An idea how to increase privacy in the internet

Will it increase privacy if to assign each type of email communication own -separate- email?

Division of communications into types as follows:

1. Temporal internet registration

never associated with my real name, date of birth, or where mentioning all of the following the real name and date of birth, address can be avoided. For background communication with systems (for example, registration in forums where you search a solution for a current one-time problem). No communiton with real people.

2. Strongly (identically) associalted with my real name, address and date of birth. For background communication with registration systems. (e.g. Registration on on-line buying portals, amazon, ebay, paypal, formal social networks mendeley, Linkedin, etc.). No communication with people
3. Back-up email only for recieveing emails. In contact details in Facebook (only) with a forwarding option to another email.
4. For people, who I know very well and trust and who know my full name, friends and relatives
5. For people who I do not know or know very briefly for formal communication with real names
6. For people who I do not know or know very briefly for informal communication without real names
7. ...
   
   
    

So far just an idea...

When science makes angry

Most of the scientific articles that I read are very neutral in emotions they awake in me.

Instead, they usually evoke simple reactions:

"Ok, understandable what is said"

"Ok, not understandable. I have not yet reached this level of abstraction"

"Ok, simply, very simply, so that stupid"

"Ok, nothing new".

This is the first article that makes me angry. It really irritates! The article tells about changes in social structures in Germany. Although the author does not mention the word "Germany". In the article I recognise the current situation in Germany. The whole article is the product of the German reality. The author lives in it and reflects it.

Closer to the content. The article tells how the value and the meaning of higher education and academy titles have changed. Earlier (in the 70s) it was quite elitist to have a doctoral degree in Germany. Today however a doctoral degree is not always associated with the elite. The article clearly states that those who have reached higher education (especially women and people from lower social status) – Master and Doctoral degrees – cannot find a job, dissent paid job and hence cannot reach a higher status in society. They have to look for other ways of engagement and other roles that they can play in a society. This role appears to be voluntary activity in civic organisations. The author dwells a lot about their situation. The author concludes that the value of doctoral degrees decreases. But he does not simply states it. The author is totally angry about it. He is angry at all those masses that received PhD and in such a way de-valued this title. He virtually blames women and people from lower social lays to devalue academic titles that used to a sign of the elite. His anger and blame is totally chauvinistic outrage! Women by making own PhD devalued the title?! I am totally angry with this article, because the author firstly is not right and secondly dares to be angry at someone who is least to be blamed in the situation! 

Let me remind the author, the elite, put it shortly, is a male capitalist. So I see this situation as the feminist-chauvinist conflict. The wide entry of women in higher education is a result of feminist movements of the 60s-70s. They strived to reach the same status as men. But the elite class is a closed circle. The access requirement to the circle is not only an academic degree but also relations. But the network of these relations is closed and defined by social status. To remain elite the circle simply denies the entry to those PhD-carriers that are unwellcomed. No! Women and those from lower social classes did not devalued the PhD title. It is just the old system built by male capitalists does not value, does not recognise and does not accept the content of PhD that women chose! That is what makes me angry.  

The author is angry that a closed circle of elite class is trespassed with unwellcomed PhDs. To prevent it, a male capitalist simply ignores unwellcomed PhD titles. What questions would women and lower social class rise in the PhD? If they are not fully primed with the system, they would rise questions that go in conflict with the system and intend to criticise it and destroy it and try to finally bring the aim of movement of the 60s to the end - change the system! Change is a nice tricky word. So I should add: to change it the way they wanted. I can imagine a range of those topics. The topics that have hints of feminism and socialism and intend to destroy the capitalistic logic that tries to beget the notion of economic effectivity in every aspect of human life. 

My interpretation of the situation described in the article is the following. It can only mean that the system did not change. The elite class remains closed, despite PhD titles from those who does not belong to the circle. After all revolutions and social movements in the 60s-70s the system did not change. The system, the money, decisions and elite class created and controlled by male is still there. They simple do not accept women and others in their closed circles. The full change of the society would be the full acceptance of women with academic degrees into working life and decision making process and introduction of their views and perspectives. Only has the facade of the system changed. The core system is still there and the author is the part of it. And I am one of immense number of females who strive for PhD in Germany but it seems not working.

The article is called

On a contradictory way to the 'learning society': A critical approach

Alheit, P 1999 in Studies in the Education of Adults;Apr99, Vol. 31 Issue 1, p66

Неназваны сымптом эўрацэнтызма

Крыніца:
Beck, U., Bonss, W., & Lau, C. (2003). The Theory of Reflexive Modernization: Problematic, Hypotheses and Research Programme. Theory, Culture & Society, 20(2), 1-33.

Цытата з крыніцы:  

Since this theory posits first modern society as a prerequisite for second modern society, there groups of countries it doesn't apply to, for example, parts of Africa or Asia. According to the criteria laid out above, these areas never experienced a first modern society, despite the fact that they are now enduring several of the same destabilizing forces as regions that did. In other words, the distinction laid out above only applies to one historical constellation. It is completely Eurocentric (p. 7).

У маім паразуменні эўрацэнтрызм праяўлецца ня толькі ў тым, што ён адбываецца ў Эўропе, як тлумачыцца ў цытаце. Але самі аўтары не заўважаюць другі сімптом эўрацэнтрызма, менавіта той факт, што яны самі акторы эўрацэнтрызма. Сама спроба прымяняць на йньшыя крайны тэрміны, якія эўрапейскія сацыёлагі выдумвалі, абдумвалі, абмяркоўвалі, крытыкавалі - ўсё гэта рабілі, на выснове аналіза ўмоў і рэалій Эўропы, з'яўляецца праяўленнем эўрацэнтрызма.

Таму мая выснова такая. Як напісана вышей "these areas [parts of Africa or Asia] never experienced a first modern society", я лічу, што яны не "ніколі не перажывалі эпоху першага мадэрнага грамадства", а яны ніколі ня мелі магчымаць выдумяць, абдумваць, абмяркоўваць свае ўласныя, незалежныя тэрміны, якія б апісвалі реаліі гэтых рэгіёнаў, і якія б былі утвораныя з улікам тых рэалій і асаблівасцей, у якіх разьвівалася йхнія грамадства, грамадства Афрыцы й Азіі. Пад магчымасьцямі маецца на ўвазе, як адсутнасьць жадання разважаць філасоўскі, бо людзі ўсё жыцце змагаюцца, каб сябе накарміць; як адсутнасць свабоды (як палітычнай, так і сацыяльнай) самавыказвання; і, як вынік, адсутнасць навыкаў (сама)разважання. Іньшымі словамі, гэтыя рэгіёны ня маюць такой даўняшняй традыцыі навука-тварэння, якая б налічвала стагодзьдзі.

Тое самае, прынамсі часткова, датычыцца навукі ў Беларусі. Таму вынікае пытанне: ці йснуюць сацыяльныя тэорыі, якія распрацаваны беларусамі і якія адтшурховаюцца ад рэчайіснасьці Беларусі?

Sarotti vs. Kommunarka/Spartak

Recently, I've come across this attractively-looking box of chocolate sweets. Gosh, they were more expensive than Ferrero Raffaello!

 

2.29 Euro for 125 g.

What a surprise was it to when Sarotti sweets tasted very familiar! The box has sweets of three kinds: Sao Thomé, Java, Ecuador. I recognised their tastes in sweets made in Belarus by Kommunarka and Spartak.


Charomhi by Kommunarka

=

Chocolate bar with fondant chocolate filling by Spartak

=





Chocolate bar with chocolate filling by Spartak

 

=





If you may visit Belarus, now you know what is what in Belarus and Belarusian sweets cost way cheaper. And, YES, these are my favourite sweets!

Politically incorrect English

Did you know that Russian can be translated into two different meanings in the Russian language?

One meaning of Russian refers to ethnicity of Russian people which stands for русский /roossky/. The other meaning refers to citizens of Russia as a country which is россияний /rossianin/. Consequently, the country is called Россия /Rossia/. While the Russian language preserves this difference, the English language uses ethnic meaning of Russian (roosky) to denote both. Why ethnic? Because English letter Uu has for Russians just one sound - /u/ - not /ʌ/. The same destiny had another Russian word spelled with Latin alphabet Sputnik, which I heard on TV pronounced via /ʌ/ through in Russian it is pronounced /spootnik/.

Anyway, Russian coming from double o, i.e. roossky, hints the name of an ancient country Rus via /u/ which is best preserved in the name of my country Belarus. It is really pronounced via /u/ in English, Belarusian and Russian.

Update.

Finally, an inquisitive reader might ask: "But why all the fuss? Doesn't the word Belarus actually mean White Russia, if you translate it literally?" This is a widespread misconception. Rus refers to the Eastern Slavic lands that nowadays belong mostly to Belarus and Ukraine. There is a Latin term for Rus which has been used in English scholarly works as well: Ruthenia. So, etymologically, the word Belarus means "Ruthenia Alba" or "White Ruthenia." Indeed, for centuries Russian historians have tried to confuse the situation by equating Ruthenian with Russian. But in Belarusian language there is a clear distinction between ruski (refering to Ruthenia) and rasiejski (refering to Russia). Unfortunately, in many other languages there is no special word for Ruthenia (Rus), so this differentiation may be difficult. But, essentially, it must be clear that "Belarus" does not mean "White Russia", but rather "White Ruthenia." For further reading I would like to recommend a great book by Ales Biely The Chronicles of White Rus' - Chronicon Russiae Albae, published in 2000 in Belarusian language.

Source: Pravapis.org

Belarusian and European languages share words

Тое ж самае на беларускай

Cukar Сахар

 

From the very childhood Belarusians have to hear that Belarusian and Russian languages are very similar. As a result, we believe this and later re-tell this everyone else. But is this really so? Is Russian the only language that Belarusian shares the same words with?

Here is my collection of words that Belarusian shares with other languages.


The words that have identical pronunciation and meaning.

сэнс = sense (English)

дах = Dach (Deutsch)

друк = Druck (Deutsch), druk (Nederlandse, Polska), drukāt (Latviešu)

добра = då bra (Svenska)

смак = smak (Svenska, Norske), smaak (Nederlandse)

швагер - Schvager (Deutsch)

Russian-and-soviet style of thinking

It is a Russian style of thinking because it refers to many people who has Russian origin. It is a soviet style of thinking because it refers to other nations that used to be under the soviet influence.

1. Emotions but logics guide their arguments.

2. They use a "good-and-bad" dual scale in their arguments, no analysis.

3. Terms and definitions developed by western scientists and within western societies acquire different meanings in the Russian language but Russians hardly realize that.

4. All their arguments can be described being based on philosophical paradigm of idealism. Idealism is opposed to materialism. They define idealism and materialism in simple self-excluding statements. Idealism: mind is primary and materia is secondary; and vice versa for materialism: materia is primary and mind is secondary.

5. They make general conclusions based on single examples.

These are essential differences that cause misunderstandings between East and West. 

The same in Russian

What am I good at?

Putting all possible critique and strict requirements on my abilities I present the best of them:

1. I am extremely good at decoding - understanding the main idea\getting the point (if there is any) of a written or oral text. For example, if there is a task or question, I will have the task done correctly and question answered to the point.

2. I am good at reading unknown people on ICQ. I need to limit here my abilities to people who speak Russian and come from the backgrounds similar to mine (those who come from Belarus or neighbouring countries). By reading people I mean guessing their age, level of education, degree of self-confidence, drunken or sober, approximate financial status and so on getting all these only though conversations.
Possibly I used to be good at it because now I do not chat with unknown people. And I point out limitation to Russian speaking people because I did not have a good number of chances to speak with other nationalities.
Possibly if to develop further, I could read a person from a text (book, article, document) written by him or her. It is also possible to read a person from a driving process.

3. I am good at stereo vision, that is 3D, and have an excellent memory for 3D objects. Most frequent objects are faces and bodies of people. I remember faces of people very well and easily detect identical 3D features in faces of different people. And I can also recognise a person by the 3D forms their bodies, one determinants of which is a curve of spine. Another type of 3D objects are streets. I can detect streets that are the same in terms of both broadness\narrowness and height of the buildings - features of 3D objects.

4. I am good at putting my thoughts in written form, but oral one. The written thoughts are extremely logically linked and follow one another and for a reader it is easy to follow the idea.

5. I am good at dancing. To speak in general terms, it is the same ability, or mixture of abilities, from points 1 and 4. Dancing for me is re-decoding musical rhythms into corresponding moves of the body. With this point I do not mean at all a prepared or learnt dancing but rather dancing that is produced spontaneously in a night club for example. Important to mention that I am good at dancing when I dance alone. Dancing is the only ability that I do well spontaneous or immediately, I mean without prior preparation or huge amount of time waste for thinking as it happens with ability in point 4.

I asked myself question "What am I good at?" in order to find what I can do in my life with interest because what I am also good is at losing interest very soon. Interest is the only thing that can keep a person doing something.

The question that logically follows is how any of my abilities can be applied to some activity?

P.S. Why in English? Because this question came to me when I spoke and hence thought a lot in English.