'No peeing towards Russia' sign appears on country's Arctic border with Norway If you're ever holidaying in the frigid wastes of Finnmark – where the borders of Norway, Finland, and Russia meet – don't do the whole "now I'm in Norway, now I'm in Russia" skit because in Norway they don't tolerate that kind of crap. According to English-language news website The Barents Observer, whose existence we only …
Have you seen the sorry images that most .gov controlled CCTV cameras produce? It's almost impossible to see what people are doing on those cheap-ass pieces of shit, much less ID a perp ... To say nothing of the bird crap & etc. that builds up on the lenses.
The things might be a deterrent, but it's not because they produce usable pictures.
I have no clue about there or where you live either, but where I live, I've seen video released to the public by the Government from red light cameras (which double as stationary security cameras) about a vehicle crash (for example) and they're grainy as fuck.
However, catch a red-light ticket and that thing is all of a sudden high-def? I think they intentionally muck with the video when they those to the public versus the high-fidelity that they're actually watching and recording at.
But I have no actual knowledge, just my observation.
I'm in Sonoma, California.
The red-light cameras around here are not run by the .gov, they are run by the company who won the bid to provide the service in that particular jurisdiction. They have a vested interest in ensuring the photographic evidence is usable in Court.
Many actual .gov run cameras exist as a scarecrow[0], but even the stupidest so-called "security" guard can detect movement on the screen during the day or motion detector lights turning on at night, thus prompting him to go investigate. Just don't expect to use the video as evidence.
[0] Worst case scenarios include BART's in-car cameras, most of which were empty shells pretending to be cameras for an unknown period of time. (BART is "Bay Area Rapid Transit", which is a piss-poor attempt at emulating the London Tube or the Métro in Paris.)
piss-poor? I thought that was just the smell going under the bay.
I will admit - BART train cars are considerably wider than the "standard" rail stock that I've ridden on through my travels.
Perhaps they provide a greater area to absorb urine? Or they allow everyone a seat so that those seated don't have to stare at the standing passengers derrière like in "standard" rail stock.
It is dangerous to point in the wrong direction. The liquid phase will be very short at those northerly temperatures and the arrival of a fully frozen bullet may result. And that can be interpreted as shooting across the border. With some force, you might actually cause harm.
This is why Huskies stand on their fore-paws to pee and do it in spurts. If you pee continuously at very low temperatures, I understand that a little icicle grows towards your 'honourable gentleman'* quite rapidly, and can cause frostbite.
*I understand that ladies of the female persuasion pee differently, but I have no experience of that, so cannot comment.
Most of the Huskies I have known lift their leg like other dogs, or squat like most bitches (depending on equipment). A few of the boys never learned the leg lift thing and tend to pee on their front feet. I have never seen a Husky stand on its front paws to pee.
Ice can build up on the hair surrounding the exit, not up from the target area, but this requires it to be cold enough to freeze the balls off a snooker table.
Sounds like marking, not peeing. The only dogs I've seen doing it standing on their front feet have been the little, toy breeds attempting to make their mark higher, to appear bigger to anyone reading their pee-mail. Is it possibly the critter(s) you knew learned to pee from a chihuahua as pups?
Peeing in fits & starts might also be a bladder problem ... which can be contagious. Were the Huskies in the same household? This would still not explain the hand-stand, though ...
Although, come to think of it, if I had to stand on my hands to pee, I'd probably do it in fits & starts, too, in an attempt at not getting any on me. No, I'm not going to try it. Sorry. (If you want to put your attempt on your OnlyFans, feel free. I won't sue for the use of the idea ... and indeed, I hope you make a million bucks from your herd of idiots. Just don't ask me to watch.)
Disclaimer: Not a vet. Got dawgs.
The story piqued my interest because we went to that border halfway through a trip on the Hurtigruten, the Vesterålen if memory serves, which we did for our honeymoon. Can definitely recommend it.
Pretty desolate place TBH and pretty windy, but you could see the Russian guards in the distance. You couldn't help but wonder what those poor guys had done to deserve that tour of duty.
Given that the Russian military and semi-military forces are infamous for the degree of bullying and abuse that takes place amongst their ranks, to which the officers turn a blind eye, it may be that one of the safer postings is a remote Arctic border with only a dozen fellow soldiers to deal with rather than in a major army base with a dozen battalions competing over original ways to break in fresh conscripts.
The river is the border (unless the river changes it self, then the border is on land where the river used to be). Since Russia is a non-EU/EEA/EFTA country the border is as strict as it can be. This is no better in Finland with its border with Russia. The border appears clearly on Google Earth in both countries (Norway and Finland). Getting a good street view of the border with Russia is difficult for that same security reason.
Getting a good street view of the border with Russia is difficult for that same security reason.
The relevant law which was linked to in the article in The Barents Observer even states (in Norwegian) that within 1 km of a Norwegian border, photographing any neighboring country’s territory is prohibited, and the possession or use of photographic equipment is prohibited to visitors to such areas unless special permission has been granted. (Residents of such areas are allowed to possess or use photographic equipment unless they’ve been naughty, e.g. caught taking snapshots of a neighboring country’s territory.)
To my knowledge, Russia has not been at war with either Belarus or North Korea, although it has been at war with other countries that controlled their current territories (e.g. the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Empire of Japan respectively).
Among those countries mentioned, that is Norway and Finland.
I am too lazy to find out if there was a war when Norway was a part of Sweden or during the Kalmar union when it was all one country.
Trekking in northern Fennoscandia is quite fun (very good fishing too) as you can move between Finland, Sweden and Norway without seeing any borders and only your chart will tell you in which country you are.
Lars, given the paragraph in which the statement is found,
Norway’s 197,7 km long land border to Russia is likely the most peaceful border of all Russia’s external borders. Unchanged since agreed in 1826, the border is also a sign of peace; Norway is the only neighbor that Russia has not been at war with.
I disagree that “of Norway and Finland” is the applicable context for “the only neighbor”. In my view, “the most peaceful border of all Russia’s external borders” is highly relevant to the phrase’s meaning; it indicates to me that “of all Russia’s neighbors” is the applicable context for “the only neighbor”.
After the Kalmar Union, Denmark-Norway was never opposed to, and sometimes allied with, Russia in various wars, until the Napoléonic War of the Sixth Coalition, in which the alliance of Denmark-Norway with France (a result of the British bombardment of Copenhagen) resulted in the breakup of Denmark-Norway. Since Norway was a separate kingdom with a separate army (but a common navy) in personal union with the Danish kingdom until 1814, and the bombardment of Copenhagen destroyed that navy, it would be reasonable to conclude that Norway is one of the neighbors that Russia has not been at war with.
Apparently WW2, Norway's collaboration with Hitler and the Norwegians fighting against Russia on the eastern front doesn't count as war with Russia. Norway would like us to conveniently forget what happened in the 1940s.
Sorry for the Godwin but this is actual history so it needed to be said.
“Norway’s collaboration with Hitler” was in fact the Reichskommissariat Norwegen, the German occupation’s administration, with Quisling and company being the collaborationist handpuppets of Reichskommissar Josef Terboven; Haakon VII. and the legitimate Norwegian government were in exile in London. You’re correct that there were Norwegians fighting against Russia, but they were Wehrmacht (and SS) volunteers, not the Norwegian army, and thus not representing the country of Norway; therefore, yes, those Norwegians’ actions don’t count as Norway, the kingdom, being at war with the USSR.
History
• State established prior unification
872
• Old Kingdom of Norway (Peak extent)
1263
• Kalmar Union
1397
• Denmark–Norway
1524
• Re-established state[10]
25 February 1814
• Constitution
17 May 1814
• Union between Sweden and Norway
4 November 1814
• Dissolution of the union between Norway and Sweden
7 June 1905
Free to choose a year as you like.
I am going to pish on the Russian consulate in Edinburgh. I've always been peeded off that they have so many diplomatic car parking spaces outside my health centre, plus ye ken the humanitarian stuff. My dad just died and I am immune from prosecution for the next few days, not a court in the land would convict me.
The five stages of Scottish grief are:
whisky
flowers even if you have hayfever.
other people trying to hug you despite covid
depressing anecdotes
acceptance that no, he's not just in the toilet
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
