sociopath_ru: Перлы из сочинений ЕГЭ 2012 по истории.
Printable View
From the sociopath_ru: Перлы из сочинений ЕГЭ 2012 по истории. link:
Wait, what's wrong with that one? Sounds like a good policy to me!Quote:
«Надо было ликвидировать неграмотных»
;-)
P.S. This picture particularly made me laugh...
http://www.xa-xa.org/uploads/posts/2...818_347527.jpg
...because just a day ago I was writing a post on a (different) "Russian for English-speakers" site, explaining some basic terms related to the digestive process -- e.g., the verb переварить(ся), phrases like тонкая кишка, the difference between живот and желудок (which can both be translated as "stomach"), and so forth. Naturally, I ended the post with задний проход!
Классно!!! Это вы - молодцы, конечно! И нашли же где-то! Здорово!!!! Пять баллов!!!
Это вообще - прелесть! И самое интересное, что все именно так и есть. Нда....здесь даже сказать то нечего, как говорится ....не прибавить, не убавить...
Роберт, я, наверное, не поняла твоего юмора. Ликвидировать-то нужно было неграмотность.
«Неграмотность ликвидировалась большевиками для того, чтобы просто стадо стало умным стадом»;
«Политика всеобщей грамотности преследовала цель наполнить бюджет. Грамотные люди покупали книги и газеты, и это наполняло бюджет СССР не меньше, чем покупка водки»;
«После раскулачивания крестьян в СССР практически не осталось грамотных людей. Стало понятно, что надо начинать ликбезы»;
What's not true about those? =)
А мне интересно увожаемый «Eric C.» откуда у вас данные цитаты?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric C.
This is not true. The books were always sold in the USSR below their production cost and orders of magnitude cheaper than in other countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric C.
This was an official policy of the party: even the main justification for removal of the final hard sign from the language was to reduce the price of the books. I remember reading at school the claims that the bourgeoisie specially kept the language difficult, used more letters and kept the book price high to prevent the poor from getting knowledge.
do you believe there's actually any truth to that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Anixx
Товарный дефицит в СССРQuote:
Дефицит книг
Дефицит на книги возник в первой половине 60-х годов, одновременно с резким повышением благосостояния и культурного уровня советских граждан. До этих пор спрос на книги сдерживала непомерная для большинства граждан цена. Основными причинами книжного дефицита в СССР представлялось[20] следующее:
в 1960-х годах появилась мода на книги;
книги в СССР были очень дешёвые, соответственно быстрее раскупались;
неразвитость бумажной промышленности и параллельный ажиотаж на периодическую печать не позволяли резко нарастить выпуск книг;
определённые организационные изъяны в книготорговой сети. Они просто не поспевали за книжным бумом, который был беспрецедентным — он охватил довольно широкий круг художественной литературы.
Серьёзной причиной дефицитности значительной номенклатуры художественных изданий являлась также сознательная издательская политика государства, основанная на идеологических мотивах. В частности, марксистско-ленинская, партийная и пропагандистская литература издавалась огромными, никогда полностью не востребованными, тиражами, весьма большое место занимало издание произведений «официальных» писателей (членов Союза писателей СССР и союзных республик и автономий), далеко не все из которых обладали художественными достоинствами, в то время как такие популярные во все времена жанры, как фантастика, детектив, приключенческая литература или авантюрный роман считались в той или иной степени коммерческой, низкопробной, развлекательной литературой («чтивом») и выпускались ограниченными, явно не отражающими спрос тиражами.
Кроме розничной продажи существовала подписка на готовящиеся к изданию дефицитные книги. Она осуществлялась на собрания сочинений известных и не очень авторов, на энциклопедии — примерно так же, как на дефицитные товары, но сроки получения в данном случае были меньше. Иной раз подписка на книги осуществлялась в форме лотереи при огромном скоплении желающих испытать судьбу. Выпускалась также специальная «макулатурная» серия книг классиков художественной литературы, которые продавались только «за талоны», полученные за сданную макулатуру (обычно 20 килограммов за книгу). В некоторых городах человек мог приобрести книгу тут же, в приёмном пункте макулатуры, из имеющегося в наличии ассортимента. Но их тоже не хватало на всех выполнивших условие, поэтому на книги из этой серии сразу образовался дефицит, и при появлении книг в продаже появлялись очереди из желающих сдать макулатуру на книги. Все дефицитные книги с большой переплатой можно было достать у перекупщиков, именуемых в те времена спекулянтами. Кроме того, существовали элитные, не для всех доступные общества книголюбов, члены которого имели возможность получать талоны на дефицитные книги и покупать книги, обычно с «нагрузкой» из невостребованных книг, в специальных киосках. Образовавшись в 1974 году, Общество книголюбов на волне доступа к дефицитным книгам, стало одной из самых массовых общественных организаций, объединяющей в своих рядах более 16 миллионов человек.
from me: people were waiting in line from eve to have a chance of getting the desired unprocurable book the next morning
sociopath_ru: Перлы из сочинений ЕГЭ 2012 по истории.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sibiriak
I hope I didn't violate any of your copyrights. =)
увАжаемыйQuote:
Originally Posted by Sibiriak
so our foreign comrades secure correct spelling
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric C.
I understood everything. No more questions. :)
This was exactly because the books were so cheap so that the people bought a lot of books. I just looked at books in my library and the typical prices of a tome (inscribed on all books in soviet times) are 2.20, 2.40, 2.60, 2.90. Bear in mind that 1 ruble was about 1 dollar at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by LXNDR
Of course this business was not profitable for the state (if not to count the indirect, difficult to measure profit from the more learned population).
Я допустил ошибку. Я часто допускаю ошибки.Quote:
Originally Posted by LXNDR
this was because the books which were really in demand (as the articles says: фантастика, детектив, приключенческая литература или авантюрный роман) were published in scarce numbers and a single other way of getting these without night long waiting in line on occasional sale campaign, was buying them from illegal resellers at a higher black market priceQuote:
Originally Posted by Anixx
since book publishing was a state enterprise controlled by the Party, it mainly promoted works loyal to the regime and what the regime wanted people to need rather than what they really needed, although I don't deny that there were worthwhile books inside the heaps of published waste paper
i have no idea how profitable book publishing in USSR was, but if it wasn't, it's only due to publishing of lots of rubbish instead of popular items, which is impossible by definition because a lot of times popular was something unapproved by the state
I do not think that any detective, sci-fi or adventure was a deficit. But good books were indeed. But as I already said this was because all books were so cheap that people bought very many books. By 1990s I had 5 bookcases (2 of which were cupboards actually) filled with books each shelf in two rows, plus 16 separate wall shelves, plus the space under a divan plus entresol above the entrance plus a heap in the closet box.Quote:
Originally Posted by LXNDR
Yes. What the people needed was decided by the Gosplan as anything that was produced. They had plans how many detectives the people need, how many adventures and so on. This was calculated "scientifically" based on people's free time etc. But they did not account that many people just bought more books than they could even theoretically read (many wanted to look "learned" by having a large library and many wanted to pass the books to their children etc).Quote:
Originally Posted by LXNDR
Are Slavs white? Do they consider them selves white? | Answerbag
Вопрос:
Are Slavs white? Do they consider them selves white?
Do Slavs see themselves as white or Slavic? Like Poles and Russians. Because Hitler hated them and considered them less than human. I know they're skin is white of course, but so are Jews but people call em Jews not whites.
Ответы (больше всего голосов):
"Slav" as a word is born of a nordic word for "slave". During a period of Scandinavian people's expansion, they invaded southward into Europe and enslaved the native tribes as "slavs". The name stuck. A viking tribe known as the Rus was likely behind the formation of the Russian state, though Russians themselves insist there was already a nation-state of the slavs. The slavic tribes appear to have originated in western asia and moved eastward. By all appearances they are a sparsely pigmented eurasian people, aka "whites" or "caucasians". As for Hitler, he simply exploited a sense of nationalism mixed with racism to pump up a perception of a superior German race. It was an easy sell, given that the Germans had been humiliated in defeat in WWI and could cling to such a thing as a way of restoring pride. The two-pronged propaganda approach involved both glorifying a German race and lambasting neighboring peoples like Poles and Slavs as well as "impure" elements within, such as Jews and Gypsies. Once that started it was a slippery slope to genocide and conquest.
Вкратце: слово "Славянин" произошло от скандинавского слова "раб". Во время периода скандинавской экспансии, они захватили южные племена и называли их рабами ("slav"). Слово прижилось. Одно из таких государств викингов называлось Русь.
Scientifically, there is no such thing as "white" race. There are only three races, Mongolian, Caucasian, and Negro, or combinations thereof. Skin pigmentation is not determinative of race, e.g., many Indian, "Indians" are darker than many Negros, but most are scientifically considered Caucasian, and possibly some mixed with Mongolian. A lof of this race stuff is nonsense, made up to make people feel good, e.g., there is no such thing as a Hispanic race (they are all races, most in the U.S. considered Caucasian). So, Slavs are considered Caucasian, but they are etnic groups, and subsets of ethnic groups.
Вкратце: нет такой вещи, как "белая раса". Есть кавказоиды, и славяне - такие же кавказоиды, хотя их кожа и не белая, как и индусы.
Slavs are not white, in the sense that they're the same race as Western Europeans. Slavs share the same ethnicity with other Eastern Europeans like Lithuanians or Latvians, even though they speak a Slavic language.
I am not saying ethnic Slavs are inferior or superior to white people. but there is a difference, that''s undeniable.
Вкратце: Славяне - не белые, то есть, они не относятся к той же расе, что и западные европейцы. Славяне относятся к тому же народу, что другие восточные европейцы, как литовцы и латыши, хотя и говорят на другом языке.
Although Slavs did end up defining themselves as an ethnicity, they originally were "Slaves" to Scandinavians who migrated south. The term was also used during the 1600's, to describe peasants (a lot of whom happened to be Slavic) working off a Noble's land. They had to pay taxes to farm on the Noble's land. Later, these Slavs blended with other social classes, and defined themselves as an ethnicity. All in all, they probably consider themselves to be white, as many Eastern Europeans do.
Вкратце: Хотя славяне в конце стали считать себя народом, изначально они были рабами скандинавов, которые переселились на юг. То же слово использовалось в 1600-х для обозначения крепостных крестьян, впоследствии они слились с другими социальными классами и стали считать себя народом. Они, вероятно, считают себя белыми.
Для Anixx
Изучая историю, чаще обращайтесь к первоисточникам, а не к книгам, написанным лжецами и лицемерами, которые преследуют свои определённые цели...
(Deleted. L.)
Люди, тема "Нарочно не придумаешь!" в разделе Fun Stuff предназначена для размещения юмористического материала, который не должен восприниматься серьёзно. Расслабьтесь!
Slavs liked to be slaves so much, that they forgot their own style of naming themselves and adopted Germanic word for "slave" as their name :-)
What a nonsense!
The most widely accepted hypothesis derives the name from "слово" (word), AFAIK.
Here is the word "Slavs" written in different Slavic languages, according to Wikipedia:
Church Slavoniс - словѣнє
Russian and Belorussian - славяне
Ukrainian - слов'яни
Bulgarian - славяни
Serbian and Macedonian - Словени
Croatian and Bosnian - Slaveni
Slovene - Slovani
Polish - Słowianie
Czech - Slované
Slovak - Slovania
I think this would come as a surprise to most linguists and lexicographers -- who seem to overwhelmingly agree that "slave" came from the Slavic self-designation "Slav", not the other way around. And it came by way of Latin, not any of the Scandinavian languages. (The ancient Romans conquered one of the Slavic tribes and Latinized the tribe's native Slavic name as sclavus, which later became a generic term for "slave" and lost the hard "c" sound, becoming slavus. If you can find any dictionary citations that disagree with this uncontroversial point, feel free to share.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Anixx
If there's no such thing as a "white" race, then shouldn't you have written "Both Slavs and Western Europeans are non-white"? But at the same time, if there are only three races, then aren't Slavs and Western Europeans both in the same category ("Caucasoid")?Quote:
Scientifically, there is no such thing as "white" race. There are only three races, Mongolian, Caucasian, and Negro, or combinations thereof.
Slavs are not white, in the sense that they're the same race as Western Europeans.
These are several answers from the linked question. You can follow the link and see yourself. It seems nobody even suggested that "Slavs" could be the historical self-name of the people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Throbert McGee
Ah, okay. I thought you were offering your own theories, rather than quoting from a web-answers site.
I checked out the link, and the answers are mostly worth less than the paper they're not printed on, IMHO. In addition to the linguistic confusion, I very much doubt you could find many biologists/geneticists today who would agree that "there are [exactly] three races". Some scientists prefer not to use the term "race" at all; others may think the term is still valid in certain contexts, but they would insist that racial categories -- and thus the total number of races in the human species -- are totally arbitrary.
So you could, if you wished, divide humans into three races, or six races, or twelve, or whatever. As far as our genes are concerned, you could assign people to races based on the A,B,O blood-type system, or based on lactose-tolerance, or whatever. It's a matter of academic convenience, at best -- and any claim that there are "exactly three," with everyone else being mixtures of these, is scientifically meaningless.
This is what I had thought, that was self-name, related toQuote:
... It seems nobody even suggested that "Slavs" could be the historical self-name of the people.
слава.
Классика жанра. :-D
http://www.tema.ru/jjj/pexp/19-20/4F2C5493.jpg