Slashdot Mirror

1. Which state (with "state" being a slightly looser definition of "country") supplies the most spies for mainland China ? (hint: The answer is not mainland China.)

2. Which state has voluntarily invested more than $100 billion into more than 50,000 businesses in mainland China?

3. From which state has 4.3% of its population (i.e. 1 million out of 2.3 million people) moved to mainland China?

4. Which foreign government committed the only successful assassination in the USA?

5. Which state supports most of Beijing's geopolitical claims to the Spratly Islands, the Senkaku Islands, and even Tibet?

The answer to all the questions is Taiwan.

There is no way to "prove" that we are right because the issue is not mathematics. It is one of morality. We believe that raping and killing nuns and children is morally wrong.

The Chinese take the opposite view. Before you mod me as a "troll", I suggest that you review the information at the link to the web site for "Physicians for Human Rights", which won the Nobel Peace Prize. What kind of monster would support integrating Tibet into "One China", a nation of people who use cattle prods to violate the sexuality of Tibetan children?

The American military has awoken to the Chinese threat and developing a security means of instant message is a good second step. The first step was the Clinton administrations' smart move to put Taiwan on the FBI list of hostile intelligence threats.

The third step should be rescinding the Taiwan Telations Act.

I applaud EFF's support of Tor. It provides a means for free communication from China. Anonymity helps to assure (but not guarantee) the safety of a Tibetan lad tortured and raped by the Chinese as he uses Tor or Tor-like technologies to relay the story of his plight. In this way, we in the West can learn the extent of the suffering of the Tibetan people.

The Chinese are aggressively militarizing space. Note that their space program is part of the Chinese Department of War. The American space program (aka NASA) is a purely civilian effort.

The Chinese are aggressively militarizing space. Note that their space program is part of the Chinese Department of War. The American space program (aka NASA) is a purely civilian effort.

Without the ban, the "Washington Post" web site would be much more popular, based on the number of clicks.

Without the ban, the "Washington Post" web site would be much more popular, based on the number of clicks.

Thank Buddha that you live in the West and not China.

Not surprisingly, Google is the carrier for spreading the infection. Google has a cozy relationship with Beijing, and many H-1Bs from China (which includes Taiwan province and Hong Kong) work at Google. Note, too, that Google quickly complies with Beijing's censorship demands -- with no questions asked.

Let's do the right "thing" and switch over to Yahoo! Search.

Not surprisingly, Google is the carrier for spreading the infection. Google has a cozy relationship with Beijing, and many H-1Bs from China (which includes Taiwan province and Hong Kong) work at Google. Note, too, that Google quickly complies with Beijing's censorship demands -- with no questions asked.

Let's do the right "thing" and switch over to Yahoo! Search.

In the case of Firefox, the code is open. So, millions of Western eyes will see anything suspicious in the code. The bottom line is that openness implies trust, and the reverse is also true.

The success of Linux is proof that in the West, you can get a free OS legitimately and that the free OS is a good OS.

By the way, the success of Linux is due almost entirely to IBM. If IBM had not embraced the fat penguin about 4 years ago, then Linux would still be running as a print server for all the Windows desktops.

What happened to the idea that Christmas means values: goodwill and love?

Instead of buying a new PC, why not buy something that teaches values. A good example is a new book: O'Reilly Factor for Kids. It teaches values and is a great stocking stuffer.

Here are my top 3 recommendations.

1. The O'Reilly Factor for Kids by Mr. Bill O'Reilly.

2. Who's Looking out for You? by Mr. Bill O'Reilly

3. The Enemy Within by Dr. Michael Savage

I highly recommend the first book. I volunteer time at a shelter for abused children. Many of them have parents from China, and I read the first book with them. I want to give them the best chance to survive in this world.

Here are my top 3 recommendations.

1. The O'Reilly Factor for Kids by Mr. Bill O'Reilly.

2. Who's Looking out for You? by Mr. Bill O'Reilly

3. The Enemy Within by Dr. Michael Savage

I highly recommend the first book. I volunteer time at a shelter for abused children. Many of them have parents from China, and I read the first book with them. I want to give them the best chance to survive in this world.

The serverless messaging feature should prove useful in Tibet and Western China (where the Uighurs are being butchered). The Tibetans can use Trillian to send messages directly to Western reporters who can frequently switch their IP addresses in order to avoid being blocked by Beijing. Does GAIM have the same serverless messaging feature?

Perhaps, we should always have a 3 year moratorium on the sale of any new technology to a Chinese company. After 3 years, the technology will be dated, and the Western company can proceed to sell the technology to the Chinese.

China is the #1 source of viruses, spam, and malware. Watch out.

As for Sun, it has been eclipsed by a supernova: IBM.

What is lost in all this competition is the fact that the Power4 and Power5 were predominantly designed by American engineers, not H-1Bs. IBM tends to echew H-1Bs unless they have a Ph.D. By contrast, Intel favors H-1Bs from China and India. Intel and Sun claimed that they absolutely need H-1Bs in order to be competitive. Guess what happened? Good old-fashioned American ingenuity by a bunch of American "hicks" wiped out the product designed by elite "slick" Indian engineers and Chinese engineers.

Visually, each story would rotate so that its weapon would point at an incoming American spacecraft. The possibilities conjured up by evil are endless.

Both the Chinese and the Indians support massive numbers of abortions targetting female fetuses. You tell me. Who is the barbarian?

Both the Chinese and the Indians support massive numbers of abortions targetting female fetuses. You tell me. Who is the barbarian?

When was the last time that American police arrest a Chinese thug for torturing a Tibetan child? See what I mean?

When was the last time that American police arrested a Chinese thug for torturing a Tibetan child? See what I mean?

By maintaining records of the customers of the security tools, Microsoft can assist federal authorities in locating the culprits behind the next wave of viruses and malware.

Sometimes, Microsoft does the right thing.

If you want to build a profitable language school, then I suggest that you build one that teaches Mandarin. Also, teach the mainland version of Mandarin. The version in Taiwan is outdated.

By the way, please do visit the web site (for Taiwan) that I listed above. It has been updated with new information from "The New York Times". 4.3% of the Taiwanese have permanently moved to mainland China. (No. I'm not "inventing" this statistics. Just visit the web link.)

One of the largest employers of Mandarin-language-speaking Americans is the U.S. State Department. It cannot trust Taiwanese immigrants but will trust native Americans (i.e. anyone born in the US and considering herself to be an unhyphenated American). The State Department needs Mandarin speakers to catalogue relevant information that is gleaned from Beijing's press and Taipei's press. Beijing is a foe, and Taipei is a foe pretending to be a friend.

Now, what can IBM do?

The answer is obvious. Enter the Linux desktop market; its margins are still relatively fat. The software is free, so IBM can low ball the price and still sell a product that has nice profits.

What the Linux desktop needs badly is connectivity: e.g. AOL client. The #1 application on desktops these days is the e-mail client. A sizeable chunk of desktop customers still use a dialup modem. For e-mail and casual web browsing, all you really need is a 56K baud modem.

Unfortunately, Linux does not have an AOL client. There is a freeware version of the AOL client for Linux, but AOL does not support this particular client. When you are tech-ignorant customer, you absolutely need the handholding of AOL: America's Online service.

Now, what can IBM do?

The answer is obvious. Enter the Linux desktop market; its margins are still relatively fat. The software is free, so IBM can low ball the price and still sell a product that has nice profits.

What the Linux desktop needs badly is connectivity: e.g. AOL client. The #1 application on desktops these days is the e-mail client. A sizeable chunk of desktop customers still use a dialup modem. For e-mail and casual web browsing, all you really need is a 56K baud modem.

Unfortunately, Linux does not have an AOL client. There is a freeware version of the AOL client for Linux, but AOL does not support this particular client. When you are tech-ignorant customer, you absolutely need the handholding of AOL: America's Online service.

I submit the work of Dr. Valerie Hudson as an important breakthrough in 2004. She wrote a book called "Bare Branches" and explained how the sex ratio imbalance can have dire consequences for not only the affected nations (i.e. China )but also normal nations like the USA.

If a Chinese thug sells, on an Internet web page, a Chinese child for indentured servitude, what can American law enforcement do?

Maybe extrajudicial vigilantism has a role here. Americans go to Taiwan and kill the Chinese thug selling children on the Internet.

If a Chinese thug sells, on an Internet web page, a Chinese child for indentured servitude, what can American law enforcement do?

Maybe extrajudicial vigilantism has a role here. Americans go to Taiwan and kill the Chinese thug selling children on the Internet.

I propose that we charge only the IP addresses of the Chinese companies, for they generate most of the spam, viruses, and malware on the Internet today. We then give a portion of the funds to anti-virus and anti-malware companies.

Admittedly Indian culture is somewhat better than Chinese culture, but we are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

Don't the neoconservatives understand that today's violent youth did not become violent from playing a couple of violent video games? Look at China. Its government outright bans pornography and severely restricts violent video games. Yet, Chinese youth are morally bankrupt -- supporting human trafficking, supporting the rape of Tibet, etc.

When the neoconservatives wake up and support minimum standards of living for even the poorest of the poor, then there will be a sharp drop in violence among youth. Look at Europe. It has minimum standards, and violence is a fraction of what it is in the Colonies.

Does anyone have answers to the following key questions?

1. What percentage of Symantec's workforce is former/current H-1Bs?

2. To what extent does Symantec support charitable organizations like the Breast Cancer Foundation?

3. How does Symantec evaluate its workforce? Does the company use a bellcurve grading system?

Fuse some Tibetan chants into the Jedi mantra and display them on the computer screen as the game player plays the role of the liberator of the peoples enslaved by the Empire and China. In these role-playing video games, imagine a Jedi knight going through training at a temple that remarkably resembes a Tibetan temple in the Himalayas. Then, imagine the Jedi knight flying his X-wing fighter and blasting the palace housing the "Evil Lord", who speaks Mandarin.

P.S.
The web site discussing Taiwan has been updated with new information from "The New York Times". 4.3% of the Taiwanese have emigrated from Taiwan to mainland China. (No. I'm not fabricating this statistic. Check out the web site.)

"May the Force (of good) be with You!"

Take the case of Tibet. Why do the folks in Hong Kong, mainland China, and Taiwan province support integrating Tibet into "One China"? Why are engineering classes overflowing with Chinese folks and Amnesty International meetings being nearly devoid of Chinese?

What is the name of this Chinese emergence? It is "Chinese culture". The god of Chinese culture is Chinese nationalism. Visit the link about Taiwan. It has been updated within the last 24 hours, and there is an interesting statistic (courtesy of "The New York Times"): 1 million Taiwanese (about 4.3% of Taiwan's population) have emigrated mainland China. Of course, the Taiwanese are responsible for their behavior even though we can ascribe it to "emergence". (I know. I know. I was shocked by the statistic too, and I have a Ph.D. in Political Science.) The Taiwanese are responsible for insisting, via their constitution, that Tibet is part of "One China".

The Taiwanese, the Hong Kongers, and the mainlanders all do not give a damn about Tibet.

America has a piracy problem; about 25% of business software is stolen. However, the problem in China is (1) that 95% of software is stolen and (2) most Chinese believe that they are entitled to steal softare (i.e. there is nothing wrong with stealing).

No way, no how is Chinese culture similar to Western culture.

What will the Chinese think of next?

Buddha has smiled on the West.

Unfortunately, Beijing has often jammed the signal. This new antenna technology may be a good way for the Tibetans to evade jamming. How can we build a special radio that uses a miniature antenna array?

Suppose that I were in Tibet. I would pull out my silent machine gun and just spray the bullets on all Chinese who cross my path. Then, my band of "merry" colleagues and I could liberate Tibet within a month.

We would be like a ghost of death. No one would hear us, but the Chinese would know that we are there by viewing the thousands of dead Chinese soldiers stationed in Tibet.

Then, FireFox will be more attractive than Sweet&Sour Pork to the Chinese hackers. Winter Melon Soup, anyone?

But that remains ahead, and meanwhile Mr Bush's credibility has been considerably undermined not just by Guantánamo but also by two big things: by the sheer incompetence and hubristic thinking evident in the way in which his team set about the rebuilding of Iraq, once Saddam Hussein's regime had been toppled; and by the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which strengthened the suspicion that the mistreatment or even torture of prisoners was being condoned.

Claiming that the Rev. Moon-owned Washington Times, the long-time Conservative lap-dog The Wall Street Journal, and most especially Fox News (which Rupert Murdoch explicitly founded as a right-wing news channel) are "less bias[ed]" simply reinforces the perception of your poor judgment one would form from your bizarre claim that running stories about Abu Ghraib would affect a newspaper's circulation to its detriment while at the same time singling out The Economist for "experienc[ing] strong growth." (By the way, the magazine that published the source material for most of the Abu Ghraib stories, Seymour Hersh's superb series of articles, the New Yorker, saw its circulation increase to 1,000,000 for the very first time in its 79 year history.)

So I think we can all pretty much assume that you have no idea what you're talking about. By the way, you know how many times the Abu Ghraib story ran on the Times front page - not sure where it appears on this Physicians for Human Rights page about Tibet which you cited, nor could I find anything on their page about Abu Ghraib - I would guess that the link here is a red herring. What I really want to know, though, is where you got your figures for how many times Hussein's very real acts of genocide (hey, look, Physicians for Human Rights were talking about Hussein's use of weapons of mass killing back in 1993, and they talked about Abu Ghraib!), extra-judicial execution, torture, violence against women were covered. I was not surprised to see that you have no figures or links to back up your assertions on that! I chose to link to Amnesty International coverage, by the way, because they are an organization that was heavily criticized for its response to the Abu Ghraib scandal as being too liberal and ignoring Hussein's mistreatment of the Iraqi people.

This is not a competition, "whose the bigger torturer?" This is not a case in which we can apply a calculus of torture and murder and use of weapons of mass killing and determine that so much torture in Abu Ghraib is justified because we are preventing the far greater tortures that Hussein committed. President Bush himself denounced the abuse of US prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Do you wonder why? It's because he at least realizes that the US has a responsiblity to rescue the people of Iraq from Hussein in a way that will not make them think there is no qualitative difference between us and Hussein, only a quantative one - which is something some of his most ardent supports do not seem to grasp. And people think GWB is stupid!

The US can

But that remains ahead, and meanwhile Mr Bush's credibility has been considerably undermined not just by Guantánamo but also by two big things: by the sheer incompetence and hubristic thinking evident in the way in which his team set about the rebuilding of Iraq, once Saddam Hussein's regime had been toppled; and by the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which strengthened the suspicion that the mistreatment or even torture of prisoners was being condoned.

Claiming that the Rev. Moon-owned Washington Times, the long-time Conservative lap-dog The Wall Street Journal, and most especially Fox News (which Rupert Murdoch explicitly founded as a right-wing news channel) are "less bias[ed]" simply reinforces the perception of your poor judgment one would form from your bizarre claim that running stories about Abu Ghraib would affect a newspaper's circulation to its detriment while at the same time singling out The Economist for "experienc[ing] strong growth." (By the way, the magazine that published the source material for most of the Abu Ghraib stories, Seymour Hersh's superb series of articles, the New Yorker, saw its circulation increase to 1,000,000 for the very first time in its 79 year history.)

So I think we can all pretty much assume that you have no idea what you're talking about. By the way, you know how many times the Abu Ghraib story ran on the Times front page - not sure where it appears on this Physicians for Human Rights page about Tibet which you cited, nor could I find anything on their page about Abu Ghraib - I would guess that the link here is a red herring. What I really want to know, though, is where you got your figures for how many times Hussein's very real acts of genocide (hey, look, Physicians for Human Rights were talking about Hussein's use of weapons of mass killing back in 1993, and they talked about Abu Ghraib!), extra-judicial execution, torture, violence against women were covered. I was not surprised to see that you have no figures or links to back up your assertions on that! I chose to link to Amnesty International coverage, by the way, because they are an organization that was heavily criticized for its response to the Abu Ghraib scandal as being too liberal and ignoring Hussein's mistreatment of the Iraqi people.

This is not a competition, "whose the bigger torturer?" This is not a case in which we can apply a calculus of torture and murder and use of weapons of mass killing and determine that so much torture in Abu Ghraib is justified because we are preventing the far greater tortures that Hussein committed. President Bush himself denounced the abuse of US prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Do you wonder why? It's because he at least realizes that the US has a responsiblity to rescue the people of Iraq from Hussein in a way that will not make them think there is no qualitative difference between us and Hussein, only a quantative one - which is something some of his most ardent supports do not seem to grasp. And people think GWB is stupid!

The US can

But that remains ahead, and meanwhile Mr Bush's credibility has been considerably undermined not just by Guantánamo but also by two big things: by the sheer incompetence and hubristic thinking evident in the way in which his team set about the rebuilding of Iraq, once Saddam Hussein's regime had been toppled; and by the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which strengthened the suspicion that the mistreatment or even torture of prisoners was being condoned.

Claiming that the Rev. Moon-owned Washington Times, the long-time Conservative lap-dog The Wall Street Journal, and most especially Fox News (which Rupert Murdoch explicitly founded as a right-wing news channel) are "less bias[ed]" simply reinforces the perception of your poor judgment one would form from your bizarre claim that running stories about Abu Ghraib would affect a newspaper's circulation to its detriment while at the same time singling out The Economist for "experienc[ing] strong growth." (By the way, the magazine that published the source material for most of the Abu Ghraib stories, Seymour Hersh's superb series of articles, the New Yorker, saw its circulation increase to 1,000,000 for the very first time in its 79 year history.)

So I think we can all pretty much assume that you have no idea what you're talking about. By the way, you know how many times the Abu Ghraib story ran on the Times front page - not sure where it appears on this Physicians for Human Rights page about Tibet which you cited, nor could I find anything on their page about Abu Ghraib - I would guess that the link here is a red herring. What I really want to know, though, is where you got your figures for how many times Hussein's very real acts of genocide (hey, look, Physicians for Human Rights were talking about Hussein's use of weapons of mass killing back in 1993, and they talked about Abu Ghraib!), extra-judicial execution, torture, violence against women were covered. I was not surprised to see that you have no figures or links to back up your assertions on that! I chose to link to Amnesty International coverage, by the way, because they are an organization that was heavily criticized for its response to the Abu Ghraib scandal as being too liberal and ignoring Hussein's mistreatment of the Iraqi people.

This is not a competition, "whose the bigger torturer?" This is not a case in which we can apply a calculus of torture and murder and use of weapons of mass killing and determine that so much torture in Abu Ghraib is justified because we are preventing the far greater tortures that Hussein committed. President Bush himself denounced the abuse of US prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Do you wonder why? It's because he at least realizes that the US has a responsiblity to rescue the people of Iraq from Hussein in a way that will not make them think there is no qualitative difference between us and Hussein, only a quantative one - which is something some of his most ardent supports do not seem to grasp. And people think GWB is stupid!

The US can

Now, note that the "Washington Times", the "Wall Street Journal", and the "Economist" have experienced increases in circulation. The last journal, in particular, has experienced strong growth.

Similar comments apply to Fox News.

The conclusion is that less bias means greater popularity and larger numbers of subscribers.

Under these circumstances, there is no reason for HP to bundle a legitimate copy of Windows XP with each PC, raising its effective price to $700. Simply bundle each PC with FreeDOS, and the Chinese customer will simply install a pirated version of Windows XP. Hence, HP can sell each PC for under $500.

HP is essentially turning a blind eye to the piracy and, moreover, leveraging the piracy-laden environment to win more sales.

Under these circumstances, there is no reason for HP to bundle a legitimate copy of Windows XP with each PC, raising its effective price to $700. Simply bundle each PC with FreeDOS, and the Chinese customer will simply install a pirated version of Windows XP. Hence, HP can sell each PC for under $500.

HP is essentially turning a blind eye to the piracy and, moreover, leveraging the piracy-laden environment to win more sales.