Slashdot Mirror

Your list is a bit out of date. This article in China Daily http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2011-05/02/content_12429037.htm reports that the number of crimes that can receive the death penalty has been reduced. Further, all cases of capital punishment must be reviewed by China's Supreme Court. The simple facts are that China, unlike the US is moving away from Capital punishment.

Further, China, unlike the US is instituting measures that call for greater police openness and accountability, as seen in this article http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-05/06/content_12456521.htm . The facts bear out the truth that China is striving toward the Ideal society that America once claimed to be reaching toward at the same time as America has moved away from the pursuit of that same goal.

Your list is a bit out of date. This article in China Daily http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2011-05/02/content_12429037.htm reports that the number of crimes that can receive the death penalty has been reduced. Further, all cases of capital punishment must be reviewed by China's Supreme Court. The simple facts are that China, unlike the US is moving away from Capital punishment.

Further, China, unlike the US is instituting measures that call for greater police openness and accountability, as seen in this article http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-05/06/content_12456521.htm . The facts bear out the truth that China is striving toward the Ideal society that America once claimed to be reaching toward at the same time as America has moved away from the pursuit of that same goal.

I did a search in China Daily http://search.chinadaily.com.cn/all_en.jsp?searchText=Inner+Mongolia+&searchword=Inner+Mongolia and these is no mention of this story at all. The entire story may very well be a fabrication by anti-revolutionary forces.

I am in China, there really has been no mention of it. And you can be sure I posted Anonymously for this one.

The game is named Glorious Mission, or sometimes Mission of Honor, not Glorious Revolution, and the plot follows a soldier's life through military camp and cumulates in the eponymous large-scale drill, as reported by China Daily. No US Troops anywhere.

It also supports 32 person multiplayer. You can watch footages of the game on YouTube here.

One day you'll wake up and it'll be too late to do anything about their world markets domination.

China's got a buttload of problems coming up fast, like:

• o Wage Inflation - average wages are expected to double in the next 5 years while food and housing inflation is already here that means a significant loss in global competitiveness
• o Massive Gender Imbalance - 55% male to 45% female birth ratio - that means crime, revolution or possibly war is coming, because when young men can't get laid, they take their frustration out in violence
• o Too Many Retirees - The one child policy is turning their social security system upside down - there just aren't going to be enough young workers to support all the old people in non-productive retirement
• o Massive Waste - a command economy is great when the people running the show guess right, but when they guess wrong you get massive waste like Ghost Cities and boondoggle trains.

I just read this article on China Daily this morning about the mad rush for iPad 2s' today, saw a clip of this story on CCTV News half an hour ago, then come to read Slashdot only to find out that this story is the top of the front page. I've been reading Slashdot since 1997, and I'm used to stories being submitted days, weeks, months, and sometimes years after the fact. Apple fans going crazy for new products is too trite for news nowadays, but Slashdot being current is a rather creepy occurrence... I'm not sure whether to be pleased or to expect Duke Nukem Forever to be released next...

A more interesting article from the site is the wearable cat ears that move to your expressions. How long before all of the Cosplay girls start adopting these?

The stated mission of the Chinese Space Program is to mine helium 3 from the moon. I believe their target timeframe is by 2050. At the rate we are going, they will probably still beat us. Wasn't there a story once about a turtle racing a rabbit?

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2006-07/26/content_649325.htm

So, 10 or 15 years ago, when everyone began being raised isolated from anything remotely dangerous, not allowed outside, and were pandered to to be sure they didn't have their feelings hurt when we tried to teach them to spell ... we foresaw an entire generation of children that would be too stupid to do anything, and so spoiled and coddled to that they would expect the world to care for them and give them everything they want.

Some knew then we would end up with kids that would never really understand basic science well enough to go into university and not be completely wrong about how things work. Chemical free chemistry sets? No surprise there. We now have a generation that has been raised entirely with safety scissors, glitter, and nothing but comforting reassurance that it's OK to spell words any way you please, and have never cared about the sum of 2+2.

"Doomed as a species" was brought to mind. The places that didn't intentionally educate their children to be simpletons now have the advantage.

How much of this was fear of litigation, and how much was fallout from anti-chemical hysteria?

See: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article14996.html http://viewzone2.com/fakegoldx.html http://gold-quote.net/en/articles/fake-tungsten-gold-bars.php http://news.coinupdate.com/largest-private-refinery-discovers-gold-plated-tungsten-bar-0171/ http://www.gata.org/node/8390 Some people are suggesting that the businesses offering cash for gold jewellery are doing so because there is less likelihood that they will be deceived than they would be if buying bullion. Also, in related news: http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/viewthread.php?tid=658195 http://dailypaul.com/99841/where-is-our-gold-that-is-missing-from-fort-knox http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=45782 BTW, I couldn't find any of this referred to on any mainstream site, so I leave it to others to determine if this is rumour or not.

To the references Guardian article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/11/china-us-human-rights-double-standards/print
To the Chinese report: http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/us/2011-04/11/content_12303177.htm

The only larger network than those two is interestingly Chinese QQ, which has 636 million users.

Well, considering that the population of China is just over 1.3 billion, I think that size of user base is to be expected

Well, China had 420 million Internet users by June 2010. A substantial part of China is rural and does not have Internet access. It's amazing to "expect" half of the entire Chinese population have QQ accounts.

The term "application shop" was used for Symbian's shop for quite a while before Apple appeared with its iPhone, "shop" being a simple translation of the US English "store". And "app" has been a generic abbreviation for "application" at least since the late '80s on Acorn's RISC OS, newsgroup comp.sys.acorn.apps being proposed in early 1995.

You can argue that translations are irrelevant but this is not always so across the world. Regardless, it is ethically questionable to suggest that a generic phrase should become a trademark just because a word has been translated to another dialect of English.

What is more, the term "app store" is clearly descriptive and non-distinctive as far as UK registration eligibility goes.

One problem is CFL's production costs far exceed what normal light bulbs cost to make (easily a factor 10). In return you get somewhere near 40% savings on the power required for lighting (40%, as lots of things aren't fixed merely by changing the light bulb).

So they only become good for the environment after a number of hours of light, and that's over a year for better models, up to 3 years for sucky bulbs. Obviously the large majority fall at least halfway on the "sucky" scale.

In reality therefore, CFL's are only good for the environment in the places where the assumption that they burn a lot more than a year holds true. They won't survive much longer than 5 years in any case (burning or not), so any CFL burning less than 20% of the time (which is most every lamp in the house except those in the living room in my house) are a net-negative for the environment.

But it's a massive subsidy for firms who claim to be green, but obviously aren't. So politicians are happy : money for cronies. Lunatic lefties are happy : another government supported industry, heavily regulated. Loony greens are happy : "green" companies "do well". Socialists are happy : "jobs are created". And everyone suffers yet again to make lunatics feel good.

Of course, real jobs are lost. The environment has to bear the increased fossil fuel usage, the athmosphere has to swallow even more CO2 (but don't worry : it's mostly emitted in China, and thus Obama can look good while destroying the environment even more), and by forcing these companies out of America, gaia can find fewer polluted creeks : they can't report on those in China or Indonesia at all.

The result is of course, very predictable. The environment does bad so "more intervention is clearly needed". CO2 increases so "it's yet again even more worse than we thought !". Jobs are lost so "more regulation/stimulus is needed". And government cronies, "surprisingly" do well so "it's all really the fault of the rich Jewish bankers in wall street !".

Lunacy is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results - Albert Einstein

In reality things are simple : energy costs money. Transport cost money. Mining costs (lots and lots) of money. People cost money. All these things are bad for the environment. So you want to do what's best for the environment ? Really ? It's simple : save every last penny you have and DON'T BUY STUFF YOU DON'T NEED. Of course, greenies have become exactly what they accuse their "enemies" to be : they're little more than deluded spoiled rich kids, who feel an irresistible need to take other's toys to feel big, and throw a tantrum if they're asked to go a single day with an last year's model of the iphone. (because apple really is the worst brand you can buy for the environment, or labor laws, ...).

As long as people prefer deluding themselves to facing the truth, things won't change, and obviously lunatics are attracted by fringe parties that want to change everything to their design. Nothing new there. Forcing others is all leftist greens have left. Green policy intents have been reduced over the years to amassing power, and destroying the environment in order to justify putting more power in their hands. Furthermore : lunatics only find fault in others, and not in their own behavior. That's why they needed 3 full airports, with expanded parking space, to put all the private jets at the latest "anti-co2" conference.

If we were to put a huge import tax on lightbulbs (and smartphones, perhaps ?), they would have to be produced cheaply inside America, under our stringent environmental laws. Now *that*

Let's do China one better, and buy its tech companies and loot their assets! What's that you say? China has laws on the books prohibiting the sale or investment of companies which may damage its national interest? Entire industries are restricted? And there are parts of China's economy totally prohibited from any foreign investment whatsoever? Surely Europe and America can trust this country and not apply any reciprocal policies that fuck over China as much as China fucks over foreign firms.

***Not saying that I trust Xinhua much either but it's nice to read strangely phrased news that isn't dowsed in patriotism (their own non-international news of course drips with National pride and should not be avoided)***

Try China Daily http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/. Their international news seems reasonable, and much of their domestic news is much more critical of things in China than I would have expected. I'm sure that there are subjects they avoid and others they distort, but overall, they read much like a reasonably good western news source. Compared to Fox News or Ria Novisti they seem sort of reputable.

Yet the median barely budges

1. Official median income is HK$17,2 versus HK$35,000 by our sample data.
2. China Income: Trends in Per Capita Levels: "In 1990, China’s average per capita national income was around $350. Within a decade, there was a threefold increase, taking the figure to $1,000. At the end of 2008, the figure tripled yet again and China’s average per capita national income reached another high of $3,000. If China’s average national income continues to rise at an annual rate of 8%, the country’s per capita income will reach $8,500 by 2020 and will touch the $20,000 mark by 2030. Hence, China’s average per capita income will exceed the current income of Taiwan and Korea and the country will qualify for an OECD membership."
3. China's war on inequality: "Those with less education, however, such as migrant workers and farmers, have fared much worse. The former earn an annual salary (including fringe benefits!) totaling $2,000; the later may earn only half that. They comprise, in roughly equal parts, the low-income workers who account for up to 65-70 percent of the total workforce. Their average income has grown, but more slowly than the 8-10 percent annual GDP growth rate of the past 20 years."
4. China's war on inequality - Comments and suggestions - People Forum: "Thirty years ago, 80% of China’s labor force was composed of farmers. But, while that figure is down now to about 30%, rural education has continued to suffer from inadequate funding and human capital relative to urban, industrializing regions."
5. Why The China Property Bubble Doesn't Exist : "Said differently, that average Chinese couple has twice the real purchasing power their nominal income implies because their relative cost of living (including real estate) is lower. It is estimated that almost half of the average Beijing worker's income is actually purely disposable. When you adjust for this fact and that the Chinese couple can easily divert more income to real estate as they choose, because other expenses are lower, it makes Beijing's real estate relative to income seem much more affordable."

it's not the rich which create demand, it's the poor and middle class.

The rich do create demand, just not as much as the middle class and poor. However the rich create jobs which boosts income for the poor.

I have provided links and data backing up what I said, now can you do the same? As they show the uneducated and rural population has had the lowest rise in income, but that population changed from 80% of the total population to 30%. More and more rural people leave the country er farms and move to cities where they get better paying jobs and more education. If you can prove I'm wrong then my mind can change.

Falcon

Who the hell wakes up in the morning, looks in the mirror, and says, "I'm going to be evil today"? Of course these hackers aren't as evil as Nobel Laureate Liu Xiaobo, but I just don't think I'd want to go on living if I ever found myself robbing ATM's or sending billions of spam emails.

In China this would be pointless because why would the government care what their people thought?

The Chinese government cares a lot about what their people think, that's why they have a lot of censorship. The Chinese government is well aware of history and of what happened to previous Chinese governments. Piss off too many (e.g. the peasants) and you die.

FWIW, a lot of the Chinese people support their own government (just look at the patriots out in full force during the Olympics).

Why?
1) The censorship and brainwashing. Control what people see and that affects what they think, and that's how you keep them supporting you.
2) Because there have actually been significant positive changes. Railways and highways have been built, many of the poor have benefited from those. Sure there's lots of bad stuff happening, but they can just look at a lot of other countries and go "We're doing better" or "we're doing pretty good given the hand we've been dealt".
3) They can see that at least some parts of the Government are trying to improve things for China, and not just a corrupt few. They're in the process of building very many nuclear reactors so that they don't have to burn so much coal and have so much pollution.

As for accountability: a number of high ranking officials actually get executed for corruption or screwing up big time[1]. Sure maybe at the very top there are untouchables, but is it really so different in the US or other countries? And how high up is this US guy anyway: http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20101104/NEWS/101109939/1078&ParentProfile=1062
They're possibly even slightly afraid of the people, they abolished the agricultural tax: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-03/06/content_422126.htm
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1274.html

It's not that rosy, there are lots of problems and it could fall apart: http://www.china.org.cn/china/2010-01/21/content_19282590.htm
That "houses are way too expensive" problem does exist in many other countries too though.

You can see that many of the Chinese leaders are trying though. Wish my Government (in Malaysia) was even trying to improve the country- so far they've been doing a lot of stupid/bad things. The guy at the top says lots of nice stuff, but so far it's just been talk, whereas his underlings say and do pretty bad stuff.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/09/AR2007070900689_pf.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10535226
http://www.newkerala.com/news/world/fullnews-87512.html

I remember a while back I saw a video of a Chinese woman (who was later caught-- news article and a very NSFW still) stomping a kitten to death with high heels. I'd seen beheading videos, gunshot suicide videos, 4chan CP, all that sort of stuff, and none of it had ever bothered me. The senseless brutality of the kitten video really fucked with my head though. I guarantee you, no matter how hardcore you think you are, there's something out there that will squick you out when you see it. There's some bit of darker human nature floating around out there that you just haven't imagined yet, and you'll die a little inside when you see it.

China will have a *permanent* manned lunar base by 2025. They *will* do this, not just talk about it.

So far, they've done a lot more talking than doing. It seems more imminent than it probably is only because credible news sources took the claims of some Chinese scientists too seriously, and because "OMFG China is becoming a superpower" stories have been in vogue for the past decade and becoming even more common. The first stories I could find on this were from 2002, and suggested that China might have a manned moon landing by 2010. Right now they're claiming that they might have a manned moon landing by 2020, or maybe 2030, or they might set up a lunar base by 2030, but none of this appears to be actually funded yet.

I'm sure they could do this if they really wanted to, just like the US could have landed someone on Mars decades ago, but it's probably going to take just as long for them to actually get around to it. The problem, as always, is not that the technology isn't available, it's that the available technology is so cripplingly expensive and the tangible rewards so limited. One of the claims is that they'll mine the lunar surface for He-3 for fusion power. . . which still hasn't even been proven, and with ITER climbing above $20 billion, behind schedule and already reduced in size, I'm not optimistic about that changing any time soon.

Right now it's to China's advantage - or at least its leaders think it is - to make these bold claims so they can impress everyone and throw their weight around just like the USA has been doing for the last 65 years. There's no reason why China can't continue to become wealthier and a true superpower, but their government is so tin-eared that I doubt it's going to be as rapid and smooth a rise as our local prophets of doom seem to think. Once they start getting sucked into resource wars and citizens of Third-World countries start burning Chinese flags outside their embassies and the tens-of-millions of surplus young Chinese men realize that they're never getting laid ever, their progress may slow down a little bit.

China will have a *permanent* manned lunar base by 2025. They *will* do this, not just talk about it.

So far, they've done a lot more talking than doing. It seems more imminent than it probably is only because credible news sources took the claims of some Chinese scientists too seriously, and because "OMFG China is becoming a superpower" stories have been in vogue for the past decade and becoming even more common. The first stories I could find on this were from 2002, and suggested that China might have a manned moon landing by 2010. Right now they're claiming that they might have a manned moon landing by 2020, or maybe 2030, or they might set up a lunar base by 2030, but none of this appears to be actually funded yet.

I'm sure they could do this if they really wanted to, just like the US could have landed someone on Mars decades ago, but it's probably going to take just as long for them to actually get around to it. The problem, as always, is not that the technology isn't available, it's that the available technology is so cripplingly expensive and the tangible rewards so limited. One of the claims is that they'll mine the lunar surface for He-3 for fusion power. . . which still hasn't even been proven, and with ITER climbing above $20 billion, behind schedule and already reduced in size, I'm not optimistic about that changing any time soon.

Right now it's to China's advantage - or at least its leaders think it is - to make these bold claims so they can impress everyone and throw their weight around just like the USA has been doing for the last 65 years. There's no reason why China can't continue to become wealthier and a true superpower, but their government is so tin-eared that I doubt it's going to be as rapid and smooth a rise as our local prophets of doom seem to think. Once they start getting sucked into resource wars and citizens of Third-World countries start burning Chinese flags outside their embassies and the tens-of-millions of surplus young Chinese men realize that they're never getting laid ever, their progress may slow down a little bit.

China will have a *permanent* manned lunar base by 2025. They *will* do this, not just talk about it.

So far, they've done a lot more talking than doing. It seems more imminent than it probably is only because credible news sources took the claims of some Chinese scientists too seriously, and because "OMFG China is becoming a superpower" stories have been in vogue for the past decade and becoming even more common. The first stories I could find on this were from 2002, and suggested that China might have a manned moon landing by 2010. Right now they're claiming that they might have a manned moon landing by 2020, or maybe 2030, or they might set up a lunar base by 2030, but none of this appears to be actually funded yet.

I'm sure they could do this if they really wanted to, just like the US could have landed someone on Mars decades ago, but it's probably going to take just as long for them to actually get around to it. The problem, as always, is not that the technology isn't available, it's that the available technology is so cripplingly expensive and the tangible rewards so limited. One of the claims is that they'll mine the lunar surface for He-3 for fusion power. . . which still hasn't even been proven, and with ITER climbing above $20 billion, behind schedule and already reduced in size, I'm not optimistic about that changing any time soon.

Right now it's to China's advantage - or at least its leaders think it is - to make these bold claims so they can impress everyone and throw their weight around just like the USA has been doing for the last 65 years. There's no reason why China can't continue to become wealthier and a true superpower, but their government is so tin-eared that I doubt it's going to be as rapid and smooth a rise as our local prophets of doom seem to think. Once they start getting sucked into resource wars and citizens of Third-World countries start burning Chinese flags outside their embassies and the tens-of-millions of surplus young Chinese men realize that they're never getting laid ever, their progress may slow down a little bit.

In Chinese culture, 8 is considered a very lucky number. People have bid very large amounts of money to have license plates with just 8 on them. See for example http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-07/02/content_8345712.htm But this number is all 8s except for a single 0. Maybe it is only lucky in China?

I equally think that the Chinese government's "0 day" copyright protection would make music and movie production a near impossible profit in China

But it doesn't.

Just think how much China's Hollywood or music scene would dwarf the United States' if they had an enforced ~20 year copyright policy.

The USA's movie and music scenes are the biggest in the world because most of the world wants to consume our media. Sad, but true. Of course, this could have something to do with the fact that people buy what is sold to them (i.e. advertising works) and that ten US media conglomerates own over 50% of the entire world's media outlets.

see other posts which suggest that the suicide rate at Foxconn is lower than the national average).

Suicides per annum in China: 287,000 - http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-09/11/content_6095710.htm
Population of china: 1,338,612,968 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Republic_of_China
Thus China Suicide Rate = 21.4 per 100,000 per annum

Suicides at Foxconn Shenzhen in 5 months = 9
Employees at Foxconn Shenzhen = 330,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn
Thus Foxconn Shenzhen Suicide Rate = 6.5 per 100,000 per annum

Conclusion: The suicide rate at Foxconn Shenzen is lower than the national average. Statistical innumeracy amongst journalists to blame. Along with the usual lack of scepticism by consumers of the news.

see other posts which suggest that the suicide rate at Foxconn is lower than the national average).

Suicides per annum in China: 287,000 - http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-09/11/content_6095710.htm
Population of china: 1,338,612,968 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Republic_of_China
Thus China Suicide Rate = 21.4 per 100,000 per annum

Suicides at Foxconn Shenzhen in 5 months = 9
Employees at Foxconn Shenzhen = 330,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn
Thus Foxconn Shenzhen Suicide Rate = 6.5 per 100,000 per annum

Conclusion: The suicide rate at Foxconn Shenzen is lower than the national average. Statistical innumeracy amongst journalists to blame. Along with the usual lack of scepticism by consumers of the news.

I think they should just find out who was responsible and put them in prison and leave the rest of leave the company alone. They do this in China all the time. Instead, in the U.S we have this world of legal fictions and obfuscations made possible by corporate personhood.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/09tentopnews/2009-12/24/content_9223590.htm

Tian Wenhua, 67, former chairwoman of Sanlu Group, was sentenced to life in prison in January 2009 on charges of producing and selling fake or substandard products. ...
Three former executives of China's one-time biggest beverage maker, Jianlibao Group, were jailed for stealing from the staff welfare fund to buy insurance for themselves. ...
Yang Shiming received an 18-year sentence and Li Qingyuan and Ruan Juyuan were each given 14 years. They were also fined 150,000 yuan ($20,000) each. All three were former vice presidents of the group. ...
Yang Yanming, a former general manager of a Galaxy Securities branch in Beijing, was executed on Dec 8, 2009, for embezzling almost 70 million yuan ($10.25 million) and misappropriating another 25 million yuan, ...
Wu Ying, 28, former owner of the Zhejiang-based Bense Holding Group, was sentenced to death in Zhejiang province on Dec 18 for defrauding investors of 384 million yuan.

What's up with this strict Constitutionalist shit? Times have changed! Besides, aren't you glossing over the "general Welfare of the United States" part?

Also, wha? Are you serious? China has no welfare? Well, Jeez, why all the fuss about them being Communist then? China has a huge welfare program, and it's going to get bigger.

Yeah, sure, stop buying insurance from UHC. And trade in the bargaining power of my company for the bargaining power of just me? Sounds like a good deal.

Since most of our oil does NOT come from the mid east, and in fact it supplies China with more oil I find it hard to swallow the 'we are there for the oil' conspiracy.

I agree the US doesn't get much oil from the Mideast, the US's biggest supplier of oil is Canada and second is Mexico. However petroleum has a world wide market and if a supplier can get more money from somewhere else, oil will go there.

Actually that's why nothing was done about the genocide in Darfur, Sudan. Sudan exports a lot of oil to China and China didn't want to risk losing the oil. I don't know if you consider "BusinessWeek" to spread conspiracy theories but here's the article Oil for China, Guns for Darfur. That's the same problem with Iran, Iran supplies China with a lot of gas and China doesn't want to risk losing it. Directly from China, China, Iran sign biggest oil & gas deal. As long as a country supplies what it's supporters want it can get away with murder.

Falcon

It'd be like flying one bag of trash from New York to China on its own private charter jet.

Didn't that already happen?

n passing, it is a little flakey to talk about professionalism, pre 1820. that is about when, hmm, harvard, implemented the concept around lawyers.

You are getting hung up on the label again.

and for engineers the idea is the scientist figure things out and the engineers apply it, and that is hard to do with out a quantative science base

While it may not have been called science, to say that there was no empirical knowledge is not true. The engineers of Rome knew how arches worked, it was not just a guess.

you might think of a professional as someone with a certain attitude of responsibility to his client.

A professional is one who is skilled and knowledgeable in their field of work, which certainly describes many people before 1820.

and I vaguely have an engineering degress, MSE.

You also didn't seem to pay attention in English class.

sometimes i use words in a deeper way than you do

I'm not sure how you could glean that information from a few posts on slashdot.

sometime i try to be a bit funny, and then sometimes the words are intentional ambiguous, which is part of humor,and I expect sometime I am flakey.

So you are an intentionally poor communicator? You're not very funny after all.

the sudan guy

That is nether deep nor humorous. Ambiguity there serves no purpose other than to keep you from actually having to look up the information.

over 120 nations

It was 77.

And I found the quote from Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping: "Ten billion dollars under the current scenarios will not buy the poor of developing countries coffins, let alone address the serious problems that this challenge is causing"

His point was precisely the opposite of what you claim it was. Di-Aping wants to keep warming below 1 degree, and he feels that the current agreement limiting warming to 2 degrees is not enough. That is what happens when you get your "facts" from right-wing hacks with an axe to grind. Did you even bother to do your own research, or did you just take their word for it?

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/12768

The main page of that site has a photoshopped pic of Obama with a Hitler mustache. Somehow I just can't take them seriously. The only info I could find that was anything close to what you are talking about was China pushing its "population control" policies.

As explosives age, they become less stable, and thus more likely to explode. Especially if they're not properly stored. Unexploded ordinance from WW II is still a big problem in many places.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,584091,00.html
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-05/04/content_439409.htm

The French still have problems with unexploded ordinance from World War I, which was mostly fought on their territory.

is to require reciprocity. That goes for access to financial data as well as travelling/airline data.

Though slowly, it seems that other countries are getting fed up with certain US policies.
Your comment reminded me of this incident few years ago.

...I accidentally tried to submit this story long after this one was posted. The article in the China Daily is here: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-01/20/content_9345465.htm But I come here in hopes of enlightening some people about the situation. After I read the article in the CD, I tried to go to imdb.com (an unrelated incident) but the connection was reset, which is a common sign that a website has been blocked by the big ol' government. I was able to confirm this by IMing some friends out of country. Now, I don't know how long it has been blocked because I can't remember the last time I was able to use it, but it seems it wasn't so long ago. I leave it to you conspiracy nuts out there (read: fellow slashdotters) to speculate on that particular revelation. P.S. I will try to post more information regarding the blocking as soon as I can. Don't hold your breath.

There's also the mobile realm, where I don't think IBM has even stepped foot in.

The IBM JVM is used in mobiles. Lenovo (part owned by IBM) has/had a cellphone division.

"Saudi Arabia has led OPEC through the largest supply cut in its history to boost oil prices to the level publicly favored by Saudi King Abdullah, $75 a barrel." http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2009-09/09/content_8669671.htm

"Back in December, the blog analysed statements by King Abdullah, and concluded that Saudi Arabia had a 'target range' for oil prices of $75 - 100/bbl. Yesterday, this analysis was confirmed by Saudi Oil Minister, Ali Naimi, who said the world economy could now 'weather oil prices at $75 - 80/bbl'." http://www.icis.com/blogs/chemicals-and-the-economy/2009/05/saudi-confirms-75bbl-oil-price.html

"Saudi Arabia on Saturday cited $75 a barrel as a "fair price" for oil, the first time in years that the world's biggest exporter has identifed a target for crude prices.

Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi said oil prices needed to return to $75 to keep the more expensive new projects at the margins of world supply on track. His comments may come as a relief to consumer nations fearful of a return to $100-plus oil." http://www.cnbc.com/id/27967401

"Big Asian oil consumers India and Japan gave a cool response to Saudi Arabia's suggestion that $75 a barrel was a "fair" price for oil, saying cheaper crude was preferable during the worst economic crisis in generations." http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-191062480.html

"At a meeting of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) over the weekend, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah reportedly said the "fair price" for petroleum is $75 per barrel." http://www.autoobserver.com/2008/12/saudi-king-suddenly-hopeful-for-75-oil-us-too.html

Can it change? Sure, and it has in the past, but it's pretty apparent that they've seen something in the $75 price point for a good while now.

OK, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Western reporters in Beijing are total dumbasses. They constantly write stories colored by their own blinders they're not even aware that they're wearing. The story doesn't even mention that WoW/Netease problems getting a license in China has been going on for a while now and is nothing new. It's not really even a story, just a space filler - bureaucratic turf wars between communist ministries are news now? Anyhow, I just wanted to mention whenever you see that line at the top of the story, immediately mentally activate your BS detectors. If you want China news, there is no shortage of primary sources in English. Even my own small city district has its own website, with a translated English page. Here is a much better story from Shanghai Daily, which lays out the issue in a much clearer fashion:

``The GAPP said downloading online games is also an "online publication". GAPP is responsible for reviewing and approving "publications", and the ministry has the right to regulate the "online game" market.''

Compelling story, eh? This is typical of what comes out of Western media in Beijing.

The notion that China is NOT doing the things they are accused of in this story is utter and complete bullshit .

Allow me to second this notion and also point out that the ambassador nor anyone from China will address the reports concern's item by item precisely because much of this is common knowledge. Why doesn't the ambassador deny the reports of a civilian based 'information war militia' being formed in Yongning County as the report alleges?

The phrase "Cold War Mentality" is thrown around too much these days. The problem with the original cold war mentality was several fold. One point being that the buildup of nuclear weapons was not only a threat to the countries who intended to use them against each other but a threat to the entire world. In addition the two countries did not exact harm directly upon each other but rather used countries like Vietnam, Afghanistan and Cuba as conflict points ... putting those innocents in a very dire situation for years to come. While the buildup between China and the United States is a threat to the internet and networks internal to those countries, it is unlikely these wars will be fought in puppet theaters. This is not a cold war mentality nor is the United States anywhere close to creating another Cold War scenario.

This is an issue between China and the United States, it's not a 'Cold War mentality' when you're keeping tabs on threats to you. Every country does it. The fear here is that China is dipping into/forcing a civilian base to partake in information warfare. If we were writing this report about being afraid of China for it's pool of computer science resources, we would be much more afraid of India--the largest pool of information technology.

If country A developed a militia or civilian based attack (physical or cyber) on country B, country B will address the threat. If China is claiming this report is full of lies, let them address and disprove this report instead of using vague concepts to discredit the United States. Don't hold your breath.

Did what we call a "manif" (manifestation/protest march). That is quite different from rioting (going in the street to steal and make damage).

There weren't any deaths, burned cars, or other violence?

Although I do not exclude there is a minority of thugs which always take the occasion to riot, the intention of the crushing majority was only to protest agaisnt that law.

The rioters may of been a minority but there were some protesters who supported them and some rioters supported protesters. Perhaps I could have phrased what I wanted to say better though, so I'll try again. The government in France wanted to boost youth employment, even today France has a high unemployment rate for youth. But the youth protested against making it easier for businesses to fire bad employees who are youth, as if a job was an entitlement not something earned. If you want more employment of youth you want to make it easier to fire those youth who are poor workers. Even today Youth unemployment is high in almost all of Europe.

Falcon

"which they've always denied until now" That's the BBC spin.
"We have a government admittedly selling human organs for profit" Is misrepresenting the article.

Please read the original article:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-08/26/content_8616938.htm

Now go on bashing a culture because we fear they are overtaking our economic hegemony.

Chinese state-run newspapers will only publish exactly what the party wants them to publish. That's not remotely true with the BBC.

"which they've always denied until now" That's the BBC spin.
"We have a government admittedly selling human organs for profit" Is misrepresenting the article.

Please read the original article:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-08/26/content_8616938.htm

Now go on bashing a culture because we fear they are overtaking our economic hegemony.

There are reports of some women in Africa that are immune to HIV.

Years ago there was an article linked to on Slashdot about some women prostitutes in Africa who were immune. I tried to find it but perhaps I didn't spend enough tyme because I didn't find it. A few days ago I found another one where some women in China appeared to be immune as well. Here's "Two women found with HIV-immune mutant gene".

Falcon

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-07/14/content_8426874.htm

According to the Guangdong-based Information Times, shocks were given if patients broke any of the center's 86 rules, which included prohibitions on eating chocolate, locking the bathroom door, taking pills before a meal, and sitting in Dr. Yang's chair without permission.

Actually, he's making much, much more than A-Rod.

http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2006-03/13/content_533988.htm

We are dangerously close to the point that the rest of the world will say enough is enough and stop buying our debt.

[citation needed]

Speaking on the sidelines of an Asian central bankers' meeting in February, Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of China's central bank, asked: "is it time for China to consider using the reserves somewhere else, instead of concentrating too much on the United States?"

China Daily article here.

To this I quote John Maynard Keynes: ' If you owe your bank manager a thousand pounds, you are at his mercy. If you owe him a million pounds, he is at your mercy.'

We are dangerously close to the point that the rest of the world will say enough is enough and stop buying our debt.

[citation needed]

Speaking on the sidelines of an Asian central bankers' meeting in February, Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of China's central bank, asked: "is it time for China to consider using the reserves somewhere else, instead of concentrating too much on the United States?"

China Daily article here.

Typical M-16 magazines hold 30 rounds. A trained user should be able to get at least five kills from that magazine, and reloading takes only a few seconds.

You do realize that both ships will be moving about quite a bit? I doubt that a once trained, but unpracticed shooter will be very effective with a rifle until the pirates are already on board (at which point you lose your greatest advantage).

Small arms are far more effective than the mad-scientist weapons mentioned, because they are much cheaper, far more reliable, easier to use, and have a deterrence factor: pirates will avoid ships they think involve a high risk of death, and dead (or wounded and captured) pirates don't get to raid again.

I don't see how guns are cheaper, more reliable and easier to use than a water cannon (which can also be used for fire fighting). You can easily guide the fairly wide, continuous water beam to your target. That is much easier than firing a gun accurately. You can train with a water cannon fairly often, but when are the crew members going to practice firing their guns? On the high seas there are no targets for target practice, so the crew will have no idea if they are shooting well. Near harbors, you aren't allowed to fire guns. So the guns will stay in storage until the pirates attack. Then they can only hope that the guns will actually work (after not having been cleaned for years) and that the crew can use them effectively.

Also, unlike the fixed position water cannons and sound cannons, small arms can be used more easily once the pirates have boarded.

That depends on the ship. If the cannon can reach the entire deck, it may well be more effective, especially since you can use the cannons by remote control. In a small arms fight on a ship, there is a pretty high chance of getting killed. I don't see why the crew would take that risk instead of simply surrendering. After all, the crew generally survives being taken hostage.

If the water cannon was a better weapon than a rifle, then military ships and land units (which, unlike commercial ships, do not have legal restrictions on what weapons they employ) would use them instead of rifles.

That is a pretty silly argument because military units have highly trained military units that are willing to kill. Their primary task is to fight other military units (99% of the weapons of a warship are hugely overpowered for dealing with pirates). Military warships would look completely different if they were designed for pirate hunting. This is a story about warships using water cannons as weapons, since their regular weaponry was hugely overpowered.

Zealots are those who use faith instead of reasoning to determine their acts.

So this, this, and this are all based on faith? Zealots are fanatics. I'm telling you, I don't qualify. The 10 minutes it took me to come up with some links hardly qualifies me as a fanatic.

The "market" has nothing to do with global warming. Communist countries are no better than the west and are generally far worse in regard to their non-respect of the environment.

What communist countries? Please tell me you're not thinking of China as a communist country.

What "flaw" do you think you pointed out? The only flaws so far in your posts have been in your reasoning. Global warming killed the dinosaurs? Nope, dinosaurs lived in a time of globally warmer temperatures than those prevalent today and were in fact warmer than those forecast in other than the most extreme "the sky is falling"/"we are all doomed" global warming forecasts. The first entry for ":define budgie" on google is: budgerigar: small Australian parakeet usually light green with black and yellow markings in the wild but bred in many colors I, like Freeman Dyson am upset that people like you who are incapable of looking up a words are pushing politicians who know even less into spending our limited resources on what will ultimately turn out to be a minor problem compared to others that confront us.

Apparently this has been a danger for decades with similar incidents reported in China, Britain, Belgium, and Germany.

First, I'll point out that I believe that nuclear weapons aren't in the same category as nuclear power; that'd be like adding deaths from tank weapons into automotive deaths.

Still, I think it's an interesting topic.
Hiroshima: 140k
Nagasaki: 80k
Chernobyl: 57 direct deaths, 4k 'additional cancer cases', estimated, not all of which would be fatal.
Other: Various accidents; under a hundred. Less than 1% of the above, easily within the margin of error of the nuclear weapons usage.

224k total, of which 1.8% can be attributed, partially, to nuclear power(Chernobyl was also a weapons material plant, which affected it's design).

If you believe this article, 24k lives are 'shortened' by coal power, cause 2.8k cases of lung cancer a year, 4k deaths from asthma, heart attacks, etc... At 4k, we're killing a Chernobyl's worth of citizens each and every year. In the 63 years since the nuclear attacks in 1945, that would be 252,000 people.

On to China - They've made it a 'goal' to reduce their annual coal mining deaths to a 'mere' 5k in 2007 over the 7k of 2003. In 1988 - "chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was 26% of all causes of death. If even a fraction of a percent of those deaths are from the pollution from coal power, 26k a year isn't outrageous from a country of over a billion.

Basically; I figure coal power kills more people every year than Chernobyl accident did period, and it bypasses our nuclear bombings in less than five years.

And people wonder why I'd shut down all the coal plants if I could...