yeah and the price of living in London justifies needing that kind of pay.
wage depends on the job and level of experience not necessarily the size of the city.
were in a recession here and the number of jobs available is terrible.
most of the available jobs are minimum wage.
Comment has been collapsed.
Pingz
Actually thats very faulty math and not true ^^ some people like to make up statistics.
You also have to factor in Tax and benefits from each countr - living and food cost etc. trust me it will be alot of work..
Its just sad that there is not a hard region lock or a static worldwide price.
Comment has been collapsed.
Toralian (4 weeks ago)
Russian Federation minimum wage 150-350$(350$ only in 3 cities) monthly, U.S. minimum wage - 672-900$ monthly, European Union minimum wage - 168-1783$ monthly, Australia minimum wage 2425,6$ monthly.Those bloody russians with their cheap games...
Comment has been collapsed.
where is that here in midwest bread goes for 1.99 for the cheap stuff to 3.99 a half loaf for the decent stuff. but you can get butternut for 2.99 a loaf milk is 3.79 a gallon for crap - 6.99 a gallon for the non hormone treated cow milk. then the people that cant drink milk (wife, daughter) half to spend 4.99 a quart- half gallonoh and re-think that min wage thought you had a lot of people with min wage jobs can only get less than or at 25 hrs a week and most likely with taxes take home about 100 a week and not all places pay min wage (waiters/waitress, delivery or any one that makes commision/tips)or dont have to till your over 21 they usually get $2 or more less than the min wage
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not really Steam that does this, it's Russian publishers who are responsible for region locks, and all that Valve did here was just restricting a cross-border gifting of a region-locked game that people abroad can't run anyway, as Borderlands 2 is locked for running only in CIS.
Comment has been collapsed.
You'll never "win" with Russian in this category. But we're good at this and we're always drinking with friends. Never alone.
And we have some Vodkas:
Sobieski, Wyborowa, Belvedere, Zoładkowa Gorzka, Chopin, Pan Tadeusz, Absolwent, Luksusowa, Żubrówka, and a little more :P
But USA, Russia and Ukraine produced more.
Comment has been collapsed.
Afaik no one knows whether it comes from poland or russia but russia is the country most people associate it with, that's why i said that
Also that answer was more of an attempt to name something good about russia since i can't think of anything else
Comment has been collapsed.
Bears.
Their skins make good carpets and their heads look great on walls.
Comment has been collapsed.
They shot monkeys into space and their president wrestles with bears.
And St. Petersburg is a really beautiful city.
Also Dostojevski, Tolstoi, Gogol, ...
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, you are right but Ukraine was part of Russia in his lifetime, he wrote his works in Russian and half of his life he lived in Petersburg. So IMO he's at least as much a Russian author as he's an Ukrainian author. But anyway, I don't want to argue about that, my point was just that a lot of excellent literature was written in Russian language. :-)
Comment has been collapsed.
I submit that some balance of power to the USA is (was?) a good thing :P Lots of technical advancements came out of this. Heck even competition with Kasparov, the chess master, brought some catchy reasons for technical advancements in the computer engineering field.
There are also many brilliant Russian scientists and authors.
I could prolly think of more :3
Comment has been collapsed.
True. It's countries like Russia that prevent the absurdly foreign policy of the USA. That, and the Middle East. But let's reffer to Russia due to historical purposes.
Comment has been collapsed.
I also thought of that but there are hot women in most countries so this is no big argument. Also beeing russian does not make them hot but beeing slavic
Comment has been collapsed.
So Britain and France doing shit about German agression to their allies not started it all? These poor europeans just wanted to destroy Soviet Union with German hands, is it so much to ask? And these bloody communists, how dare they take all possible time they could get to prepare for future war with Germany for which they weren't ready to begin with.
Comment has been collapsed.
The pact was essentially an agreement to partition Poland (once again!) this time between Nazis and Soviets. Sure that doesn't mean any backstabbing wasn't already planned or maybe Hitler just started to want too much. Allies not helping originally of course wasn't great either. Supposedly Chamberlain's fuck up.
I'm basically saying reason like that is not good enough for me. Others, and myself, stated much better reasons like authors, scientists, women or ok, even vodka.
Granted, among much suffering war also is something that brings technical advancements but I rather prefer cold wars as long as they don't involve actual proxy wars (sadly they did).
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't call them Nazis and Soviets. They were Germans and Russians, and nazi and soviet is just a term of political affiliation. It's not like all Germans and Russians went on a trip and those strange creatures took their place for those years...
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, don't know about Russians (but they did start revolution, didn't they?; and right after it they decided it will be good idea to attack western europe to spread it in those 1920), but Germans were looking forward to that whole "expanding living space" (or however that should be translated). And Hitler was voted to be leader, he won democratic elections, and people supported him to the very end (but, I'm guessing in last months that was just show how good propaganda worked).
Comment has been collapsed.
Well they did invade several of their "allies" during the Cold War to put down democratic revolutions, and they kept tens of thousands of troops all over Europe to keep people from thinking about leaving.
I guess it's not really an attack in the sense that no war was declared, but sending 30k troops and 1k tanks to kill several 1000 civilians strikes me as belligerent...
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, full scale attack that has been stoped before Warsaw combined with intensed activity of communists in Germany, France. And 2 years before it there was formed separatistic Bavarian Socialist Republic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War_in_1920
Yeah about 800000 soldiers is not attack....
Oh now noticed he is talking about western, actually probably he meant that their goal was to carry red flag to weakened after 4 years of war western countries
Comment has been collapsed.
Well our indigenous tribe of Estonians battled Russia to establish a semi satellite state to keep a buffer between Russia and the Western world as it was needed back then. We got help from UK, Finland, Latvia, White Russians (anti-communists), Sweden and Denmark. It was probably around 100,000 vs 100,000 at it's peak as Russia received 80,000 reinforcements at one time and our side had to muster up our own reinforcements.
It's called a defensive war but Russia attacked with a good causis belli as we were trying to take land and rebel against them.
Oh and Batlic-Germans sided with the Communists at that day as they wanted to keep their elite status that was given to them since the middle ages when they conquered us with the crusades and established a high society layer.
It was a smart moment to attack though as the civil war was at it's height in Russia and at any other moment we would of been rolled over like a carpet if Russia had it's full attention. And thus began the tension between our countries and people. (actually maybe even before as there was the Peipsi lake battle and a couple of raids on some of our towns before nations started popping up and placing flags on the ground to claim land)
I would rather start turning to Russians from the political aspect as there's lots of cheap gas and resources to be had from a short distance away. I don't believe Russia will be threatening anyone in the near future. Their own people are "under attack" as their ethnic population is dwindling and a powerful China/India is stepping up their game.
Long way until we get the video game infamous World army slash government type of deal. We need to find some aliens fast or we will battle each other to death. Currently it is quiet but with the tension that land claims are causing and increased population everyones grandmother knows wars will keep coming.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's interesting what you are wrote here. And unfortunely I wouldn't be so sure about Russia won't threat anyone in future, war in Georgia was enough good evidence.
BTW: Do you really have lake called "Pepsi"? I'm wondering what does its name means
Comment has been collapsed.
Well attack does make it sound like Russia is the aggressor. Estonian side most certainly took the first move and attacked the Russian garrisons of towns. Then a front was established behind which official documents where formed and getting recognized, political allies etc. Whatever nation makers need to do on their daily basis.
It was more of a (I'm not trying to make it seem grander but it's just a parallel I think most people can grasp) US colonies vs UK type of thing. Or any other colonized country against their motherland.
Both sides are kind of right cause Russia was protecting it's land from rebellion that they had their right to do and Estonian side was trying to establish their own country which is obviously impossible to do by some rules as such rules don't exist.
Now to call either side as an attacker is kind of far reached. Sure Estonia attacked first and can be seen as the aggressor but the attack did take place in historically/ethnically Estonian land. Russia was also seen as a defender from their perspective.
I guess both sides can have their own version. While history has one narrative and timeline different parties see things differently. Those countries that fell against Alexander the Great don't remember him by the name "Great" either.
This is another interesting topic. Most history is viewed from the Western perspective anyway. Partly because most documents that remain are from Europe and most parts of the world have been influenced by European people (settlers, world colonization, even Russia trying to reforms in ways of European governments (was it Cathrine the first of Russia who did this?)). So I guess the people who have called Russia as the attacker are viewing from the European perspective that coincides with Estonian viewpoint.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
You are right on this one.
Besides, there were more peoples in Soviet Union than just Russians.
On the other note, what's wrong with trying to make a peace pact with a potentially agressive and dangerous country? And honestly, if Hitler didn't attack Soviet Union (before conquering all of the Western Europe, at least), Nazis could have ruled the world today.
Comment has been collapsed.
Or, after bleeding out on Britain Stalin would throw him a party in Berlin, hosted by Red Army. There is few bits of evidence showing Stalin planned to attack Hitler, and only because first France was defeated "without a single shot" (which crashed Stalin plan to attack Hitler when he was busy fighting them) then year later Hitler decided to attack Stalin (which was few weeks before Stalin wanted to attack Hitler - which might be a reason why Hitler decided to attack...).
Comment has been collapsed.
According to my historic know-how Hitler pushed the plan way ahead as the army wasn't fully ready. Supplies hadn't been brought up and army groups weren't all ready to go either.
Stalin was caught pants down as he also knew through intelligence that Hitlers army wouldn't be ready for maybe at least a year.
I haven't heard of any month on month basis of them trying to attack each other.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, some evidence suggest Adolf had to push it because Josef was preparing to launch his own attack. Let's face it, does someone who puts Germany out of their lowest point (after WW1 and whole wall street economic crisis) into machine ready to go to war in few years would be stupid to go against country like Russia without proper preparing supplies and army?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, but Hitler wasn't exactly known for being the most reasonable person. Also he knew about the lack of winter equipment, but he expected to beat Russia in 6 months so he wouldn't need them.
Well, for one he highly underestimated the Soviet Union, for another helping out Italy on the Balkans and in Greece delayed his attack on Stalin so that he couldn't conquer Moscow before winter struck and that certainly didn't help, either.
Oh and one thing: Never underestimate Hitler's plans or his ego. He had big plans and he knew that he needed to move on quickly, if he wanted to realize them before he was too old. Basically he was in kind of a rush since gaining power and he willingly accepted losses if that was the price for doing things faster.
Comment has been collapsed.
But I am not sure if Hitler actually was a rusher in tactics. I have heard that there where huge stockpiles of equipment and materials going into the France campaign. They expected a slow war just like in WW1. No blitzkrieg existed, the only thing that came close was combined arms tactic meaning artillery, airforce, tanks and infantry all communicated and worked together as a tight group. Not some high ranking officer moving pieces without the groups themselves knowing directly where each of them was going and doing.
Hitler was influenced, heck the world was, when Stalin attacked Finland beforehand. It showed how badly the Russian army operated. Under equipped, low moral and stupid tactics of camping in the open and falling into traps. Finnish troops often surrounded whole army groups, killed most of the infantry and scavenged the equipment. If I remember correctly they even got tanks that way, nevermind the stacks of AT guns and general supplies that accumulated. It was a wake up call to Stalin though and heavy reforms followed. Some say it was a great way for Russia to get rid of bad equipment, something that also happened in the first year of Barbarossa as most equipment that Russia lost was ww1 to ww2 era tanks, planes and guns that wouldn't of stood against a Pz1 or 2 anyway.
Many do say however that if Hitler skipped at least one army group he would of managed to take Moscow. What good would of that done remains a mystery, would taking the capital actually stop the onslaught and break the spirit of Russians is highly unlikely.
With 3 army groups he had 3 more routes of defenses to go through and 3 more corridors of logistically nightmarish supply lines to keep open. Russia had a lot of good bottlenecks and defensive positions that slowly but surely killed the German army and their spirits.
Comment has been collapsed.
Certainly the Red Army changed remarkably from 1939 to 1942. But still I think that taking Moscow would have made quite a difference.
No, Stalin wouldn't have capitulated immediately, but the impact on the troops' and the population's moral would have been enormous. Also Moscow strikes me as a better place to stay for the Winter (on the other hand, that is what Napoleon thought :>)than the fields. This way the "Schönwetterausrüstung" (good-weather-equipment) would have made a smaller impact on the German troops. Besides, a big amount of communication and transport went through Moscow. If Moscow had fallen, it would have relieved some pressure on the Leningrad front, quite possible leading to some kind of progress and the release of a decent amount of force.
However, most war material came from Siberia, so unless Hitler had advanced to the Urals, the Russians would have outproduced Germany. Not to mention the Western Allies.
3 army were definitely a lot for a country with a comparable small production capacity. Another sign of how Hitler expected the war to be rather short.
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess "Stalin's Trap: He Wanted War" by Adolf von Thadden would be best source.
Comment has been collapsed.
http://i.imgur.com/oXw6r.jpg That.
The surface of Venus from one of their space probes, from 1982.
Comment has been collapsed.
But Obama's senior science advisor recently said that USA were the only country that has landed surface landers on any other planets... so this photos must totally be fake.
Comment has been collapsed.
America Still Lags Behind the Soviet Union by Number of Planets Visited
Я понимаю, как бы ирония и все такое, но кто-то может воспринять это всерьез.
Comment has been collapsed.
Try this. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+positive+things+have+russia+ever+done+for+the+world%3F Doesn't seem to come up with any good answers...
Comment has been collapsed.
Starting a space race not good enough for you? Or playing a major part in defeating the Nazis?
On a side note, why it is always Brits who try to insult Russians the most? Even Americans seem to be pretty nice in comparison. Unsatisfied imperialistic ambitions, probably...
Comment has been collapsed.
It's so cute that some people STILL think that Valve decides the prices for games that are not theirs.
Comment has been collapsed.
EU prices are ridiculous. :(
Luckily I can still manage to get something from the UK, still better than nothing.
I have a RU version of MW2, MW3 and Dead Island. Guess I won't do that again in the future. It gets to dangerous, because you need VPN, which is now strictly forbidden by the Steam EULA as well :/
Comment has been collapsed.
I refuse! And object! I learned this from Wormy, I didn't know about it, but I agree. Especially on promos, when there is a lot of fine games cheaper than Fortix in the UK store (not saying Fortix isn't a fine game :3), because their price is more in accordance with the remainder EU prices.
99 cents < 99 eurocents ($1.22) < 99 pennies ($1.55)
UK price = over 50% more than US price :]
Comment has been collapsed.
I just few it as the UK pays what Fortix is actually worth but the US are too cheap, so they had to cut the price to stop their bitching. :D
Comment has been collapsed.
I wouldn't say that. Russia is a democracy but many people nowadays seem to forget that a democracy/republic is not automagically a liberal, open society.
Comment has been collapsed.
They tried to incorporate other states into it forcibly and then create mock parades how people like them. How I know they were mock parades? Well my parents lived in those time and they weren't exactly trying to hide their methods. People were ordered to join "volunteer" security groups for one thing. Also people were given free days and ordered to take part in certain "Praise (insert communistic idealism concept or person)" parades.
For something the people should want themselves a lot of censoring, ordering and pushing around was in due. Not everything was bad during the soviet times, the opposite. Some of the ideas that communism was supposed to carry actually worked, everyone had some money, a job and could get their basic needs settled. State took care of everything. Something like a Communist Sweden. It's just a couple of things were very off and the added cult of worship and praise that accompanied Communism kind of ruined it. It was a little too fake and western ideals shined through as people did want certain freedoms that the rest of the world had by then.
A little too much controlling of the people was in order and the huge state couldn't get on with the times as they had to examine every song, style and household object to make sure the people wouldn't rebel as they might carry non communistic ideals. So pretty soon the rest of the worlds society was developing and the big Communist state was trying to still establish a foothold and care for all of it's people.
Comment has been collapsed.
Correct, the US has never had anything resembling a democracy - and that's been on purpose. Democracies have only ever worked for city-states, not for large governments. Even then, they are, by nature, against minorities and therefore tend toward totalitarianism.
Comment has been collapsed.
Демокра́тия (др.-греч. δημοκρατία — «власть народа», от δῆμος — «народ» и κράτος — «власть»)
Democracy (classical Greek δημοκρατία - «rule of the people», δῆμος - «people (demos)» and κράτος - «rule (power)»)
Oh stop... there is representatives nowadays.
A common joke: "We have a power to affect on political decisions. We have a democracy" Sure, sure. Say what?
Comment has been collapsed.
This sounds MUCH more fair than banning and disabling the account of those russian gifters. Good choice, Valve.
Comment has been collapsed.
No. You're saying that people who occasionally make gifts for their friends who happen to live in other parts of the world deserve to not to be able to do that just because of the few jerks who did that en masse and made a business out of it? No, just no, it's way NOT fair.
Comment has been collapsed.
Still more fair than banning them and pretty much "disabling" their accounts, which was rumoured to happen. Yeah, it's not a pleasant thing that they came down to this decision, but it could have been way much worse.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why are you defending people who make money on basically illegal activities? It IS a business and they SELL gifts (making PROFIT) to the countries that weren't supposed to have access to these gifts. Banning the accounts of these guys is entirely justified and preventing a normal person gifting a game (even to his own region!) to his buddy because of these fuckers is just idiotic and unfair.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh it was not my intention to defend those folks, but I wouldn't bet on the fact that Valve could handle those situations properly in each case. You see, there are those who make a business out of this, and yes, they would deserve a ban probably. But there are people with many friends who would buy a few gifts here and there, and then one day they would get banned too, even though they were gifting and not making deals.
I don't think Valve's support would go too far to investigate the case very thouroughly, and even if they did, it would be pointless, as you can't prove either variations. What I was referring to in my starting post up there is that if they rolled with the idea of bans, some of the innocent people would have gotten caught in that nasty net for sure. It's better to remove something nice as a feature to prevent some unpleasant things, than just causing harm to people who don't deserve it.
And as a last thought, they should definitely let them gift it to their own regions at least; altough I'm not sure if these VPN using games are a workaround for something like that already or not.
Comment has been collapsed.
25 Comments - Last post 28 minutes ago by lostsoul67
56 Comments - Last post 49 minutes ago by damianea103
657 Comments - Last post 52 minutes ago by VicViperV
47,490 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Gamy7
225 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by DeliberateTaco
17,416 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by Protatoes
5 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by BargainSeeker
2,048 Comments - Last post 2 minutes ago by MouseWithBeer
139 Comments - Last post 53 minutes ago by predictablenat
185 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by webdak
161 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by pivotalHarry
30,941 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by FanosSlapVt
1,887 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by quijote3000
475 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by igel2005
Comment has been collapsed.