519 stories

Bogdan Mustiaţă: SSHD Cygwin HowTo

1 Share

Start Cygwin as an Administrator, and then run:

# ssh-host-config -y

Follow the instructions on the screen.


Read the whole story
Share this story

This brick could save Californians 67 million gallons of water a day

1 Share

This is part of a series of articles that looks at entrepreneurs hoping to get their ideas off the ground through crowdfunding. At the time of writing, each of these innovations is currently seeking funding.

California is facing one the worst water droughts in history, and with many towns facing problems with water resources the importance of being thrifty is becoming very clear. We’ve already written about Everydrop LA, the app that enables citizens to report instances of water leakage in the city. Now another project is encouraging Californians to Drop-A-Brick into their toilets to save water and money at home.

It’s a common piece of advice that has been passed down through the ages — put a brick in your cistern to save water. Currently seeking funding through Indiegogo, the project is simply getting people to do just that. The nonprofit has created a rubber alternative to the standard brick, which can often end up damaging toilets. The Drop-A-Brick on the other hand is soft, using a hydro-gel that react with water to give it the weight to sink rather than float. Because it’s flexible, it can fit into any space in the cistern, unlike actual bricks. When in place, the nonprofit says it saves about half a gallon of water with each flush. If every citizen of Calfornia installed the Drop-A-Brick in their bathroom, they could help save up to 67 million gallons of water every day.

Watch the tongue-in-cheek video below, which acts as a promo for the campaign:

Backers can support Drop-A-Brick’s Indiegogo campaign until 31 October, where they can purchase their own bricks or donate them to households in need from as low as USD 15. As well as helping the environment and maintaining water resources for more important things such as drinking and plant water, homeowners could also cut their water bills using the low-tech device. Are there other ways to rethink time-tested, low tech methods to ensure they’re effective for everybody?

Indiegogo: www.igg.me/at/dropabrick
Website: www.dropabrick.org
Contact: www.facebook.com/project-drop-a-brick

Read the whole story
Share this story

Moon-landing conspiracy claim refuted by video game graphics

1 Share
Read the whole story
Share this story


1 Comment

This is really just an excuse to show a wonderful film about vegetables.

But it is also about how modern science has radically changed in a way that hasn’t been fully understood.

How it has gone from promising extraordinary new worlds of the future - to become a powerfully conservative force that holds progress back and tends to keep people in their place.

And the odd role vegetables have played in showing how this has happened.


There are two - parallel - universes of science. One is the actual day-to-day work of scientists, patiently researching into all parts of the world and sometimes making amazing discoveries.

The other is the role science plays in the public imagination - the powerful effect it has in shaping how millions of ordinary people see the world.

Often the two worlds run together - with scientists from the first world giving us glimpses of their extraordinary discoveries. But what sometimes happens is that those discoveries - and what they promise - get mixed up with other social and political ideas. And then the science begins to change into something else.

This happened in a dramatic way in the second half of the twentieth century. Science did very well in the second world war and after the war ambitious scientists promised they could build a new kind of world.

But by the 1970s it became clear that there were unforeseen consequences. It started with chemical pollution - especially DDT killing wildlife. But it was nuclear power that really broke the faith in the optimistic view of science - with the disaster at Three Mile Island in the US in 1979.

What emerged instead was a powerful distrust of the idea that science and technocratic experts could make a better world. Here is a good example of that new mood. It’s an anti-nuclear rally held in New York after Three Mile Island.

Jane Fonda makes a celebrity appearance - and her interview articulates the mood very well. I also love the protest song at the end.

“Just give me the restless power of the wind

Give me the comforting glow of the wood fire

But please take all your atomic poison power away”

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash Installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content

But if the scientists had been naive - so too was much of the counter-reaction.

The truth was that it might not have been the science itself that was at fault - but the way the science had been distorted and corrupted by the economic and political demands made on it.

Here is a section of a film I made about what went wrong with the building of the first big nuclear reactors. It shows how the companies building them - like General Electric - were under enormous economic pressure and political demands because of the cold war. And the technologists designed giant systems they knew were potentially unsafe.

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash Installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content

Then came the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. All the distrust of big science that had been building up exploded out - and science became the problem. Not the solution any longer.

There was one man who articulated this new view of science very powerfully. He was a German political scientist called Ulrich Beck who wrote a book just before the Chernobyl explosion called Risk Society. In the wake of the disaster it captured the public imagination - and has been incredibly influential on social and political thinking in the west ever since.


The book was powerful because it laid out a new way of looking at the world. Beck said that what the scientists and technologists had been doing with these giant projects was not building a new and glorious future. Without realising it they had been doing the opposite - they had been creating enormous new dangers for the world.

Beck used the word risk. The scientists he said had been “manufacturing risks”.

In the past the big risks to human societies tended to be freak events of nature - like earthquakes and volcanoes and storms. But now the risks came from human ingenuity and ambition. Much of what had been created had potentially world-threatening side effects - like atomic fallout and ecological disasters.

The world had been turned upside down. It wasn’t nature that was the real threat to human existence any longer - it was now human science and technology that had the power to destroy nature and the whole of the planet. And it wasn’t going to stop - this was a new and growing danger.

It meant - Beck said - that the whole role of politics would inevitably change. In the past politicians’ main aim had been to create a more equal society. That was now in decline. In the new “risk society” their main focus should be to create safety.

Beck didn’t mince his words:

Whereas the utopia of equality contains a wealth of substantial and positive goals of social change, the utopia of the risk society remains peculiarly negative and defensive. Basically, one is no longer concerned with attaining something ‘good’, but rather with preventing the worst.

The dream of the old society is that everyone wants and ought to have a share of the pie. The utopia of the risk society is that everyone should be spared from poisoning

That was written in 1986 - and it is remarkably prescient. Because that short paragraph pretty much describes the present day mood in our society. A world where individuals are constantly calibrating risks in their lives, while politicians are expected to anticipate and avoid all future risks and dangers.

And everyone gives up on the idea of creating equality, which allows inequality to increase massively.

Beck’s book is extraordinary - because he came from the liberal left. Yet he is basically saying that in the face of these new potential risks we will have to move away from the political idea of progress and social reform - and instead hunker down in the brace position and try and anticipate all dangers that might be coming at us out of the darkness.

To be fair to Beck he is ambiguous in the book about the kind of pessimistic and anxious society that will arise from this new approach. But he says it is inevitable. And in a way it is a very honest depiction of what happened to the liberal mind set at the end of the 1980s - how it retreated into a gloomy pessimism where the only response to events is “oh dear.”

I think the truth probably is that it was the baby boomers losing their youth - and finding themselves unable to face the fact of their own mortality - they started to project their fears onto the rest of society. But somehow people like Beck transformed this into a grand pessimistic ideology.


I want to put up part of an extraordinary documentary made during the events of 1986 that dramatically shows just how different our attitudes to risk used to be. It is the record of the group of Soviet technologists who volunteered to go into the ruined reactor core at Chernobyl after the disaster.

It is extraordinary because they all knew they would die. Their protection against the radiation - as you see in the film - was minimal. It consisted of taping up their cuffs and trouser legs and not much else. But they went in because it was the only way to find out how to contain the disaster.

It is so moving because they are men from an older world. To them risk is irrelevant. They believe in something grander - bigger than their own lives. There is also the most fantastic remote controlled camera - it is mounted on a toy tank and its images are great.

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash Installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content

The idea of the Risk Society gave modern science and technology a real kicking. Because they were the ones - it said - who were mainly creating the risks.

But it also allowed science to invent a new role for itself. Because a new breed of scientists came forward and said that they knew how to analyse the dangers - and anticipate the risks. They wouldn’t try and build dazzling new futures, instead they would keep the world safe by spotting the dangers before they arrived.

It was the beginning of a modern science which now permeates the modern world and whose full dimensions I don’t think we’ve fully recognised. It has become central to all sorts of areas - from medicine and public health, through climate change, finance and the welfare state - and even to the anticipation of terrorism and crime.

What the scientists and technologists do is look for patterns, associations and correlations in large amounts of data. It has permeated the public imagination mostly through the regular reports that find associations between diseases and human behaviour. Journalists love them - the one I particularly liked was the scientific report that said that snoring gave you cancer.


But this science does have powerful roots. It was just this kind of search for correlations that allowed scientists to prove that there was a link between smoking and cancer. It was a piece of scientific investigation that changed the world - and has saved millions of people from an early death.

It was work like that which has allowed modern science to rise up in a different form - and again become central to society - because now it was warning us of the dangers. Which is good.

But there is a weakness in this scientific approach that can allow it to be shaped and manipulated by wider social and political forces.

This is because if you look for correlations you often have no real idea of why something is happening - just that it is somehow associated. The warning phrase is “correlation does not mean causation.”

The scientists know this very well - and they constantly try and cross-check to see if the correlation is real or spurious by accounting for all sorts of variables. They look for hidden factors that might really be the reason for something happening and try and adjust the data for these. They have a good name for these hidden factors - “residual confounders.”

But the problem is that they are always trying to imagine what the hidden variables are - and the choice of what you do imagine and what you don’t is inevitably shaped by wider social and political views of the world.

Which bring us to the vegetables.

Seven months ago a scientific report came out that illustrates this danger very clearly.

It was from University College London and it said said that people who eat seven or more portions of vegetables every day - rather than the recommended five - live longer. And it wasn’t just a little bit longer, one of the authors of the report said that the effect was “staggering.”

The claims were powerful. It said that if you ate up to five portions a day it would reduce your risk of death by 29%, but if you ate seven or more portions the risk was reduced by 42%

As a result the report got a lot of publicity - with people arguing that the national guidelines ought to be changed. Here’s some of the TV and newspaper coverage.

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash Installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content

But if you look into the report, two rather surprising things emerge.

First that the data is not really strong enough to support the confident conclusions of the researchers. It is, as one scientist not connected with the report told me, far more a leap of faith than a scientifically proven conclusion.

And secondly the scientists who did the research may have ignored another - and very different - conclusion that the data might point to. This is that if you want to live longer you should change society.

To do the report, the researchers had taken data from the Health Surveys of England. Every year a random group of people are asked questions about their lives - and one of the sections asks them how much fruit and vegetables they have eaten in the past twenty four hours.

The researchers took the answers from one of those surveys twelve years ago and compared the fruit and vegetable answers with who had died over the past twelve years. And that is basically it. The report was based on what sixty-five thousand people said they had eaten on one single day a long time ago.

I asked Professor Tom Sanders, who is Professor of Nutrition at Kings College London, about the research behind the report.

He was pretty scathing. The data was dubious he said - because there is no way of finding out if the respondents had lied. He had a good line - “Men lie about smoking. Women lie about vegetables”.

But far more importantly, he said, was the fact that they might have misinterpreted the data. That the reason that some people in the survey live longer may not have anything directly to do with eating more vegetables. It might be that eating more vegetables is the sort of thing people higher up the social scale do.

And people in higher social classes tend to live longer - because of all sorts of other factors, like access to better health-care throughout their life, less stress, living in nicer neighbourhoods with less pollution. All the kinds of things that you tend to get if you have more money and more freedom.

I pointed out to Professor Sanders that the researchers said in the report that they had “adjusted the data for social class”. But he was dismissive of this - saying that the data they used to do this was “incredibly weak” and at times non-existent.

And if you read the report, buried away is an admission that one of the most dramatic correlations - that people who eat canned rather than fresh fruit die much earlier - might be due to some other factor completely.

quote admission

There is absolutely nothing wrong with eating healthily. And it is very sensible to eat fruit and vegetables regularly.

But something else is going on here. The scientists behind the report are playing on our anxieties and saying you must eat even more healthy food so as to avoid dying early. When in fact the data might be pointing to the very opposite.

That the way to avoid dying early is to reform and restructure society so poor people have more access not just to better food - but to all the kinds of opportunities that richer people do. These are a range of social factors from health care and housing and education to social isolation, stress, unemployment, and higher-risk occupations. These are the sorts of things that also affect how long people live.

To lump it all onto vegetables is unfair.

Science and scientists do all kinds of wonderful things. But when they venture into the social and political world they tend to get bent the way the ideological wind is blowing.

Once it was to support politicians trying to expand their power by remaking society. Now - in an age of individualism - it is to keep us in our place by promoting the idea that we should just focus on ourselves and our bodies. And not think about the wider problems of growing inequality and the unfairnesses that brings.

The scientists are saying - just go and eat another banana or cabbage and you’ll be alright. They are loading everything onto the isolated individual.

Such reports - and there are many - keep us locked inside the anxieties of the “risk society”. While the truth is that you might have a better chance of living longer if you banded together and used that collective power to change society. It would also be a lot more fun than laboriously counting vegetables.

As an antidote - here is a beautiful film about vegetables. It’s a documentary made in 1972 about a leek-growing contest in Newcastle. It is very camp - with lots of men discussing the length and diameter of their leeks.

It is also all about statistics and numbers - because it is the measurements that will decide the winner. But in this case it’s not about the fear of death. It’s all about pride and glory in the vegetables - among men who lead the unhealthiest of lives. Constantly smoking and drinking as they talk about their beloved vegetables.

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash Installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content

Read the whole story
8 days ago
Did you have your 7th portion of leek today?
Cluj-Napoca, România
Share this story

Free Software & Money


There is an old, yet spreading misconception about Free and Open Source Software, whose effects are being felt almost everywhere. It is the notion that because Free Software is Free as in speech, it is somehow free as in beer. I have already written about this but I feel my point must be made a bit more clear.

I have been involved in Free and Open Source Software projects, circles and companies for over 14 years now and if you ask me what I really think is the clearest and most present danger to Free Software, you might be surprised by my answer. It is not this or that software vendor threatening Free Software projecs that worries me; it is not this or that pernicious regulation here and there putting Free Software at disadvantage that upsets me; the rate of adoption of any particular distribution, while a topic of personal interest, pales in front of what I think is our main problem. Free Software has been consciously or unconsciously designed to fight and adapt to all these hardships, and will ultimately be one of the key factors changing the way we live and think; there are very good chances of that. But we must deal with the unhealthy relation between Free Software and money.

In fact, it is not really that money and Free Software are strange bedfellows. Not only is there nothing prohibiiting anyone to generate revenues with Free Software, it is even encouraged. We have adopted a (sane) practice for years, which is to provide binaries and source code of entire Free Software stacks for free. Reading the GPL you may notice that this is not at all something to be expected; if anything, you may sell your binaries tomorrow, and only give away your source code. The unhealthy part comes when the expectation that not only all this should be free, but that your time, expertise and your entire work should always remain free.

This expectation is not only shared by a few individuals. In fact, an entire industry expects the OpenSSL (and now LibreSSL) developers to rely on fresh water and perhaps hugs to pay for their food and homes. I do not exactly know how we reached that point, but it is not recent. It may be that while some people did very well understand the whereabouts of Free and Open Source Software licenses and did ensure how to capture all the revenue without compensating the original authors, others by contrast did understand Free Software as the promise of a zero buck heaven to come. Unfortunately, this is all a sad misunderstanding, and a completely wrong way to look at FOSS.

Let’s review a few major aspects of this misconception.

1. You do provide the software for free and so does your support come for free

Yes – as long as there is indeed a Free Software project with volunteers willing to help. Note the sentence carefully: “volunteers willing to help”. This denotes two very important notions. The first one is that a project mostly relies on volunteers, aka people unpaid for what they do and the second one is “willing to help”, meaning, these volunteers could choose either not to help you or to do something completely different within the project. No one is here to serve a customer. A customer pays someone in exchange of a good or service. At what point did you pay anything?

2. If you want your software to be credible, you need to be responsible and fix bugs as soon as they arise

This is what many FOSS projects do. But sometimes the bugs that are being fixed are not the ones you just filed. And if you think your bug is more important than anyone else, assuming no one has already filed it, then you can either be patient, or pay one or more developer to fix it. If you want a credible software project, you must expect funding for developers. And that funding rarely comes from invisible money printing machines.

3. Wait… this is blackmail!

Do you have a job? Are you paid for it? The same thing goes for pretty much everyone. Now, if you only want to deal with volunteers, their help, support and goodwill will be voluntary as well. Think that what you may call blackmail is seen as normal business in any other aspect of life.

4. I thought your project was paying its developers?

It does depend on the project. But you must always assume that money is never a given for Free Software projects. There are really three non-mutually exclusive scenarios: the project entirely relaies on public donations; the project is entirely funded by a corporate entity; last but not least, the project has some sort of war chest where it is in a position of investing more resources than other projects (although it still must secure the chest on a regular basis). The third case is rare, and really only applies to Mozilla and Ubuntu (and even Ubuntu does rely on the business of Canonical). For the two remaining cases it is becoming clear that money is a factor and ultimately  conditions the project’s ability to fix bugs or implement patches that do not come from a paying party.

5. Surely developers must feel responsible and do the right thing.

They sure do feel responsible in case of a problem, at least most of them do. As for “doing the right thing” each of them are individuals with their own motivation to contribute to a FOSS project. Do not treat them like employees, and worse don’t think they are at your service.

6. I already pay for service with my local integrator/service provider . Why should I pay a second time?

You are right. You should not have to pay twice. But you should ensure that your supplier can deliver the service he’s selling to you, and that you carefully understand what the service is really about. Systems integrators, consultants, etc. should be part of the FOSS project they are distributing, and not just grabbing the software for free and selling the deployment to their customers, with no real support behind. Unless of course they know how to fix and patch the software themselves. This is why the Document Foundation has been working on a professional certication scheme for months now and it is hoped it will bring clarity to the market while strengthening the ecosystem of true experts.

Also, if your supplier does not contribute its patches back to the upstream project, you will ultimately have to pay for the costs of maintaining your own version of the software, thus generating even more costs for you.

As a conclusion, I would really like this post not to be understood as a rant of someone who discovered that Free Software does not bring money easily. I am not affected by that problem, fortunately. But I think a change in attitudes and mentalities is not just welcome but important, and necessary if we want Free Software to work and strive.

Read the whole story
Share this story

Dragoş Mănac: Unghiul Romanesc

1 Share


Cu foarte multi ani in urma
, venisem in Bucuresti sa cumpar un calculator pentru o cunostinta. Pentru ca se scumpisera componentele, eram la limita cu banii. Asa ca am carat acel calculator nenorocit cu monitor CRT, mai mult de un kilometru, pe jos. Dupa care am luat tramvaiul cateva statii ca sa ajung la Gara de Nord. Un chin stupid, ca sa nu platesc o calatorie “scumpa” cu taxiul.

Am livrat calculatorul si am castigat biletul de tren dus-intors plus cateva zile de munca sa-l fac sa mearga perfect. Cumparatorul a fost vag nemultumit. Mi-am platit mancarea si biletul de tramvai, dar am primit 2 pahare de cola drept rasplata. Apoi,mi-am dat seama de dimensiunea prostiei mele.

Au trecut niste ani. Imi amintesc prima conferinta globala de IT la care am participat impreuna cu o delegatie de companii romanesti. Era in Orlando, Florida. Pentru prima oara m-am simtit eminamente prost. Am avut sentimentul taranului irelevant, pe care l-am simtit mult mai puternic decat atunci cand mi-am refuzat o calatorie cu taxiul.

Unul dintre expozantii si participantii la acea conferinta era un american cu o firma in Romania. A avut decenta sa imi explice de ce suntem complet deconectati de realitate. Mi-a explicat de ce nu se varsa alune intr-o farfurie de plastic in care baga toata lumea mana. De ce unii dintre vizitatori erau fizic scarbiti de ofranda noastra formata din alune si biscuitei varsati. Mi-a explicat de ce e ridicol sa spui ca ai $60 capital social si 3 angajati, cand expui langa o firma cu 5000 de angajati pe 3 continente. In fine, mi-a explicat de ce noi suntem nimeni. A facut-o fara aere de superioritate si mi-a castigat respectul pe care i-l port si astazi.

Imi amintesc sesiunile de intrebari si raspunsuri de la conferintele la care participamincercand sa promovez Linux, Open Source si mai apoi cloud computing. Cand veneau intrebarile si comentariile stiam ca o sa ajung rapid intr-un punct in care o sa-mi fie ciuda, o sa vreau sa raspund taios si nepoliticos si o sa fiu nevoit sa ma cenzurez. Lucrul care ma infuria cel mai tare era lipsa de relevanta. Desigur, erau si intrebari bune, dar acestea erau exceptia. Ceva era putred…

Din dialogul meu cu partnerii straini mi-am dat seama rapid ca e ceva in neregula cu punctul meu de vedere, cu obiectiile si cu intrebarile mele. Cel mai des eram ignorat. Atunci cand insistam fie eram respins politicos si formal, fie mi se oferea un raspuns vag si nemultumitor. Era clar ca problema depasea expunerea mea, tinea de mine.

A fost nevoie sa calatoresc si sa am suficient de a face cu oameni de business din US ca sa inteleg problema fundamentala, anume unghiul romanesc.

In lipsa unui cuvant mai bun, denumesc unghiul romanesc viziunea si abordarea realitatii in discutii de catre cei crescuti in cultura romaneasca.

Invariabil, unghiul romanesc are urmatoarele atribute:

  1. Adancime. Vedem mereu mult mai mult decat evidentul.
  2. Neincredere. Orice observatie este marcata de frica, suspiciune si scenarii.
  3. Detalii. Focusul este pe o problema a sistemului, pe un aspect incomplet sau incoerent, pe un detaliu.
  4. Nemarginire. Totul este infinit. Orice poate fi maruntit sau extins pana acolo unde nu mai are sens sa faci nimic sau deja stii tot.
  5. Nepractic. Finalitatea, implinirea, latura practica sunt la randul lor detalii, nu scopul.
  6. Inteligenta. Exista din plin, dar este folosita in scopuri proaste. Nu face decat sa amplifice impactul negativ si sa hraneasca egouri mici.
  7. Irelevant. Daca nu era deja evident, nu poti avea o pozitie relevanta cu atributele de mai sus.
  8. Impotent. Cel mai dureros, unghiul romanesc te pune in pozitia de a nu actiona si de a argumenta la nesfarsit despre cum orice nu se poate.

Nu degeaba Miorita este balada nepereche a romanilor. Prezinta unghiul romanesc in toata splendoarea lui. Ciobanul afla ca urmeaza un atentat asupra vietii sale, asa ca isi face testamentul, vorbeste cu oile si delireaza, in mare. De ce trebuie sa gasim semnificatie adanca in asta? De ce nu se inarmeaza, sa se apere? De ce nu isi negociaza retragerea, cel putin? De ce e admirabila atitudinea sa?

De la americani am invatat cum se fac afaceri. In mod special, din interactiunea cu oamenii din jurul Google am invatat cum se trateaza unghiul romanesc: il ignori. Pentru ca nu are nicio valoare pragmatica, este o pierdere de timp ce trebuie evitata.

La intrebarile venite din unghiul romanesc poti raspunde in 2 feluri:

a) Ignorand pozitia si incarcarea intrebarii si formuland un raspuns practic, util.

b) Desfiintand intrebarea. E varianta nepopulara si interminabila daca ai de a face cu un public energic. Unii invata din asta. Eu asa am invatat, fortat.

Nimic nu e mai neplacut decat sa iti dai seama ca nu esti doar prost, ci si irelevant. Istorioarele de la inceputul articolului au fost pentru mine semnele de alarma in acest sens. Sunt bucuros ca am avut ocazia sa ma trezesc.

Alt produs al unghiului romanesc este ca ne plangem la nesfarsit. M-a lovit cand mi-a zis un (alt) american “singurul lucru care nu-mi place la romani este ca se vaieta mereu”. Evident, ma vaietasem si eu cu cateva minute mai inainte. Sa fie clar – a te vaieta inseamna sa te plangi fara sa oferi o solutie, fara sa existe o rezolutie, fara sa inveti inceva, fara sa intelegi ceva, fara sa schimbi ceva. Suna cunoscut?

Inca ma surprind adoptand unghiul romanesc, desi am facut eforturi majore sa il evit. O metoda de auto-corectie este sa ma asigur ca pozitia mea nu are atributele negative de mai sus.

Am plecat din tara fix pentru ca oricat de limitat as fi, nu sunt ciobanul din Miorita. Observatiile “scrii ca sa te plangi / te jelesti pentru atentie / doar faci pe desteptul” sunt inutile si aberante si vin fix din acel unghi romanesc.

Scopul meu e sa-i avertizez si pe altii, sa-i ajut sa se trezeasca, daca vor. Ca efect secundar, pot sa discut mai clar cu oameni de care imi pasa.

Cat despre afaceri si orice tranzactie cu romanii, mi-am promis sa fiu cat de retinut se poate. E imposibil sa faci ceva extraordinar alaturi de oameni care vad viata din unghiul romanesc.  De aceea prefer sa lucrez cu straini.

Cata vreme activam in Romania am considerat experienta internationala ca fiind cel mai mare avantaj la orice interviu de angajare. 3 luni de Work & Travel in US fac mai mult in practica decat orice facultate romaneasca. Altfel, cultura romaneasca te formeaza pentru esec.

Inchei aici pentru ca cei care puteau sa inteleaga au inteles deja. Ceilalti nu ma intereseaza, la fel cum nu ma intereseaza o dezbatere pe aceasta tema. Puteti sa ma injurati linistiti, sa-mi aratati limitele, sa-mi tineti teorii interminabile, intr-un ocean de (j)unghiuri romanesti.

Read the whole story
Share this story
Next Page of Stories