Mr King Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 Article on the top 11 Soviet PC's http://rbth.co.uk/multimedia/pictures/2014/04/07/before_the_internet_top_11_soviet_pcs_35711 Thats very interesting indeed. Wonder when they got their first Disk drive? I remember languishing with a tape drive on my Spectrum and Commodore 64 until the late 1980s. I have vague memories of our first computer hooked to our TV, with a tape cassette drive, taking forever to run my Sesame Street game.
Mike Steele Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 Stuart, FYI you can get a C64 emulator for your PC. With the delays programmed in.... Just like the olde days, (isn't technology great?)
TonyE Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 ....and the magic counter, whenever there were games that sometimes had trouble loading (like Pirates) there were always "magic" numbers that the counter had to pass for the game to load properly.
bojan Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 Golden age of cassettes in '80s when local radio station broadcasted programs and games - to the horror of regular listeners. You just had to record it on tape and you had newest hit...
Roman Alymov Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 Article on the top 11 Soviet PC's http://rbth.co.uk/multimedia/pictures/2014/04/07/before_the_internet_top_11_soviet_pcs_35711 Thats very interesting indeed. Wonder when they got their first Disk drive? I remember languishing with a tape drive on my Spectrum and Commodore 64 until the late 1980s. If you mean standard 5.25 floppy drives- they where available from mid-1980th i think (but mostly for professional use, while household computers using tape records)
Marek Tucan Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 So that's where they are made... Made in Russia, used by Germany, that's some empire. By accents thought used by the evul colonial Britain
Roman Alymov Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 Old article from Kasparov -seems like West strategy towards Russia was based on simmilar expertize http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303824204579422971651210180?KEYWORDS=Cut+Off+the+Russian+Oligarchs&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2FGarry Kasparov: Cut Off the Russian Oligarchs and They'll Dump PutinTarget their assets abroad, their mansions and IPOs in London, their yachts. Use banks, not tanks.
Roman Alymov Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 I suspect he is right. And we wont do it for the same reason we are brown nosing the Chinese. Actually crack down on "Putin's friends" was first step in sanctions process - and obviously failed, proving Kasparov was wrong. May be he was too much basing on his own practices http://www.chess.com/news/kasparov-leong-found-guilty-of-breaching-fide-code-of-ethics-6538
Roman Alymov Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 http://www.thenation.com/article/is-the-new-cold-war-trending-in-russias-favor-from-syria-to-europe/ Is the New Cold War Trending in Russia’s Favor from Syria to Europe?And will it leave the United States increasingly isolated?By Stephen F. Cohen November 4, 2015
Mike Steele Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 ...A western journalist called Putin a tactical genius and a strategic ignoramus. And that I think its pretty much a fair description, though one might add in that he is not so very much different from most Western political leaders these days. Yes, its damaged Americas domination of the middle east. And you cant help but thinking most Americans are probably saying 'Thank God for that'. Now its somebody elses problem. Except we will come to regret this situation in the long run....
Panzermann Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 Except we will come to regret this situation in the long run....But then today's politicians have been out of office for a long time. Why should they care? Someone else's problem. Preferably former political enemies.
Mike Steele Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 ...Panzermann, on 08 Nov 2015 - 09:18 AM, said: Couldn't agree more Stu, the last recognizable foreign policy that made any sense at all was Eisenhower. I was referring to what we will soon come to pass, a hotbed of Islamic thought in Europe, but then all of then will have jobs so maybe not.... But then again I said Europe had a Muslim problem (or soon would), we all see how thats working out.
toysoldier Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 Well, he did make plans to intervene in Cuba... and then JFK happened.
JasonJ Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 Not so sure if the way the Korean War was handled could be called a success. I won't go as far as saying it was a bad result with all things considered. But maybe the US really should have stomped China out of North Korea rather than going to a stalemate and a ceasefire agreement.
Edmund Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 Could the US have pushed the Chinese out? Not to be a joke but there would be an almost endless supply of men for China. Wrong topic for this I guess.
EchoFiveMike Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 Nonsense, start making their manpower work against them. Destroy their food supply and logistics, like we did to the Norks or the Japanese. War to the knife, knife to the hilt. S/F.....Ken M
swerve Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 Nonsense, start making their manpower work against them. Destroy their food supply and logistics, like we did to the Norks or the Japanese. War to the knife, knife to the hilt. S/F.....Ken M Ah, World War 3. Was Korea worth that? That was what both the USA & USSR were trying to avoid, by limiting the scope of the war.
urbanoid Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 Why WW3? Not holding back the US/UN forces would be enough. It wouldn't be about conquering mainland China, but reaching the Yalu and unification of Korea.
swerve Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 Look at the effort & the casualties, the grind to take small pieces of land - then re-take them. Look at the number of aircraft, the number of raids. Held back? The ports were rebuilt & expanded to allow shipping in of more supplies, just to sustain that effort. Ammunition production by the USA was increased enormously, & even so it kept running short. In hindsight, one can always criticise strategy & tactics, but the more I look at what happened, the less sense the 'held back' trope makes.
urbanoid Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 Look at the effort & the casualties, the grind to take small pieces of land - then re-take them. Look at the number of aircraft, the number of raids. Held back? The ports were rebuilt & expanded to allow shipping in of more supplies, just to sustain that effort. Ammunition production by the USA was increased enormously, & even so it kept running short. In hindsight, one can always criticise strategy & tactics, but the more I look at what happened, the less sense the 'held back' trope makes. The air war was won by the UN, not limiting what the bombers could drop ordnance on would make the Chinese and KPA very, very miserable. During a stalemate the communists could often concentrate their forces because Truman ordered the USAF not to bomb the shit out of them. Ridgway had similiar opinion to Mac's regarding how the war should be fought, but he was carrying out even the most retarded orders from Washington. @Stuart With UN forces at Yalu they wouldn't have a say really. There was also Mac's idea of using the Kuomintang forces against the ChiComs, Taipei wanted it as well but they were told to FO.
urbanoid Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 Beijing would be scared shitless, fearing that presence of Kuomintang forces indicates a possible invasion. The US admin apparently didn't want the ChiComs to be scared. And I wasn't talking about using nukes, with Chinese pushed away to China there would be a fait accompli.
Roman Alymov Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 The air war was won by the UN, not limiting what the bombers could drop ordnance on would make the Chinese and KPA very, very miserable. During a stalemate the communists could often concentrate their forces because Truman ordered the USAF not to bomb the shit out of them. Ridgway had similiar opinion to Mac's regarding how the war should be fought, but he was carrying out even the most retarded orders from Washington. Seems like you want to “Fight Chinese till last American” , but I doubt it was what USians wanted to - since even in “limited war” they have lost 30+ thousands KIA ( 2 times Soviet losses in Afganistan), with about 7800 MIA up to 2014. Loose more lives to get what – united Korea?
urbanoid Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 United Korea since then wouldn't be a bad thing. Now I'd say it's too late, looking at the monster that your country created together with Beijing.
Roman Alymov Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 United Korea since then wouldn't be a bad thing. Now I'd say it's too late, looking at the monster that your country created together with Beijing.Leaving aside “your country” and “monster”, i still can’t see what is US profit out of this, paying off huge loss of life.
Roman Alymov Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/09/russian-dissident-trial-child-abuse-images-vladimir-bukovsky-denies-charges-cambridge Russian dissident faces trial over child abuse images For decades he was pretending to teach us how to live.....http://www.jrtelegraph.com/2012/01/vladimir-bukovsky-this-is-not-your-fathers-kgb.html
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now