Trump - hoće li biti impeachment ili 8 godina drugačijeg predsednikovanja?

[mlatko]

LM, review izmedju Xiaomi i iPhone - jeste malo bajato, ali i dalje interesantno. "Kradja" tehnologije i koncepta, ali za Kinesko/Azijsko trziste, veoma solidno (zato ih i nema na "zapadu").

 

Edit: zaboravio ubaciti link http://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2015/02/26/apple-iphone-6-vs-xiaomi-mi-4-review/#36483deb58b1

interesantan rewiew duel, hvala sto si podelio. dokazuje da sam izabrao pobednika:

 

Apple took three victories (design, camera, value for money) and Xiaomi took the other three (display, performance, and battery life). 

 

:D

 

value for money $phona je u smislu "plati vise da vredis vise"?

 

Inviato dal mio Redmi 4

[dragance]

Pa da, platis brend i emotional need, looking cool, hypster i sexy.

 

Disclaimer: i sam imam iphone 6s :p

[noskich]

I dalje sam na Redmi 2, toliko o kvalitetu Xiaomija. A tu dvojku sam bio kupio za 170 AUD na eBayu u momentu kada je iPhone slicnih specifikacija bio oko 3-4 puta vise.

Dobra stvar u vezi Xiaomija je i sto su mu rezervni delovi jako povoljni. Novu bateriju sam narucio za 7 dolara ukljucujuci postarinu sa eBay-a.

Edited January 25, 2017 by noskich

[mlatko]

I dalje sam na Redmi 2, toliko o kvalitetu Xiaomija. A tu dvojku sam bio kupio za 170 AUD na eBayu u momentu kada je iPhone slicnih specifikacija bio oko 3-4 puta vise.

Dobra stvar u vezi Xiaomija je i sto su mu rezervni delovi jako povoljni. Novu bateriju sam narucio za 7 dolara ukljucujuci postarinu sa eBay-a.

Ja bi bio na Redmi 1 da sam ga pazio i da sam narucio dobru bateriju :D isto oko 6€ ali za Note :(

 

isti™

[Roger Sanchez]

https://twitter.com/TravisSBN/status/824085984635658240

 

https://twitter.com/ericgeller/status/824099477791404032

Edited January 25, 2017 by Roger Sanchez

[Lord Protector]

Trump: The West’s Gorbachev?

Will Trump have a similarly devastating effect on democracies that Gorbachev had on Communism?

 

By Branko Milanovic, January 20, 2017

 

The juxtaposition of these two names in the title may come as a surprise to many readers. What do a de facto Social Democrat who wanted to reform Communism and a billionaire right-wing populist magnate have in common?

Indeed, if we focus on their ideologies and individual histories (to the extent that they matter), the answer is nothing — not “almost nothing,” but “nothing”!

But if we look at them and their moment in history from a structural perspective, similarities are inescapable. For starters, neither man believed in the hierarchically structured international systems they preside(d) over. Both men are part of the ruling elite, but fought against it.

Gorbachev as a reformer

Gorbachev came to power in 1985 planning to reform Soviet Communism so that it could be economically more efficient and provide higher incomes for its people.

In the international realm, the countries of the “socialist camp” were organized in such a way that the USSR was their leader. The USSR, in turn, was led by the Communist party. And the Communist party was led by its Secretary General.

So, whatever the Secretary General decided to do, the USSR did, and whatever the USSR wanted to do had to be acquiesced in or imitated by the “allies,” or the satellite countries.

In the words of a Yugoslav ambassador to the USSR in the 1950s, when the “weather” changed in Moscow, if it became colder, “we would all put on winter coats.” And if it got warmer, as with Khrushchev’s “thaw,” “we would all wear short sleeved-shirts.”

Speechlessness among the USSR’s allies

When Gorbachev came to power and staked out positions that were entirely dissonant from whatever had come from the Kremlin before, the Soviet and East European Communist elites were totally taken aback and paralyzed.

Reforming the economic and political systems and letting the Warsaw Pact countries “do it their own way” (the Sinatra song evoked by Gorbachev) were not just deeply troubling ideas. They were also directly antithetical to the elites’ power and to the ideological legitimation of their rule.

At the same time, those elites could not imagine attacking the Secretary General’s position. After all, the Secretary General, not unlike the Pope, was supposed to be infallible.

Torn between an obvious undermining of their rule and inability to mount a defense, they helplessly waited for the outcome, doing nothing.

We know by now that the eventual outcome was the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, as well as the end of Communism as a way to organize society.

The Western hierarchy

The Western capitalist world was organized in 1945 in a fashion that was structured in a remarkably similar hierarchical fashion. The countries in the Western camp were “equal,” but one was “more equal.”

In fact, were it not for the United States and the effort and money it expended in Europe and Japan, it is very unlikely that Europe and Japan would today look the way they do.

At the top of the “more equal” country sits its president. And while U.S. presidents have had their own idiosyncrasies (think Nixon or Carter), there were basic rules that they all observed. In particular, a close military and political union of culturally similar, U.S.-led democracies was never questioned.

The Western elites, including in the United States, might have liked one president more than another (the European infatuation with Obama was quite extraordinary), but they felt safe that the essential architecture of the international system, created by the United States, would be upheld by the United States.

Trump as a “reformer”

 

With Trump now questioning the modus operandi of NATO pretty much the same way that Gorbachev wondered about the need for the Warsaw Pact, that assurance is gone (or seems to be gone).

In Trump’s world, the EU is not sacrosanct either, nor is the WTO or the entire international architecture that the United States built from 1945 onwards.

The elite in the West, like the Communist elites in the East some 30 years ago, are now at a loss. Aping or accepting the rhetoric emanating from Washington goes against the body of rituals and beliefs they have created and defended over the past 70 years.

Yet, opposing Washington, like opposing the Secretary General, seems out of the question. After all, no similar system can be set up by a European power, nor by a combination of European powers.

As a result, the Western elites treat Trump as they would treat a tiger with whom they are unwillingly locked in a cage: They try to be friendly to the tiger hoping to avoid being eaten, but they hope that the tiger would soon be taken out of the cage.

Will Europe find its voice and respond?

Will Trump have a similarly devastating effect on democracies that Gorbachev had on Communism? I doubt it, because the Western democratic societies are more resilient and organic.

If they are not, to use Nassim Taleb’s terminology, “anti-fragile” (i.e., thriving in chaos), they are at least robust.

Communist societies, being hierarchical, were extremely brittle. Western societies have technocratic elites in power, but these elites are subject to recall and they do have democratic legitimation.

Further, capitalism unlike Communism is economically successful. There are very few people in France who would like to be ruled as China is ruled today. There were millions in Poland who craved to be ruled like France.

Trump a destroyer?

Trump will not, I think, destroy some essential structures of the Western system as it was built after the World War II.

However, with his rough, chaotic and unpredictable governing style, he might scare the ruling elites in the West, encourage “revisionists” and bring about changes that will alter the world as it was created in Yalta and Potsdam.

Many people regretted that the Clinton Administration failed to seize the moment at the end of the Cold War to create a more just international order that would be based on the rules of law, would not be dichotomic or even Manichean, one with its origin in the Cold War, and one that would include Russia rather than leave it out in the cold.

Trump is unlikely to create a new structure, but he can break parts of the old one. That would be quite ironic, for Trump has always carefully guarded his reputation as a (real estate) builder – not a demolition company.

In short, it doesn’t seem as if he has any new “Trump Tower” in mind for a different Western architecture. If that comes to pass, he might usher in a post-Cold War era, the contours of which no one can as of yet properly imagine. Trump would thus close the book on 1945.

Trump a builder?

Finally, if one wanted to be really imaginative and/or optimistic Trump may have one possible ace up his sleeve. The Clinton administration failed to create a more inclusive international order at the end of the Cold War, especially in relation to Russia.

Trump seems inclined to change at least that particular feature. To what extent a détente with Moscow — if it indeed happens, given Trump’s unpredictability — means a qualitative change in global politics remains to be seen.

 

Edited January 25, 2017 by slow

[Roger Sanchez]

Uz jednu malu razliku da je vecina na Krimu bila za aneksiju

ma da, baš to je bila ta odlučna stvar.

 

pričamo o jakim potezima i gestama. Nije li Krim™ bio odgovor na opkoljavanje, pristupanje Ukrajine NATO-u u roku od dva tjedna, pretvaranje Crnog mora u NATOV bazen, spremanje pohoda na Smolensk, Piter i Moskvu i sve ostale fantazmagorije koje su ovuda provejavale? Dakle i Kina ima pravo na odgovor, žele da joj zauvek otmu ne samo njezin vekovni™ otok nego i vekovno™ sveto™ more južno od Hainana, ta morska ognjišta...

Edited January 25, 2017 by Roger Sanchez

[Anduril]

Misliš, forumaši su licemerni kao u najmanju ruku i ti sam, koji brineš za Putinove buradi a ne i Obamine dronove?

 

Kao rat sa Rusijom je realno pretio, sa Nulandicom na Majdanu i antiraketnim štitom na ruskim granicama. Kada Tramp nešto slično napravi u kineskoj blizini, diskutovaće se i o tome. Kina zasad nijednim realnim potezom nije naročito ugrožena, štaviše Trampovu sahranu TPP-a može samo da slavi i priprema teren za porobljavanje Vijetnama, Malezije, Filipina...

 

Ovaj, ja cuo da je Kina vec 60 godina okruzena, ali dobro. A oko licemerja - mozda nisi cuo za izreku: "At the entrance of a second person, hypocrisy begins." Svi smo licemeri a najveci su oni koji to ne priznaju.  Absolutni moralisti. Politika bez doze licemerja vise nije politika.

Edited January 25, 2017 by Anduril

[Anduril]

Uz jednu malu razliku da je vecina na Krimu bila za aneksiju, dok na Tajvanu nema sanse da ne bude velikog gradjanskog rata - cak i da se USA ne umesa, a umesala bi se u roku od 2 minuta.

 

Mislis na ona 3 poslanika na Krimu koja su se zalagala za nezavisnost pre invazije? Cenim da bi na Tajvanu takodje vecina glasala za Kinu kad bi je okupirala nuklearna sila. Ali, znamo vec, sve je to isto da li izbori ili referendumi oko takvih stvari odrzavaju 2 nedelje posle invazije ili u mirnodobskim uslovima. 

Edited January 25, 2017 by Anduril

[Takeshi]

iznajmljivanjem krima za pare rusima, ukrajinci su prizvali rasplet. za koji su i sami znali ali je bilo korisno u medjuvremenu($), plus je sada zgodno za diplomatsku trgovinu.

[Lord Protector]

Biće prava milina gledati istočnoevropske nato podružnice kada im Trampara saopšti da je žurka pred ruskim vratima gotova i kada im uruči ček za sopstveno angažovanje. Biće iznenađeni kao Honekerov režim u DDR-u 1989. kada ih je Gorbačov pustio niz vodu. A taman su se ponadali da će da naprave novi američki zid sa sve puškarnicama i bodljikavom žicom prema Rusiji. Kadar nevera u Poljskoj, Baltiku, Gruziji i Ukrajini.

A tek kad budu morali da se dogovore sa Moskvom i sednu za isti sto sa njima. Biće kao sirijska opozicija na pregovorima u Kazahstanu posle izgubljenog rata. 

 

seiriti • glagol  zabavljati se, posmatrati nešto sa uživanjem (tur.)

Edited January 25, 2017 by slow

[Lord Protector]

 

 

Meril Strip po 20. put nominovana za Oskara

Beta | 25. januar 2017. 00:45 

Holivudska glumica Meril Strip nominovana je po 20. put za Oskara i tako oborila lični rekord po broju nominacija za tu prestižnu nagradu

 

Edited January 25, 2017 by slow

[gone fishing]

ma da, baš to je bila ta odlučna stvar.

 

pričamo o jakim potezima i gestama. Nije li Krim™ bio odgovor na opkoljavanje, pristupanje Ukrajine NATO-u u roku od dva tjedna, pretvaranje Crnog mora u NATOV bazen, spremanje pohoda na Smolensk, Piter i Moskvu i sve ostale fantazmagorije koje su ovuda provejavale? Dakle i Kina ima pravo na odgovor, žele da joj zauvek otmu ne samo njezin vekovni™ otok nego i vekovno™ sveto™ more južno od Hainana, ta morska ognjišta...

- dobro smogovac da li si ti služio vojsku i da li si tada imao bezbednosno - informativne brifinge ppukija zaduženog za te stvari?

- ja sam to imao i na tim brifinzima ppuki je sasvim ozbiljan analizirao situaciju u iraku i kako se to može odraziti na našu bezbednost

- e sada zamisli kada bezbednjaci u brigadama analiziraju šta se dešava na > 2000km od nas, kakva li je tek paranoja nastala u moskvi kada je njihova susedna zemlja nasilnim prevratom na ulici krenula ka eu i nato, mogu da zamislim putinaru kako danima čita moguće scenarije daljeg razvoja situacije ^_^

[Roger Sanchez]

Neimam ja ništa protiv, nego zašto neki tu ne daju taj luksus Kini? Zar je ona manje sveta od Rusije? Manje majka?

[Meazza]

Ko ne daje? Kina ima jos vise opravdanih razloga da pizdi od Rusije, problem je sto nemaju iste opcije. Oni znaju i sami kakve bi posledice imali kad bi se odlucili na takve korake.