Dzīvokļu īpašnieki sūdzas, ka nav laikus informēti par zemes īpašniekiem

Hullo again Vivienne, I have just remembered (my moermy is dreadful since the siezure but i have suddenly become an expert with technology after being a tecnophobe for years!) I have had a good idea for a set of cosmetics that i would like to run past you. I also have experience in putting on benefit gigs & know many musicians. I live opposite the Buddhist centre, really near you. Pop round for a carrot & ginger juice. Kat xx

In light of reading the other rpeeils, I'll elaborate on my reactions to the superluminal neutrino saga.I am a layperson, albeit an interested and knowledgeable one. I do happen to have a friend in the T2K collaboration (as well as an acquaintance in the D0 collaboration). He has given up asking me why I didn't go into physics instead of software (integral calculus was a hurdle I only muddled through. If I can't do the maths, I can't do the physics).I read physics blogs, and my initial awareness of the initial OPERA results came from one of them Tomasso Dorigo, Chad Orzel, I don't remember exactly, and it was probably more than one. I've noticed that important results tend to be rumors in the physics sphere a day or so before the official annoucement, and while the details are sketchy (and sometimes wrong), there's usually a buzz going on. I'm glad that the physics blogging community lets me be at the edge of that buzz. I knew about the announcement at CERN early enough that I could follow a live blogging of the meeting. I appreciated how the 2nd half of the meeting was questions of the sort Did you check X? and answers of the sort If you look back at slide n, and page m of our paper, you'll see we did check X, and how. OPERA was very thorough, and also very cautious, in their results.My initial thought from following the physics blogging sites and reading the paper off the arXiv was that it was an intriguing result, but almost certainly wrong. I played at the game of what did they miss? . My bet was that it was a subtle software glitch: a delay parameter was calculated with one sign convention and added in with another sign convention (turning a 30ns delay into a 30ns advance) for instance. Something which, as a software engineer, I know can be hard to catch, especially if you are breaking the code up into chunks to catch.At the same time, there was a lot of good natured what if this is true speculation going on. I would explain to friends that the consequences of it being true would be that the fundamental underpinnings of the last century of physics would be wrong and would have to be rethought.I noted the flurry of theories coming out of three sorts: How it could be true (various varieties of quantum gravity and string theorists), how it couldn't be true (Cohen-Glashow being the biggest names), and what the mistake was. A lot of the they didn't take into account X theories were shot down. I considered the ICARUS-1 results to be shooting down Cohen-Glashow (or, more accurately, if OPERA's observation was accurate, then the ICARUS-1 result was not compatible with Cohen-Glashow). Cohen-Glashow was on shaky-ground with me anyway because to me ANY superluminal theory is shaky because we have no experimental evidence.OPERA-2 didn't change my basic opinion: it was wrong, but now one possible reason for it was wrong was eliminated. I was impressed by how quickly they turned around the experimental apparatus to get OPERA-2 done.The physics rumor-mill about the loose connector seemed to force CERN to admit (on behalf of OPERA) that there were two possible errors (and would people please shut up while we investigate?), which took a lot of wind out of the speculation sails, and the ICARUS-2 results (doing the same experiment as OPERA-2, using the same neutrino pulses) were impressive in how fast THEY were able to turn things around and get in on the game) deflated things further.I came to this site because other science bloggers were saying you had the best description of what went wrong (in detail), and I'm glad I did. I must say I'm impressed with the postmortem analysis OPERA did once they found and corrected the two errors. I look forward to reading their paper once it's finally released.

Bēda ir tā ka šajās daudzdzīvokļu mājās dzīvo vienkāršie mirstīgie ,parastā tauta!Bet tautai ir jāuztur tautas kalpi un kungi! Tāir klasika!

Ta nu ir - divi privatipasnieki plesas,viens otru gatavs piezmiegt,bet tie ,kas to putru savarija un drosivien ari kabatinas papildinaja,smin barda un turpina.. ta irkatru menesi jauni rekini -tad par nomu tad vel par kaut ko Tos godigos mantiniekus nu par ko vainot... bet redz dzili ticigie grebencikoviesi gan nodarbojas ar pirksanam un sekojosu reketu.Greeks vinus nebaida,gan jau debesis ari iesmauks ka baltas aitinas

Manuprāt --ši ir noziedzīga mahinācija,par kuru jācīnās,kur tas dzirdēts,ka privatizējot dzīvokļus tā nolādētā komisija vai kā viņas tur saucās nedarīja savu darbu kā nākas un nelika zem dzīvokļa domājamo daļu zemes,turklāt viņa vēl nebija atdota tiem mahinatoriem ,manuprāt !!!!Te ir jāņem aiz "vāverēm un daiktiem "---piedošanu!!!!!!jāpakar gaisā!!!!manuprāt!!!!

Kaa lasiju citaa saitaa, tad dazam majam pat zemes noma iznak lidz 20 ls uz dzivokli menesii. Tas ir tirakais rekets un viniem nekavejoties butu jagriezas Eiropas tiesaa.

Kaa lasiju citaa saitaa, tad dazam majam pat zemes noma iznak lidz 20 ls uz dzivokli menesii. Tas ir tirakais rekets un viniem nekavejoties butu jagriezas Eiropas tiesaa.

Mana majaa 100 % nomaksaa visus maksajumus, taaa kaa nav nekadu 10 %, kuri nemaksatu nomu. Vai nav likumaa rakstits, ka vispirms zemi pirkt ir japiedavaa majas ipasniekiem, jo nedrikst taa vienkarsi pagrabt sev zemi zem manas majas! Mums nevienam nepiedavaja zemi izpirkt, kaut gan solija. Taa kaa pirmais iesniedzot prasibu tiesaa butu tas, ka zeme netika piedavata maju ipasniekiem, bet pa kluso pardota 3 personam.Bet, protams, tev nevajdzetu kepaties ar Latvijas tiesam, jo tas visas var uzpirkt. Pec datu iegusanas ir javersas Eiropas tiesaa. Jo likumaa ir iestradas pirmspirkuma tiesibas un ar to jasak.

Kurā valsts iestādē griesties lai uzzinātu zem kurām daudzdzīvokļu mājām vel var prihvatizēt zemīti ? Ienesīgs bizness!

Jāskatās,kas tai piespiedu zemes nomas līgumā ir rakstīts,Jo parādās vēl viens zemes īpašnieks[slēptais] policista izskatā,ja Jūsu nomātajā zemes gabalā ir zālīte,tad tā tiek nosaukta par zaļo zonu un uz auto stikla parādās plāksteris par papildus nomas maksu.

Tas viss, ko tur stāsta A.Ameriks - mūsu Rīgas "sakārtotājs" ir pilnīgas muļķības. Diezin vai visas tās zemes, kas nonākušas mistitku īpašnieku rokās, pirms daudzdzīvokļu māju uzcelšanaas piederējušas viņiem vai viņu priekštečeim. Tas vienkārši ir labs bizness - nez kādā viltīgā veidā iegūt zemi zem mājas un tad prasīt nomas maksu un nodokļa nomaksu no dzīvokļu īpašniekiem, kuriem tāpat nav kur likties. Tas sanāk labāks pensiju fonds par visiem citiem! Tikai jautājums ir viens - kā pie šīs zemes varēja tikt??? Un kurš no tiem mūsu gādīgajiem pilsētas tēviem ir uz citu rēķina sev pensiju fondiņu nodrošinājis?!

Zemes noma 8 ls menesii 9 stavu majai ar 300 dzivokliem. Cik menesi sanem zemes ipasnieks? Zelta bedre! Pat pirkstu nepakustinot muza nodrosinajums.

90% no Rigas zemes ir prihvatizeti negodigi apejot maju ipasniekus, tikai ar merki pec tam iekaset gadiem zemes nomu, taa nodrosinot lidzeklus bez jebkada darba. Jasak ar to, ka janoskaidro, kam istenie saimnieki ir pardevusi zemi. Un atklasies, ka bija ieradusies cilveki no pasvaldibas un maju apsaimniekotaju firmu mafijas piesolidami, krietnu, tam laikam, ne sim tuliteju samaksu, piemeram 5000 ls. Zemes ipasnieki, budami naudas grutibas, sakaraa ar visam krizem, piekrita. Taa lielakaa dala Rigas zemju ir nonakusi treso jeb izspiedeju rokas. Tapec ari netika nekas piedavats maju ipasniekiem. Jo iekaset ikmenesa noma ir zelta bedre.