ponedjeljak, 30.04.2007.

In memoriam Ivica Račan

Eh, izgleda da me je krenulo s pisanjem nekrologa. Valjda neće potrajati.

Napustio nas je Ivica Račan. Definitivno veliki čovjek. A faktualno precizan i sažet obituary sam našao na stranicama International Herald Tribune-a (slijedeći link s Certain ideas of Europe, bloga na Economist-ovim stranicama :-).

Former Prime Minister Ivica Racan, who led the country's first staunchly pro-Western government in 2000-2003 died Sunday, his party said. He was 63.

Racan died at 3:05 a.m. (0105 GMT) in a Zagreb clinic as a result of the kidney cancer he was diagnosed with in February, party spokeswoman Gordana Grbic told The Associated Press.

Racan, who recently stepped down as the leader of Croatia's strongest opposition party, the Social Democrats, had a cancerous kidney removed in mid-February. Doctors said this month that the cancer had spread to Racan's brain and he had been in a critical condition for the past two weeks.

A former communist leader, Racan led a governing coalition that was fully committed to making Croatia a part of mainstream Europe after a decade of the authoritarian and nationalist rule of late President Franjo Tudjman.

During Racan's premiership, Croatia signed a pre-membership agreement with the European Union — a stepping stone for eventual membership. The country formally opened membership negotiations in October 2006.

Although out of office for several years, Racan remained among the most popular politicians in Croatia.

His death, just months before November parliamentary elections, is a blow for the Social Democrats, which he transformed from a communist to a Western-style center-left group.

Social Democrats — ranked just behind the ruling conservative Croatian Democratic Union in most polls — are hoping to return to power in the vote. The party is to elect a new leader on June 2.

President Stipe Mesic said that "with his personality and political activities, Racan strongly marked ... Croatia's recent history."

"He will be remembered as a man who enabled democratic changes in Croatia and a premier who steered Croatia onto its European path," Mesic said.

Prime Minister Ivo Sanader said he and Racan were "political rivals and we disagreed on a lot of things ... but we were able to reach understanding and overcome partisan differences when it came to national interests."

"As a prime minister, he made some key moves to move Croatia closer" to the EU, Sanader said.

Although Racan's six-party coalition government had been hailed as a clear break from Tudjman's regime, it did not efficiently handle growing social problems, unemployment and economic difficulties.

Racan also appeared to strle to keep a lid on factional disputes and appeared indecisive in dealing with Western demands to hand over war crimes suspects to the U.N. tribunal and with extremists at home who opposed prosecution of Croats.

Tudjman's reformed party, led by current Prime Minister Ivo Sanader, returned to power in 2003.

Racan's supporters praise him for leading efforts to bring democracy to Croatia. Mild-mannered and modest, he loved to play tennis and listen to U2, and acknowledged smoking pot as a student.

Racan was born in 1944 in a Nazi labor camp in Ebersbach, Germany, where his father died.

He started his political climb in former communist-run Yugoslavia during the 1980s, eventually becoming the leader of the Croatian Communist party in 1989.

A year later, he became a key player in the federation's demise by walking out of its annual congress to protest efforts by Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic to crack down on independence movements in ex-Yugoslav republics, which eventually led to war.

Under his leadership, the Communist Party in Croatia agreed that new political parties could be formed — introducing the multiparty system in Croatia and leading to the first free multiparty elections in Croatia in 1990.

Although his reformed communists lost in the polls, he enabled the peaceful handover of power to the Croatian Democratic Union, then a nationalist party. A photograph of him shaking hands with Tudjman remains a symbol of the start of democracy in Croatia.

Racan is survived by his third wife, Dijana Plestina, and two sons from his first marriage.

Racan's wish was that only his family and closest friends attend his funeral, so the date and venue will not be made public, his party said.

Tako piše Herald, a što kaže Zvone Radikalni ?

E pa, ja ću Ivicu Račana ipak ponajviše pamtiti po njegovom odlučnom NE Miloševiću na 14. Kongresu CK SKJ iz devedesete. Da sam ovo pisao prije nekoliko godina, bio bih puno kritičniji ("odlučno možda", anyone :-). Ali, kako vrijeme ide, sve sam svjesniji ograničenja u kojima je radila njegova Vlada i sve pozitivnije mislim o njenim rezultatima.
Recimo to ovako - čak i da je Sanader ostvario svoja predizborna obećanja i "pokrenuo Hrvatsku" za mene bi i dalje ostao GNJIDA zbog svoje uloge u poticanju radikalne desničarske opcije u Hrvatskoj u vrijeme vlade Ivice Račana (govor na Rivi), a kad je sam došao na vlast e onda je promijenio ploču (i to kako promijenio !!!). Ne znam, možda je Zvone Radikalni preveliki idealist (ne možda nego sigurno) i možda je to odlika "pravog" političara.
Ali, Ivica Račan nije bio takav političar.
I zato, počivaj u miru Ivice i nek ti je laka hrvatska zemlja.

- 22:41 - Komentari (4) - Isprintaj - #

četvrtak, 26.04.2007.

Boris Jeljcin

Napustio nas je Boris Jeljcin. Svidjelo mi se kako novi Economist piše o njemu, pa rekoh da podijelim s vama:

HE was almost dead when his mother scooped him out of the baptismal font in a small village in the Urals. The local priest, plied with liquor all morning by happy parents, had dunked the baby in the water and forgotten him. The boy survived and was christened Boris, a fighter.

The story may be legend, but survival against the odds was a constant in Boris Yeltsin's life. He nearly killed himself dismantling a grenade; he played cards with criminals on the roofs of speeding trains; he almost lost his life to diehard Communists. But like some character from a Russian fairy tale, he always came through.

He survived, too, the Soviet experiment that hoped to create a new man and to root out everything human and natural. Moreover, it fell to him to end this experiment and the system that lay behind it. Though Mr Yeltsin was a Communist Party boss, he never turned into Homo sovieticus; he preserved the qualities and sensibilities of a Russian man. As Alexander Solzhenitsyn put it, he was almost too Russian. He was spontaneous, erratic, frequently drunk, talented, sincere, witty, full-hearted. His hugeness as a character matched the scale of the changes in his country.

Mr Yeltsin thrived on crises, seeming bored when things were normal. Gut instinct, rather than reason, guided him. He had profound faith in Russia and tried to encourage its best impulses; but he also knew its darker side, for his personal history was his country's. Under Stalin's collectivisation his grandfather was pronounced a kulak—a rich peasant—stripped of his possessions and sentenced to forced labour. His father spent three years in the gulag, a fact which Mr Yeltsin concealed for over 30 years. The family was driven off its land and into barracks where a goat was the only source of heat. There he grew up with 20 other families, one to each room and with a single lavatory.

He believed in freedom and rejected communism not because he was a libertarian, but because he felt freedom was part of human nature. His hatred of Stalinism was instinctive, not intellectual. He cursed fascism and Stalinism in the same breath, without putting so much as a comma between them.

When Mikhail Gorbachev, then the Soviet president, launched perestroika and glasnost in the mid-1980s, Mr Yeltsin—then the party boss in Moscow—embraced them wholeheartedly. But Mr Gorbachev wanted gradual reform. Mr Yeltsin had less patience. Sensing early that the system was doomed, he broke with the Soviet power structure in 1987, publicly criticised Mr Gorbachev, was disgraced and fired. Four years later, to everyone's astonishment, he stormed back—this time as the first democratically elected president of Russia, then still one of 15 Soviet republics.

One picture captivated the world: Mr Yeltsin on top of a tank, opposing the communist coup in 1991, charismatic, brave, defiant. Later there would be darker images: a bloated, inebriated figure who grabbed a conductor's baton at a public ceremony in Berlin, or goosed the ladies at state receptions. But in August 1991 Russia rallied behind its president. People loved Yeltsin like no other Russian leader—without fear. They would hate him too, when times got tough, without fear. They took him personally, for he was one of them.
Breaking communism's neck

The country he inherited had few features of a state: no functioning institutions, no money, no food in the shops and, worst of all, a brainwashed people. He surrounded himself with young reformers, half his age and with twice his knowledge, who began to dismantle a planned economy that was rotten to the core.

For millions of Russians, it seemed that Mr Yeltsin's liberalisation of prices in 1992—not the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union—had plunged them into poverty. He refused to back off. Unlike Mr Gorbachev, he did not want to reform the communist system. He wanted to break its neck. His mass privatisation, which destroyed the basis of the regime, created robber barons too, and a communist backlash was never far away. In 1993 armed communists and fascists tried to overthrow Mr Yeltsin's government; he shelled the hostile parliament. In 1996 communists almost won the presidential elections; by twisting the rules, he saved himself and his country.

Civil war and hunger were averted, but Mr Yeltsin's compromises allowed authoritarianism to revive. He missed his chance to dismantle the KGB, and let corruption and nepotism thrive. In 1994, his worst mistake, he agreed to invade Chechnya, starting a conflict that still scars, degrades and endangers his country.

Most unusually, he admitted those mistakes. When, for the first time in Russian history, he voluntarily handed power to his (handpicked) successor, he apologised to his people—who, in truth, had never fought for freedom as hard as he had.
I ask you to forgive me for not fulfilling the hopes of those people who believed that we would be able to jump from the grey, stagnating, totalitarian past into a bright, rich and civilised future in one go. I myself believed in this. But it could not be done in one fell swoop...I am leaving. I have done everything I could...In saying farewell, I wish to say to each of you the following. Be happy. You deserve happiness. You deserve happiness and peace.

U njegovo vrijeme doživljavao sam ga kao poprilično komičnog lika. "Važne" stvari su se događale drugdje, a on bi dospio u vijesti kad bi pijan držao govor, potapšao kineskog diplomata po leđima tako da se jadnik srušio ili kad bi zaplesao na predizbornom skupu. Ipak, gledajući gdje je Rusija sada i, još važnije, gdje Rusija ide, mišljenja sam da će se o Borisu Jeljcinu s vremenom sve ljepše pisati.

- 23:02 - Komentari (4) - Isprintaj - #

srijeda, 25.04.2007.

Only death and taxes

Misli se tako Zvone Radikalni: „Ma j... ti ovo visoko obrazovanje, sve je to lipo, odgajanje novih generacija inženjera, fleksibilno radno vrijeme, ali tribalo bi štogod para zaraditi !!!“. U svjetlu negdje pročitanog podatka da za mirnu starost današnji radnici moraju sami sebi sa strane uštedjeti milijun kuna, krajnje je vrijeme da se krene u poduzetničke vode !!!

Pa tako krenuh ja u raspitivanje o tome kako to izgleda kad imaš svoju firmu. Danas izgleda svaka šuša ima firmu pa bi valjalo biti u trendu (a i svaki put se kad me na pumpi nakon što natočim puni rezervoar, a to je uvijek, pitaju triba li R1 osjećam blesavo :-). Business case je tu – nema tu puno filozofije – Zvone Radikalni jedino može prodavati svoju pamet (srećom, ipak po značajnije boljoj satnici nego što je to marka za kilu J). Posla u branši ima koliko hoćeš. IPO zasad nije u planu, ali nikad ne znaš :-))).


(to je Zvone Radikalni sletio na zemlju, a znate onu narodnu „ko visoko leti ...“)

Što, zašto, kako ? Ili, kako bi rekli naši dragi susjedi: „Dže ba zapelo ?“

A zapelo je na državi, odnosno na porezima. Jer kad sam izračunao koliko treba dati državi, prisiklo me. Ovdje ću posve zanemariti pitanje davanja na plaću, koja su apsolutno prevelika, pogotovo kad se uzme u obzir razina usluge koju građani dobivaju za te novce, i koncentrirati se na porez na dobit.
Dakle, pitanje je sljedeće. Ukoliko poduzetnik naplati svoje usluge (preko vlastite firme) 100.000 kn (i pretpostavimo da pri tome nije bilo nikakvog troška – npr. konzultantske usluge) , koliko toga sebi može isplatiti i iskoristiti da pođe recimo sa ženom na ljetovanje ?
Moje znanje računovodstva i poreznog sustava je minimalno, ali ja sam izračunao nekako ovako. Najprije treba platiti 22 % PDV-a, i to u roku mjesec dana po isporuci fakture (a ne po plaćanju te fakture – btw. ima li to još igdje u svijetu, baš bih volio znati ?). Onda se na to prilikom isplate dobiti obračunava porez na dobit od 20 %.
I ja sam nekako računao da je to to i da ostane nešto više od 60.000 kuna vlasniku u kešu za potrošnju. Ajde dobro, moglo bi i bolje, ali bi moglo i gore ;-).


Jerbo prilikom transakcije dobiti od Zvone Radikalnog vlasnika firme na Zvonu Radikalnog fizičku osobu taj fizikalac mora još platiti i porez na dohodak. Jel se to meni samo čini ili je to trostruko oporezivanje ? Anyway, to je još 20-35 (45 ?) % što raspoloživi iznos spušta debelo ispod 50.000 kn. Ode više od pola direkcijone u državni budžet !!! A zašto ? Zato da bi državni činovnici mogli u miru pijuckati kavu i prodavati mi štoseve „dođite sutra“.

„Znao“ sam ja i dosada da su u Hrvatskoj porezi preveliki. „Znao“. Više onako teorijski jer su mi se prilikom isplata autorskih honorara te stvari obračunavale automatski i kad bih vidio živu lovu na računu, dalje me baš i nije previše zanimalo.

Ali ovakav „obračun sa stvarnošću“ baš i nisam očekivao. A prilikom tog raspitivanja odmah sam dobio i savjet. „Najbolje za firmu ti je da ti je dobit uvijek 0 kuna“ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Mislim, u kontekstu cijele priče, taj savjet mi je apsolutno jasan. Potroši sve pare kako znaš i umiješ (kupi kompjuter, auto, poslovni prostor) i onda ništa ne moraš dati državi. Ali svejedno mi se čini kao prilično izvrtanje ekonomske logike.

I za kraj dvije teme za diskusiju (ista stvar iz dva različita kuta):
1) Je li pošteno da država sebi uzima pola ? DA ili NE ?
2) Državni proračun od 50 % BDP-a. ZA ili PROTIV ?

UPDATE - Ovaj post je originalno objavljen na pollitika.com (gdje se razvila informativna rasprava) i tamo sam vrlo brzo upozoren (thx, mrak i Šimun) da je moj izračun poreza pogrešan u smislu da se porez na dohodak ne plaća na isplaćenu dobit. To su izvrsne vijesti thumbup, a kasnije sam našao i ovo:

Stopa poreza na dobit je 20% (od 01.01.2001.g.) i plaća se bez obzira na isplatu dobiti. Za vlasnike fizičke osobe, isplata dobiti ostvarene prije 01.01.2001.g. i nakon 31.12.2004. ne oporezuje se porezom na dohodak. Isplata dobiti ostvarene u razdoblju od 01.01.2001. do 31.12.2004. oporezuje se sa 15% poreza na dohodak. Isplata predujma dobiti za 2006. godinu nije oporeziva porezom na dohodak

- 22:55 - Komentari (4) - Isprintaj - #

ponedjeljak, 23.04.2007.

O rusvaju s JMBG-om

Kod ove teme neizostavno moram citirati svog dragog frenda Kruška koji je to rekao maksimalno jezgrovito: „zbog malo politikanstva oko privatnosti, uvalili su nas u pizdarije i sad ne znaju kako da se izvuku a da sami sebe ne poseru“.


Ipak, izgleda da su našli rješenje :-). Uvesti će „Porezni broj“. Koji će u stvari biti isto što i JMBG. Jedinstveni podatak po kojem se mogu raspoznati svi građani Hrvatske (a ukoliko se želite malo napraviti pametni pred prijateljima, i pozor !, ukoliko u društvu nema kompjuterskih geekova koji bi mogli produbiti diskusiju i uvaliti vas u probleme – možete iskoristiti i tehnički naziv za takvu vrstu podatka – primarni ključ :-).

A zašto bi se Vi uopće trebali brinuti o tako nečemu ?

E trebali bi svakako, jer je primarni ključ esencijalno bitan u priči oko digitalnog identiteta. A oko toga bi se u budućnosti mogli voditi i ratovi :-). Dobro, dobro, sad malo pretjerujem, ali ...

A sad s pričom ispočetka.

Tamo negdje prije četiri, pet godina neko se sjetio da JMBG „zadire“ u privatnost jer je iz njega vidljiv datum rođenja.
A nekako je baš u to vrijeme kulminirao Big Brother sindrom u Hrvata. Pa su se ljudi strašno zabrinuli oko privatnosti. I to s pravom, jer je to jedna vrlo nezgodna tema. Koliko informacija država smije posjedovati o svojim građanima, ko smije imati pristup tim informacijama i u kakve svrhe ? I to u vrijeme kad gomila informacija koje su prije bile razasute po prašnjivim knjigama u podrumima prelazi u digitalni oblik.
Ooooooo !
Komplicirano !
Elem, naši političari kakvi već jesu su odlučili „krenuti u akciju“. Da pokažu kako i oni nešto rade. I malci su bez puno vrdanja odlučili da će JMBG napraviti tajnim i privatnim podatkom. Džaba je bilo mom mentoru (vrlo uglednom profesoru s FER-a) objašnjavati Goranu Graniću kako država bez toga ne može funkcionirati (epilog – nisu ga više pozivali na sastanke „ekspertne skupine“ J).
Rečeno – učinjeno (troškove da ne spominjem) i JMBG je nestao s osobnih iskaznica.

Telad jedna blesava !!!

I što imamo danas ?

Dolazi Pero na šalter neke državne agencije. „Molim Vas osobnu iskaznicu“ sa smješkom pita referentica. „Izvolite“, kaže Pero. „Molim Vas Vaš JMBG“. Pero vadi papirić iz novčanika i počinje „1234567890123“ ...
Ista priča gdje god dođeš. Ako hoćeš uslugu, pljuni JMBG. Jebe se njima živo za zakon.

I oni su (odnosno programeri koji su dizajnirali i implementirali dotični informacijski sustav) apsolutno u pravu !!! Jer IT sustav koji u sebi ima bilo kakve podatke ne može funkcionirati bez famoznog primarnog ključa. A kad pričamo o podacima koje je potrebno vezati na određenu osobu to znači da je potrebno imati neki podatak koji je jedinstven za svaku osobu. To ne može biti ime i prezime (jer ima ljudi istog imena i prezimena) a i kombinacija s datumom rođenja ne garantira jedinstvenost.
E tu ulogu je ispunjavao JMBG.
I zato je banci (i nebrojenoj gomili drugih ustanova) prilikom otvaranja računa nužno da ima JMBG jer taj podatak garantira da se radi o fizičkoj osobi, građaninu Republike Hrvatske (koji se make no mistake vrlo lako može zloupotrijebiti)

A to što su vlada i zastupnici isforsirali takav zakon jašući na valu narodnog „raspoloženja“, to je van svake pameti ...

U vrijeme kad treba užurbano raditi na postavljanju informacijske superstrukture naše države da konačno i Hrvatska počne ubirati „IT dividendu“ mi nemamo zakonsku podlogu (odnosno, ukinuli smo postojeću) niti za najelementarniju operaciju u bilo kojem e-sustavu – utvrđivanje identiteta !


P.S. A propo „tajnosti“ JMBG-ova. Naletio sam tako na sudački registar firmi u RH, i tamo crno bijelo saznao JMBG-ove osnivača i direktora doti i jedne firme koje sam se mogao sjetiti :-). Ma bravo.

Ovaj posto objavljen je i na pollitika.com (razvila se zanimljiva diskusija pa koga zanima može baciti oko)

- 11:08 - Komentari (5) - Isprintaj - #

nedjelja, 22.04.2007.

Kako je žena kroz lezbijsko iskustvo SHVATILA kako je muškarcima :-)))

Pa kaže:

I used to scoff and roll my eyes when you went on and on about how women were so different and complicated. I probably even told a few of you to fuck off when you got going on that. I wrote it off as simple chauvinism. But then I had an experience that changed my perspective: I tried to have sex with a woman.

My first experience was with a life-long lesbian, and, given her experience and comfort with the whole thing, she took the lead. I wasn't really aware of that because, as a life-long heterosexual, it didn't play out all that differently from the encounters I'd had with men (until we started touching each other, that is). A few months later I met Jen through a mutual friend. Jen and I had a lot in common and as we chatted we learned we had something very interesting in common: we both wanted to have sex with another woman. This revelation came very early in our friendship, and we were obviously attracted to each other, so it seemed inevitable we would end up in bed together. Jen had never been with a woman before, though, so as the more experienced person I ended up taking the lead, taking the male role.

So there we were, two young, healthy, horny women, hot for each other. I figured getting her naked would be no big deal. Was I fucking mistaken. We went on date after date, talking endlessly about who knows what. The whole time I couldn't relax - I kept trying to read her signals, what she said, her body language, trying to figure out if tonight would be the night. It was very strange - I usually loved talking with girlfriends, but this just made me feel exhausted and stupid. What was I doing wrong? Why couldn't I make it happen? And then it dawned on me: this is what guys do ALL THE TIME.

So we did eventually do it, and we had a great time. I thought after that I would be more relaxed, but I was wrong again. It did get easier with each successive encounter, but only slightly. I still felt that pressure to read her mind. Only after 3 or 4 times did I finally feel comfortable with her, and then she moved out of town. We still email and see each other occasionally.

So guys, I have seen into your world, and I can say now, you definitely have it tougher than we do. I feel your pain. And ladies, if you're reading this, go easy on them. If you want to get it on, just let them know. They're killing themselves trying to figure it out. And that's just getting in the way of some potentially good fucking.
Riječ da bi dodao smokin.

- 00:13 - Komentari (2) - Isprintaj - #

četvrtak, 19.04.2007.

O majkama i djeci (a ponešto i o očevima)

Ima jedan post na blogu Marginal Revolution koji mi je dao misliti a u kojem kaže vako:

How many children should you have?
Tyler Cowen
From a private point of view, only one:
In comparing identical twins, Kohler found that mothers with one child are about 20 percent happier than their childless counterparts; and while fathers' happiness gains are smaller, men enjoy an almost 75 percent larger happiness boost from a firstborn son than from a firstborn daughter [TC: remember the result that fathers with sons are less likely to leave?]. The first child's sex doesn't matter to mothers, perhaps because women are better than men at enjoying the company of both girls and boys, Kohler speculates.
Interestingly, second and third children don't add to parents' happiness at all. In fact, these additional children seem to make mothers less happy than mothers with only one child—though still happier than women with no children.
"If you want to maximize your subjective well-being, you should stop at one child," concludes Kohler, adding that people probably have additional children either for the benefit of the firstborn or because they reason that if the first child made them happy, the second one will, too.

Što kaže ?

Suma sumarum, kaže da je za ženu najbolje da ima samo jedno dijete, jer će je dodatna djeca učiniti nesretnijom (iako će i tako biti sretnija nego da uopće nema djece). Naravno, odmah se mora povući pitanje mjerenja „sreće“. Ali, kako se radi o studiji (pdf !) a ima i duža verzija priče ovdje, valjda su to nekako riješili.
Što prirodno nameće pitanje zašto bi tomu bilo tako ?
Iz osobnog kuta, mogu reći da je Princeza kao drugo dijete donijela nemjerljivu količinu sreće u naše kućanstvo zujo. Ali isto tako mogu reći da se teret itekako vidi. Osnovni problem (u našem slučaju) je buđenje djece po noći i u tome aspektu su naša dva komada prilično zahtjevna headbang. Priče poznanika kako ima djeca „zaspu u 8 i probude se u 7“ doživljavamo kao najbolji SF !!! Sinčini je taman trebalo dvije godine da počne normalno spavati, a onda je nastupila Princeza.
I tako polako odoše živci. Ponajprije ženi, ali i meni se crno piše (jerbo je žena počela raditi i sad više nema cile mile – „Ajmo, diž' se“ - ravnopravnost spolova, molit' ću lijepo thumbup).
Pa se čovjek zapita - kad bi mogli ponovno, da li bi stali na jednom djetetu ?

Idiotsko pitanje !!!

Jedan pogled iz Princezinih plavih očiju je dovoljan da nadoknadi svu muku (ili se čovjek možda tako samo tješi smokin), što u konačnici ipak znači da smo mi sretniji s dvoje djece nego sa jednim. Ali, zato su se u raspravi o trećem djetetu pojavili novi aspekti rolleyes.
Ipak, Zvone Radikalni is aiming high. I što god mislija o don Pavi, i koliko god njegova argumentacija bila odbojna, u biti se slažemo i Zvone is aiming for 4 njami.
Dalek je to i težak cilj, i iz trenutne perspektive (karijera, šoldi namcor) gotovo neostvarljiv.
Ali je cilj, i to dobro mjerljiv cilj.

Pitajte me za pet godina ...

- 17:36 - Komentari (6) - Isprintaj - #

srijeda, 18.04.2007.

Mamu im njihovu monopolističku

Prekjučer mi je preko poznanika proslijeđen mail jednog gnjevnog korisnika Max TV.

Pa kaže:


Evo već skoro godinu dana koristim vaš Max-tv i želio bih sa vama malo podijeliti svoje duševne boli i noćne more. Naime vaša usluga je sve samo ne usluga. Uslugu ste valjda htijeli napraviti mojoj bivšoj ženi da me vrag što prije odnese jer predpostavljam da su to njene intimne misli. Neznam samo što sam to vama učinio da me tako kažnjavate. MAX-TV. Prevara stoljeća koju ja iz mjeseca u mjesec uredno plaćam jer sam vezan ugovorom. Ako prekinem taj ugovor onda plaćam cca 1500,oo kn (neznam zašto) a uredno sam platio i uređaj (koji je po riječima operatera još u fazi testiranja) i instalaciju tog jako lošeg uređaja.

Malo o uređaju. Brzina mu je otprilike kao prvom računalu koji je napravljen a uvelike podsjeća na usporenu snimku golova samo što je ovaj vaš 10-tak puta sporiji.Taman kad učita program i čovik se fino namjesti da pogleda tv nakon naporna dana a ono slika sleđena. Nazoveš operatera na broj 08009000 i on ti kaže da je kod njih sve u redu i da uređaj resetiraš tako da ga isključiš iz struje.Nakon što se isključi moraš pričekati nekih bijednih 15-tak minuta i opet imaš sliku te se sav sretan ko mali prasac ponovno zavališ u fotelju i pokušaš shvatiti radnju filma jer je već prošlo nekih 20 min.Ako imaš sreće to će se desiti samo jednom u toku večeri a ako nemaš kao ja onda će ti se to desiti najmanje 5 puta tokom večeri.
Sreća max-tv ima videoteku na kojoj možeš pogledati sve one stare i dosadne filmove koji su na tv-u reprizirani po 10-tak puta. Uz to što im je cijena veća nego u videoteci (10,12,15 kn) na svako drugom filmu slika se zamrzne te moraš prebaciti na tv pa se onda opet vratiti u videoteku da bi nastavio gledat započeto a svako prekidanje i ponovno učitavanje oduzme svega nekih bijednih 10-tak min.Imate filmove na svu sreću koje moraš prekidat samo 20 puta ali to i nije loše jer na kraju ispadne cijelovečernji film od 20-24 sata. Omjer filmova u videoteci je 10 naprema 1 u korist pornića(15 kn) i to je raj za bogate drkadžije sa jakim živcima.

Unaprijed se ispričavam svima jer sam sad totalno popizdio. Ako ima gramatičkih poigrešaka cijenjena gospodo BOLI ME KURAC. Živci su mi otišli od vašeg usranog max-tv-a a sve to uredno plaćam iz mjeseca u mjesec jer sam vezan ugovorom koji mene obavezuje da ga plaćam a vas obavezuje da ga naplaćujete bez obzira koliko bio loš.Pri zadnjem javljanju operateru(prije pola sata)veli mi da mogu putem maila poslati prigovor i to su sva moja prava u ugovoru koji ako prekinem mora platiti. Znači u govnima sam svakako. Slobode su mi ograničene jer je ugovor pisan na moju štetu.Ostaju mi samo slobode govora.

E pa to mogu iskoristiti na slijedeći način. U svom adresaru imam preko 200 mail adresa pa ću ovaj mail poslati svima znanim i neznanim te ih zamolit (ako hoće da im i dalje šaljem
one smiješne mailove) da ovaj prigovor proslijede svima znanim i neznanim. Pa će i ti znani i neznani to proslijedit svima znanim i neznanim pa će svi ti znani i neznani skužiti da je taj max-tv jedno obično govno umotano u reklamni celofan za jednu kunu(uređaj koji nevalja platiš ustvari 300 i nešto kuna).Koristeći i dalje svoju slobodu govora a nemoćan da bilo
šta drugo napravim citirat ću Šešelja u Haškom postupku te vam poručiti.


Sad kad sam malo olakša dušu idem resetirati vaš uređaj po osmi put danas ili ću izabrati film iz vaše bogate naftalinske videoteke pa se sa njim natezat do kasno u noć. Nadam se da mi ne zamjerate na slobodi govora i na onom " jeben vam" jer vi mene jebete iz dana u dan i ja vam to uredno plaćam.

Sa poštovanjem Ivica Šitum
Iako nemam MaxTV (niti sam ga imao namjere kupovati) znam kako je čoviku. Jerbo mene jebe njihov Max ADSL. Ponekad, i to prilično često, iz čistog mira me odjebe s pola Interneta. Odnosno, na neke siteove mogu, a na neke ne mogu pa dobijem grešku. Kao da nisam uopće spojen na internet. Ponekad (rijetko) pomaže restart onog Siemensovog modema-rutera, ali uglavnom ne pomaže ništa. Ne bi to bio kraj svijeta, ali eto ti crnog vraga, među tim nedostupnim sajtovima su mi i Economist, a bogami i MSDN od Microsofta.

A kako znam da je zajeb u T-HTu ? Jednostavno, spojim se Remote Desktopom na svoje računalo na FER-u i kad tamo ukucam www.economist.com, radi ko urica.

Stoga, kad uzmem u obzir koliko su nas ti T-HT igrači izjebali, koliko su nam para pokrali tijekom ovih par godina kako "liberalizacija tržišta samo što nije", nemam što dodati nego:

Jebem li Vam milu tromajku monopolističku, da li Vam je jebem !!!! (da oprostite na rječniku)

- 12:02 - Komentari (5) - Isprintaj - #

ponedjeljak, 16.04.2007.

John McCain - come back kid (kaže Economist ?)

Evo što kaže u Lexington kolumni u prošlom broju Economista:

IT IS hard to believe that John McCain is relaunching his presidential campaign. After all, that campaign is the longest-running show in American politics. Mr McCain is a fixture on the talk-shows—and a bit-player in such low-brow comedies as “The Wedding Crashers”.

But “relaunch” is hardly too strong a word for it. Mr McCain has delayed the formal announcement of his presidential bid until the end of the month. He is making room for three “major” policy speeches, and is revamping his fund-raising apparatus to make it more like the Bush machine that crushed him in the 2000 presidential campaign. He has also made room for a “blogger conference call”, to give the impression that he is both accessible and au fait with modern technology.

He has little choice but to do something drastic. For weeks he has been trailing Rudy Giuliani both in the polls and in the fund-raising race. He had hoped that he would build such a powerful machine that his conservative critics would line up behind him; instead, the machine is so rickety that ex-friends in the media are lining up to write his obituary.

The relaunching process got off to a dismal start. Mr McCain began by sort-of-apologising for a recent stroll through a Baghdad market that did little to burnish the image of the straight talker of legend. The market was much safer than it used to be, he claimed, while being clearly guarded by a legion of soldiers and a phalanx of helicopter gunships.

He faces plenty of obstacles. The long-time crusader against money in politics needs to turn himself into a fund-raising machine. And the long-time maverick needs to placate conservative interest groups. All the same, it is too early to write him off.

Mr McCain is adopting a high-risk strategy for success: he is backing George Bush's Iraq surge to the hilt. On April 11th, the day of the original official launch, he gave a vigorous speech at the Virginia Military Institute arguing that the war is essential for America's national security and sesting that the surge is beginning to work. This may prove disastrous. Around 60% of the public regards the war as a mistake, and Republican loyalists are falling over themselves to denounce Mr Bush.

But equally it may be the shot in the arm that Mr McCain needs. He plainly believes what he is saying. So the straight talker is back, but this time defending an unpopular cause. He lambasted congressional Democrats for cheering when they voted to defund the war. “What were they celebrating? Defeat? Surrender?”

He has perfect credentials for this stance, ranging from his own background in the navy to the fact that he has criticised Mr Bush's botched execution of the occupation from the start. And 70% of Republican voters still say that they think the war was worth waging.

A prominent Democratic congressman, observing Mr McCain's difficulties, notes—not entirely without sympathy—that “in politics it's a lot easier to lose your friends than it is to win over your enemies.” It is true that some conservatives, such as James Dobson, a right-wing religious leader, and the Club for Growth, which supports the Reagan “vision”, will never support him. But there are also signs that other conservatives are beginning to take a second look. Both the Weekly Standard and the National Review have published cover articles making the case for him.

Mr McCain has more foreign-policy and military experience than the rest of the Republican field combined. He has a more solid conservative record than either Mr Giuliani (who recently scandalised conservatives by saying that he supports public funding for abortion) or Mitt Romney (who turns out to be something of a serial panderer). And he is clearly willing to stick to his guns on an unpopular issue. Conservatives would be foolish not to ponder the contention, put forward by Senator Lindsey Graham, that Mr McCain represents the best combination of “conservatism and electability” available.

It is not unusual for front-runners to stumble in American primaries. Al Gore was so worried that he would lose to Bill Bradley that he moved his campaign headquarters to Nashville and swapped blue suits for earth tones. John Kerry once mortgaged one of his houses to keep his campaign afloat. George Bush senior and Bob Dole both strled to win the Republican nomination in 1988 and 1996. Mr McCain, now aged 70, could yet become the oldest comeback kid in American history.

Ne tako davno, pisao sam da bih volio vidjeti Barracka O'Bamu i McCaina u američkoj predsjedničkoj trci dogodine. Ipak, od kad je McCain (koji je stvarno straight-talker i ima dobre policy proposals za Ameriku u cjelini) rekao da bi Roe vs. Wade trebalo promijeniti, malo sam se ohladio. Razumijem ja da je to podilaženje kršćanskom krilu Republikanske stranke koje je nužno da bi uopće bio izabran za njihovog predsjedničkog kandidata, ali ipak sam bio razočaran (za one neupućene, odluka Vrhovnog suda u slučaju Roe vs. Wade je pravna osnova po kojoj je abortus legaliziran u Americi). Doduše, začudio sam se s koliko je malo pažnje ta njegova izjava prošla u javnostu. Vjerojatno je to svjedočanstvo tome koliko je McCain "aktivan" u drugim, "važnijim" područjima (čitaj Irak headbang).

Tako da će trka biti vrlo zanimljiva. Barrack i Hillary (te možda John Edwards) su top contenderi kod Demokrata, a Republikanci su još uvijek wide open. Mitt Romney skuplja šolde ko lud (ništa neočekivano, s obzirom na menadžerske credentialse), Rudy Guliani se brine što će biti kad većina Republikanaca sazna da je on za pobačaj i sve u svemu jedan vrlo, vrlo liberalan tip, a McCain pokušava ponovno pokrenuti svoj zahrđali stroj.

I još se priča o Fredu Thompsonu, a to je, ne bi vjerovali glumac. I to ono, prilično popularan i uvijek je glumio neke generale, admirale, savjetnike - ono, "ozbiljne uloge" mu dobro leže.

Novi Reagan ???!!!

Asti sto, što će biti zanimljivo. A DO IZBORA IMA JOŠ GODINU I PO DANA !!!!!!

Hm. Kad bolje razmislim, mislim da većina čitatelja uopće neće dijeliti moj entuzijazam smokin.

UPDATE: Bojim se da se John McCain "eliminirao" iz utrke. Evo nevjerojatan (sa stajališta političke pameti, odnosno gluposti) članak o njegovim stavovima vezano uz povlačenje iz Iraka : McCain Self-Destructs

- 23:59 - Komentari (11) - Isprintaj - #

ponedjeljak, 09.04.2007.

Evo jedan "ping" :-)

Inspiracija me napustila headbang pa evo prenosim nešto sa bloga Certain ideas for Europe a što mi se eto svidjelo.

Patriotism begins at home

DAVID BELL offers a story that is too cute not to repeat:

For the French, the notion of private citizens flying the flag is a strange one. One French friend of mine, on seeing several Maryland homes proudly displaying large American flags, once asked to me, in all innocence: "Are they all post offices?

The context is, of course, that Ségolčne Royal said that the French should be proud to fly the tricolour on Bastille Day, which did indeed strike people as odd, even un-French.

But this anecdote should not be misread. Anyone who has been to France recently will note that the flag is everywhere. The French are the most flag-happy of the big western European peoples by far. Compare Germany's black-red-yellow, far thinner on the ground.

The difference is in that bit about how "the notion of private citizens flying the flag is a strange one." The French like their state, and want to see it big, strong and assertively French. They have no problem with seeing its most distinctive symbol everywhere—except, maybe, near their home. Americans aren't so fond of their state or "the state" in general. But they believe patriotism is a personal virtue, best emphasised with Old Glory right over the front door.

P.S. Prekjučer se napunilo godinu dana od početka mog bloganja, i nakupilo se lipih 50 postova. Zadovoljan smokin.

- 23:39 - Komentari (4) - Isprintaj - #

<< Prethodni mjesec | Sljedeći mjesec >>