lower and lower (the transporat fraction of added value also gets lower), etc. This is just a small list of changes this world is going to adopt one day.
So, Johanna, you can put your mind at rest - no present government will exist then.
It would be great if you turn out to be right.
A borderless world with no evil world government would be great. Utopia... (has anyone actually read that book? I haven't...)
But have you considered this? There are not enough resources in the world for everybody to live like people in the richest countries do! Plus, there would be too much pollution.
If India, China and many others are to reach the living standards of the richest countries, then it HAS to be at the expense of someone else... North America and Europe will have to voluntarily step back and possibly reduce the living standards of people!
Somehow I don't see this happening... We are already seeing oil wars... The richest countries are the ones that have the best armies and nuclear weapons... Not an enemy to provoke unnecesarily, as Saddam and many others found out.
The population of the world has almost doubled since the 1980s. There is an upper limit for how large the worlds' population can get... What when food start becoming really expensive and drinking water short in some areas? Europe has nowhere near as much energy as it needs for it's basic needs, like heating, not to mention oil consumption.
What when China becomes really strong? It is quitely buying up mineral and energy resources around the world. They are not starting wars at the moment, but they are very ruthless in the way they go about their business, seemingly no respect for local populations or for nature.
They do not have the same frame of mind as Europeans (including Russians, lol!) and Americans... Will they be interested in the cosy borderless world or will they want to run it?
Highly relevant for the Ukrainian election 2001 :ROFL:
It depends on the amount of energy the humanity would be able to harvest, and not on the way that energy would be distributed. The politics focuses on the distribution part. So, assume our civilization achieved level I (=so it is able to harvest all the energy of the planet). Would that still imply there would be "not enough resources in the world for everybody to live like people in the richest countries do?" No, it wouldn't (if we speak of the richest and the poorest countries of today). In the global economy the poorest countries of tomorrow would live better than the richest countries of today. However, if the distribution imbalance continues, the poorest countries of tomorrow would live like the poorest countries of today, whilst the richest countries would be capitalizing on the resources of the Solar system (e.g. think how much minerals a single asteroid might have).Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
Another aspect is that presently lots of energy is lost due to the inevitable consequences of national economics (e.g. the armies that defend those economics).
Yeah. I hope somebody will discover the free energy formula... But there may possibly be those who don't even want that to happen!
But for the 3rd world to be flying like we in the West do... Impossible! Pollution would skyrocket and oil would run out in a decade.
I have READ that oil companies are actively sabotaging some of the research in the energy research field because it goes against their business interests. This is not a "conspiracy theory" but more or less a known fact. They buy up institutions that work on this, and literally put the lid on. Probably saving the findings for the day when the oil is really running out.
Same as certain food companies that support consumption of their unhealthy food because it generates more profits for them than any healthier alternatives. The sweetener scandal is a good example. The healthy and cheap alternative stevia root got banned in the EU and USA, after corrupted lobbyist tricked and bribed ignorant and greedy politicians. All the while the dangerous Aspartame (TM) and similar are on sale despite being very dangerous products that cause many deaths every year.
This planet can conveniently support up to 10-12 billion people (I mean food, water, living space, etc) at the present technological level. It can be more.
Overpopulation IS a problem but there's still some room. Besides, there are oceans too. And they too can be colonized.
Energy is not a problem, after all even with nuclear power we can produce enough energy for all.
The only question is - rich countries can afford it and poor countries - don't. This all can be eliminated once the countries disappear. Of course, in some areas people will live better than others but gradually this will averages out. This won't eliminate 90/10 ratio, however, 90% of the world's resources will be controlled by 10% of people but that's another story or the next step if you want.
Globalization will destroy the institution of international politics and currencies and international trade but will not solve any sociologic problems. I don't think that 'unification' will come peacefully. There bound to be some local conflicts but I don't think that things would deteriorate (although the scenario of a global conflict cannot be ignored completely). As Europe has united so will the Middle East, Asia, South America. We'll have 10-15 'megastates' in the beginning. North America and Europe will probably join next (and probably Australia), then it will probably be Asia and Africa - look at Asia I think that everything will be rotating around China the next decade and its influence in the region will grow more and more. (I really don't know whom Russia will stick to and I really wonder about it). If there will be no global conflicts (and I hope there wouldn't be anything like that) the further integration will gradually continue. Free travel is the cornerstone of this process.
You seem to have the rather biased sources of information if you know so much about the undercover sabotaging and are totally unaware of the open info about the development of a "clean plane" powered by the hydrogen fuel cells. :mosking:Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
I worked for a year at a large and well known oil company.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
They regularly sending out "informational" emails to staff saying "contrary to what [xx environmental org] says, we are not sabotaging research into renewable energy, in fact, we are supporting it... blah, blah "
It had not occurred to me that they might be doing that, but I got curious and looked into it, and it seemed that some fairly reliable sources had proof that they did... There were similar stories also about their dealings in the third world, which they claimed were perfectly honourable "we build schools and provide drinking water", but which according to the local population was daylight robbery.
I am not aware of any clean low emission way of flying. Can you tell me about it?
How much cleaner is it than, say, a normal Boeing 707?
Basically, the only by-product (=the pollution) of the hydrogen oxidation is water. Can it be any more clean? :flazhok:Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
However, the total environmental footprint depends on the way this hydrogen was obtained. It is yet to be proved (=unknown) that hydrogen could be mined from the certain geological formations. Presently, the most common way to produce hydrogen is to extract it from water by means of electricity. So, technically, hydrogen is more like an energy carrier. If the clean energy (solar, wind, geothermal, etc.) is used for the extraction, the environmental impact of operating such plane is very low (i.e. there are other factors unrelated to fuel emissions).
It's not that simple. Large amounts of water vapor may change the weather patterns the same way today's CO and CO2 do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
Heavy clouds - nearly 100% humidity, etc...
And you spend more energy on producing hydrogen this way than it will produce when burning in oxygen.Quote:
Presently, the most common way to produce hydrogen is to extract it from water by means of electricity.
I have yet to see the research that points into that issue. Intuitively, a hot summer would evaporate more water from the oceans than any amount of planes in observable future could do. And later, the water rains back to the oceans. It's not at all like the CO2 issue because the CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere and can only be sequestered by plants or dissolve in oceans contributing to their acidification. The overall environmental impact of hydrogen economy is yet to be determined, however it's not even close to the oil economy (which, in turn, is cleaner than the charcoal economy of the past). I realize the hydrogen economy is not the panacea, but just a temporary measure until the fusion is obtained.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
That is correct. Therefore, producing hydrogen cells by means of burning fossil fuels is stupid. It should only be the renewable energy to make this whole thing work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Why not use nuclear power? It's clean (unless you deliberately blow a nuclear reactor). It's cheap and it's available.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
After all, the only drawback is peoples' fear of radiation.
Well, you can't install a nuclear reactor on board the plane, so I assume you don't dispute the usefulness of hydrogen as an energy carrier. :hlop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
So, I agree that fission can produce a lot of energy (as well as some radioactive waste). As to the safety of operation, we don't know yet whether or not the fusion plant will be safer to operate than the fission plant. :unknown:
The fusion, however, is the ultimate source of power in the observable universe as we know it. And it produces many-folds more power than the fission. So, that's the inevitable direction of development as it will allow the humanity to exploit the resources of the Solar system and go beyond the Level I civilization.
I somehow know the answer and the answer is no, a fusion plant cannot be 'safer'. The only thing that matters is the amount of 'controlled energy'. If it suddenly becomes 'uncontrolled' - the whole thing explodes. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile