China Deploys IPv9 Network

jeber writes "At the New Generation Internet Ten-Digit Network Industrialization & Development Seminar held on June 25th at Zhejiang University, it was announced that China's Internet technology, IPv9, had been formally adapted and popularized into the civil and commercial sectors. Based on a ten-digit computing method, IPv9 has its own address protocol, nameplate protocol, transitional protocol, and digital domain name regulations and standards as stated by Mr. Xie Jianping, founder of the IPv9 protocol and leader of the Ten-Digit Network Technology Standard Team. Along with being compatible with IPv4 and IPv6, IPv9 can also realize logistic separations between them and safely control them. On small-scale trials in Shanghai's Changing and Jinshan Districts, IPv9 technology has proven stable and safe."

Comments

Oh yeah?

[BabyDave]

Well I'm using IPvInfinityPlusOne, so :-P to you!

Re:Oh yeah?

[aled]

IPvaleph1 and that's it.

Re:Oh yeah?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm using IPvInfinity! (factorial) that's much higher than the measly InfinityPlusOne

Re:Oh yeah?

[cynic10508]

Well I'm using IPvInfinityPlusOne, so :-P to you!

Doesn't that support the controversial new ScratchNSniff (SNSv1) protocol?

Re:Oh yeah?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not use the Open Source version:

IPvFreely

Re:Oh yeah?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which then fragments into IP-Openly, IP-Netly as well as IPvFreely.

Re:Oh yeah?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure chinesse govs wouldn't like this name

Re:Oh yeah?

[Anonymous Coward]

Woosh!

Re:Oh yeah?

[Tukla]

Hey, I liked the IP-Openly variation.

key word "control"

[nurb432]

Sounds like that would be the most important piece to the Chinese..

Re:key word "control"

[MarkPNeyer]

This isn't the only thing for which the chinese are trying to develop their own stadards; they hate the idea of paying royalties for formats that are accepted around the world, they just develop their own standards. I'm sure all of this isn't going to help china's transition into the being a free-market society integrated with the rest of the world.

Re:key word "control"

[mumblestheclown]

what part of "Well regulated militia" do you not understand?

Since you're such a genius literalist, how about you learn that the US Second Amendment is basically based on the VA (1776) and MA (1780) bills of rights, both of whose "right to bear arms" clauses are clearly tied to the notion of a "common defense." The VA BoR even specifically refers to those having the rights to bear arms being specially trained.

Of course, this all misses the larger picture still, which is that the framers recognized their own infallability and made provisions in the constitution for it to be a living changing document EITHER through interpretation or revision.

The constitution is not the secular equivalent of the fundamentalists literal bible handed down from on high, despite the fantasies of certain sloped forehead groups.

Re:key word "control"

[f1ipf10p]

Yes, perhaps Mr. Xie Jianping should have been included in or be added to the current /. poll of "Most Likely to Take Over the World"!

I had voted for Dogbert, but I would change that to Mr. Xie Jianping...

Re:key word "control"

[Anonymous Coward]

...which is that the framers recognized their own infallability...

a) infallibility
b) fallibility
c) It's his sig, reply in his journal to keep on the submission's topic.

Re:key word "control"

[Anonymous Coward]

No, only revision. The Supreme Court can abuse their authority, but don't go blaming the founders for that. You better check your own forehead, pal. The constitution says I can have guns--and neither I nor the founders were particularly huge fans of the Bible.

Re:key word "control"

[Anonymous Coward]

And what part of "The right of the people" do you not understand? The idea here is that if the people keep arms that they will already be trained in case of needing to form such a militia for defense

Re:key word "control"

[Czernobog]

A standard is what the majority of people use. Not what they want to use. Or what they should be using. Or what some foreign institution has taken it up to themselves to declare. Or whatever power abusing government or mega-corporation enforces.
As such China's protocols are the standards, as far as they are concerned.

Re:key word "control"

[smallfries]

Err, the server's down. Does anyone know what 10-digit computation or logisitic separations? I'm used to people spouting crap on /. but normally that's in the comments after the summary, not in it.

Re:key word "control"

[ghjm]

It's very interesting, actually. From a US perspective we see China as a supplicant, who has to do things our way to be allowed to participate in the "developed" economic world that we created, and therefore own and control. This means that we get to charge an admission fee (e.g. license our "intellectual property" to them), and they are morally in the wrong if they don't pay it.

China sees us as warlords holding temporary advantage due to the outcome of WWII. Chinese warlords have always extorted horrific tribute/taxation from their subjects, but wrapped it in a framework of celestial-academic (or, more recently, communist-rhetorical) self-justification. This is what they think we're doing to them when we say "you have to pay us billions of dollars because (mumble software patent mumble genome license mumble royalty blah blah)".

China has made numerous moves lately that indicate they no longer consider us to be an unstoppable force. They haven't done anything drastically provocative, but they will. The Taiwan question is intolerable for the Chinese government. Sooner or later, if China stays on its current path, they will arrive at the point where they think they can get away with an invasion. And all I can say is, I sure as hell hope there's a moderate in the White House on that particular day.

-Graham

Re:key word "control"

[Jahf]

This is at least the 2nd time that this argument has been used ...

Please explain to me what body you have to license IPv* from?

Tell me again why I would need a commercial product to support IPv* when it has been in some form in free OEs for -years-?

Explain how IPv* has anything to do with "formats" when those "formats" (I'm assuming you're thinking things like video codecs, etc) are not part of the network layer?

China's IPv9 can only exist for one of 2 reasons:

1) They want more control over their own networks, perhaps by having China on IPv9 they have ways of better filtering IPv4/6 (I don't know) or maybe they suffer from the most common of all new network protocol designer's problems ... "we like ours best" syndrom.

2) Perhaps IPv9 has definite technical advantages over IPv4/6 that will become more obvious as adoption goes on. ... Anyway, beyond replying to your thread a bit ...

It doesn't really matter ... if IPv9 doesn't have major enhancements but is truly compatible with IPv6 then let the Chinese have the headache of maintaining the translations. If IPv9 -does- have major enhancements that the rest of the world desires, maybe you'll see it being adopted and IPv6 skipped in many locales.

It is supply and demand ... yes, 1+ Billion Chinese has a lot of sway over standards adoption, but if the standards suck the 5+ Billion of the rest of us will ignore it. If it doesn't suck and is "Right" then good for them for kickstarting adoption.

Re:key word "control"

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, yes it's off topic, but the reply to that sig is dead on. The idea of the right to keep and bear arms as a necessity for the state to have at their disposal a militia to defend against other states (Britian, particularly, in the original timeframe) certainly shall not be infringed.

see also
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitut ion/am endment02/

Here's my $.02

Using the parsing explicitly provided in the constitution:

A well regulated Militia, (*), (*), shall not be infringed.

The two phrases which define the purpose and make-up of the subject have been removed, so that you don't get confused. The portion of the 2nd amendment which you have so carefully taken out of context is a sentence fragment without a subject. Add the subject back in and it makes more sense. Though the sentence certainly leaves a bit to be desired, it is legalise, and parsing is more important than flow.

FWIW, I am not particularly anti-gun, or pro-gun for that matter. I happen to own a 1912 New York Arms dbl barrel 12ga shotgun. As I have a small child in my house now, I have removed the firing pins so that this family heirloom may be displayed relatively safely. I say relatively, because the d@mn thing is so heavy it could easily be used to kill a person without the need for ammunition, but now it's less likely to cause serious harm "accidentally."

Re:key word "control"

[Anonymous Coward]

A standard is what the majority of people use. Not what they want to use.Or what they should be using. Or what some foreign institution has taken it up to themselves to declare.

Funny, when I used this same arguement yesterday about Internet Explorer I was called a troll. When I go to a site that dosen't render in Mozilla, I am told "the site is broken, it doesn't follow standards". But if it is fine to 95% of the people who visit, which one is broken, the browser or the site ? I use Mozilla for saftey and sanity. But I keep IE handy for sites that just won't render.

Re:key word "control"

[cynic10508]

I'm sure all of this isn't going to help china's transition into the being a free-market society integrated with the rest of the world.

Very true. China needs to learn, one way or another, that nationalist pride only interferes with technological advancement. Look at the disparity between North and South Korea for a good example.

Re:key word "control"

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like "control" is what americans have now over the internet and would hate to give away.

Re:key word "control"

[astar]

I recently received a chatty email from a fellow who just spent some time in China. His wife was working on a Rotary project there and then they played tourist.

Several things stood out to me. This is a dynamic society, with construction everywhere. Yet they also spend money making their freeways signs look good, with a little extra neon. At night, the big cities are a neon wonderland. The freeways themselves have lighted lane markers and such. Lots of use of light.

And to the point on this topic, everyone he talked to seem to consider Taiwan a province of China, even the Taiwanise tourists, of which there are many. Now what I actually think is that neither government tolerate anything but the party line, and so people do not speak candidly on this issue. The real deal is that China considers Chinese populated territory to be properly under common rule. And most of the Taiwanese share that view. The Taiwanese government of course thinks it should be ruling China.

My idea is that everyone should agree that Taiwan is part of China and set a date, say in the next century, to realize it.

Re:key word "control"

[Anonymous Coward]

just a FYI, get the "user agent switcher" extension. A good bit of the sites that are broken with mozilla/firefox will work with the user agent switcher. Basically, sites detect the browser version and say "well, it's not IE, so it must be wrong". The user agent switcher is just an easy way to make the browser masquerade as IE.

Just because sites don't work with a certain browser doesn't mean that it's because the browser doesn't support what it's doing.

Re:key word "control"

[Commander Trollco]

Sorry for continuing the offtopic...

You emphasize the well regulated militia part, and this puts you in agreement with the US Supreme court(don't ask me to look up which opinion). However, viewed with regard to the Declaration of Independence, the 2nd amendment is not for the purposes of a state militia, it is to ensure that the people always have their "armed revolt" option open. It is essentially a threat of violence against the rulers, should they become oppressive (cough DEA cough Carnivore cough Echelon cough).

It would be wise to remember that Britain was not a "foreign invader", it was our own government.

The US was founded by radical, violent militiamen of the sort we marginalize today.

Again, sorry for continuing the offtopic.

Re:key word "control"

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you go to Taiwan and ask around?

Re:key word "control"

[Doppler00]

I sure as hell hope there's a moderate in the White House on that particular day.

I sure hope that ISN'T the case. Do you really believe it is morally correct for a communist government to take over yet another country and start restricting the freedoms and rights of more people?

Look what's happening in Hong Kong this very moment where they are no longer allowed to choose their own leadership.

You are speaking of an invasion into Taiwan, warships, troops, etc. entering that country. How many people would they kill before declaring the invasion a success?

Re:key word "control"

[dave420]

Not really, as China's power and size almost guarantees that one day they're going to create a standard that is better than anything the "west" has come up with. When that happens, they'll be in the driving seat, and the "west" will have to pay royalties to China. I mean, what gives the west the right to declare what is a standard, anyway?

Re:key word "control"

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Tell you what, you should wait for a similar chatty email from a fellow spending some time in Taiwan. You might just get a different perspective.

EVERY Taiwanese person that I have ever met thinks that the island should be completely and formally a seperate nation. Oddly enough, every mainland chinese person that I've met disagrees and belives as you have stated. Most of them also believe that Tibet rightfully belongs to China too.

Here's why -- that's what they teach them in the schools. Both sides get a full load of propaganda growing up and it takes a serious amount of critical thinking for any of them to get beyond it.

However, despite my American-propaganda filled youth, I can independently say that it is absolutely true that while Taiwan and the mainland obivously share a strong cultural bond, their current-day societies are different enough that any such integration would be extremely difficult and very destructive to smaller of the two. Far worse than what is happening in HK.

Re:key word "control"

[agrounds]

I think the key here, and the point the parent poster was trying to make is that "it's not our country". Morality is not even a factor in this equation. That is their country and their internal dispute, and no other country has the right to intervene. That's why there are these things called 'borders'. Somehow this philosophy has been lost on recent administrations but it's validity exists nonetheless.

Re:key word "control"

[bluethundr]

A standard is what the majority of people use. Not what they want to use. Or what they should be using. Or what some foreign institution has taken it up to themselves to declare. Or whatever power abusing government or mega-corporation enforces. As such China's protocols are the standards, as far as they are concerned.

I remember taking a Chinese history course back in college. It was a requirement, and Eastern Studies had never really gripped my interests. But as we started it I became fascinated with the oceanic depth of their culture and history. I'm sorry I never persued it.

I remember that the *"People of Han" (as they called themselves) who founded the original Chin Dynasty considered themselves the center of the universe. So naturally, they too considered themselves the center of all culture and refinement. I see modern communism as a more contemporary expression of this belief. It seems almost bred into their cultural psychology. A very deep meme that is very difficult to erase.

So, while control may or may not have anything to do with the nature of IPv9, my interpretation of the matter (after taking that class) is that they are a very prideful people. It must irk them on some level that all of the important technologies (cars, computers, networking, flying, you name it) come from the west. Maybe this is their way of reasserting themselves as a force to be reckoned with. Which they are.


*Interestingly enough, they were so sure of their superiority that when they had their first runins with westerners they would make them cow-tow to the emperor. Which REALLY pissed off the European Nobles when they came to visit because cow-towing is literally debasing oneself in front of imperial greatness. Getting down on both knees and bowing repeatedly. The Chinese of that day (I forget what Dynasty it was) considered ALL westerners to be barbarians! I don't necessarily think they were wrong about that, after what I've learned about history.

The name "Han" actually meant in their language "The People" just as it does in almost all languages. It's the same in Navajo (Dine) and Cherokee (Tsalagee). Interestingly enough, when the Cherokee first encountered westerners THEY thought they were the most civilized people. They thought the Europeans were babrarous. Mainly because the English and other European languages have the 'b' and 'r' sound which sounded awful to them. It may seem odd that the Cherokees would have no 'r' sound. The reason for that is that the language of the main body of Cherokee speakers don't have those sounds and call themselves Tsalagee. Europeans totally misheard that sound and started calling them Cherokees.

Re:key word "control"

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats a load of crap. There are times when there is an obligation to help. Especially when people are being massacred or suffocated.

Re:key word "control"

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude there one billion people don't even have electricity, so any IPv9 deployment will not include all of one billion...

Re:key word "control"

[Anonymous Coward]

So I guess the French coming to the aid of those American rebels back in the late 1700's was a really bad idea.

Re:key word "control"

[Mad Marlin]

I think the key here, and the point the parent poster was trying to make is that "it's not our country". Morality is not even a factor in this equation. That is their country and their internal dispute, and no other country has the right to intervene. That's why there are these things called 'borders'. Somehow this philosophy has been lost on recent administrations but it's validity exists nonetheless.

When you are talking about countries, you are talking about soveriegn entities which, in spite of however much the United Nations might like it, are by definition completely under there own control. We have the right (a word that isn't appropriate to use in reference to nations) to intervene in anything that is convenient to us. It is in our best interest that Taiwan remains a free and democratic society, and not fall under the control of the mainland communists. It is most definitely in the best interests of the Taiwanese that they remain free.

Re:key word "control"

[mickwd]

"I remember that the *"People of Han" (as they called themselves) who founded the original Chin Dynasty considered themselves the center of the universe. So naturally, they too considered themselves the center of all culture and refinement. I see modern communism as a more contemporary expression of this belief. It seems almost bred into their cultural psychology. A very deep meme that is very difficult to erase."

So.....nothing like the modern-day USA then ?

Re:key word "control"

[Brandybuck]

That is their country and their internal dispute, and no other country has the right to intervene.

Except that it is NOT an internal dispute. China had a revolution and got split into two nations, PRC and ROC. They are both legitimate nations. There is a border between them.

Re:key word "control"

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you prideful (1) about that point?

Thanks for making the point about standards, though.

Re:key word "control"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also funny how many people misspell their SlashDot posts!

Here's a freebie: it's kow-tow, not "cow-tow".

(Unless you're from farm country... and you got the tractor stuck in the muck again.)

Re:key word "control"

[Anonymous Coward]

So, I take it you had no problem when Iraq went in and took over Kuwait.

I did.

But the reality is, China does not want to stampede over Taiwan. Taiwan really does not want to be separate from China. While you will certainly find extremists on both sides, they recognize the brief history they have had part.

When the two countries do butt heads, it's more for show to the other of their differences, not hostility.

China looks at Taiwan as a rogue, misdirected province. Taiwan looks at China as a country that has taken the wrong path. This is not a mentality that is going to lead to blows. To put it another way, if the US was not protecting Taiwan and Taiwan *somehow* (hard to see without the US as the counterweight but just bear with me) was still a rogue nation to China, if another country stupidly attacked Taiwan, I don't think China would hesitate long in protecting Taiwan (and not just for strategic purposes e.g. proximity of Taiwan to China).

Put it another way, there is greater animosity between Taiwan and Japan than there is between Taiwan and China. (On several levels, such as Taiwan under Japan control from the 1890s to 1940s and that the Japanese like to think Taiwan steals a lot of their tech.)

Re:key word "control"

[Anonymous Coward]

I think someone ought to set a date when Australia is handed back to its rightful owners.

Re:key word "control"

[bluethundr]

"I remember that the *"People of Han" (as they called themselves) who founded the original Chin Dynasty considered themselves the center of the universe. So naturally, they too considered themselves the center of all culture and refinement. I see modern communism as a more contemporary expression of this belief. It seems almost bred into their cultural psychology. A very deep meme that is very difficult to erase." So.....nothing like the modern-day USA then ?

No, you're absolutely right. American's do think that they're the center of the universe. I know because I am one. I'm a Jerseyite, I live very near Princeton which had beautiful minds and where Einstein's Unified Field Theory was first concocted. Plains, trains, automobiles, computers, networks all invented her in the good ol' rockin' US of friggin' A!

We are jingoisitic and think we are the center of the universe. But compare our piddling few hundred odd years to China's 7000 years or more!

But if you trace American culture, we basically go back to ye olde England to about the time of Cromwell or slightly before (history is not my forte). Until the late 1800s, most of American Society (around 70% I believe) was English/Irish in descent. After the turn of that century American Society was essentially re-made with an influx of new immigrants from the rest of Europe, including Germany, Poland, and Italy (for example). It was a time when our culture was "unravelling" (according to Strauss and Howe) in a period that was not unlike the what the past 20 years of American Society has been like. Scarily, eerily similar. No, no OJ's getting chased by police in White Ford Broncos down the 405, no Monica Lewinsky, no Punk Rock. But just like today, America was being thought anew to include all of the new cultures that were calling america home. It was also being shaken to it's foundations by spasmodic bursts of new technological developments like Movies, Telephones, the Automobile, and Flight. It was also a time when we first heard the beginnings of a dirty and dissident form of music known as...brace yourself...JAZZ!!!!!! *GASP*. I know hard to imagine, but Jazz was really regarded just that way by prominent members of our society instead of the rich subtle tapestry of powerful creative expression that it is.

So, what's been happening for the past 20 years? Well, computers have been around for a long while, but I really don't think the couch potatoes started buying them until they became of the internet at about the same time. We had dirty dissident punk and instrial, and indie rock and underground cinema. And the immigration is ENORMOUS and will definitely chage the way America thinks of itself. Latin American immigration is simply jaw-dropping. In the town I used to live in, almost everyone there is mono-lingual. And it ain't english! Whether your in a "latin neighborhood" or no, Spanish is on all the ATMs and an option for nearly all phone support calls. I think Spanish should be a high school requirement! Asian immigration is completely boundless as well. Up in Fort Lee NJ (right by the GW bridge) almost all of the street signs and business are in both Korean and English...or in just Korean. Including some street signs!

So a *DEFINITE* on my to-do list is to bone up on Spanish and to give Korean a serious go. While wer'e at it, why stop there? I'd also like to get to speaking

Re:key word "control"

[pilkul]

Taiwan will never voluntarily become a part of China until the mainland catches up with Taiwan's political system. Even then I think they probably won't be very happy with it: they've gotten to like their de facto independence and they really don't see any reason why they should be getting orders from the mainland. Taiwan has always pretty much been a separate country with a separate culture, and it's just been annexed to the empire periodically.

What I hope is that the mainland Chinese will become saner on this issue with time, and stop insisting on this useless annexation. It may be a false hope, though.

Re:key word "control"

[gid-goo]

Actually the chinese just don't like using stuff developed by other countries period. Look at SS7. There are no royalties for IPv6 or IPv4. There's pretty much zero reason to develop your own IP protocol except NIH.

Re:key word "control"

[astar]

I suspect by political system, you are referring to the "Washington Consensus" which is term referring to a set of policy prescriptions such as transparency, free-trade, and democratic institutions. Google it. Together, they are supposed to bring utopia world-wide. Myself, I am *mostly* happy with the Chinese government, primarily because they have a workable system for economic development and sovernignity. Actually, this relates to the original article in that avoiding dependence on foreign intellectual property is in this context just good sense.

Whatever country you from, I would challenge you to assert your political system is currently serving the general welfare as well as the Chinese political system.

Re:key word "control"

[silentbozo]

EVERY Taiwanese person that I have ever met thinks that the island should be completely and formally a seperate nation. Oddly enough, every mainland chinese person that I've met disagrees and belives as you have stated. Most of them also believe that Tibet rightfully belongs to China too.

Here's why -- that's what they teach them in the schools. Both sides get a full load of propaganda growing up and it takes a serious amount of critical thinking for any of them to get beyond it.

Actually, it's even more convoluted than that. Taiwan (aka Formosa, around the WWII era), which was formerly a colonial posession of Japan, who had taken it from China, was essentially invaded by the mainland remnants of Chian-kai-shek's army, who took over the island, imposed their power structure on the local populace, and continually declared that they were the one true government of all of China.

If you will, think of it as General Lee and what was left of the Confederate army, complete with families and other hangers-on, retreating to the island of Cuba, and declaring themselves the one true government of the USA. And, of course, declaring it illegal on the island of Cuba to speak any language than Standard English, and making it the sole goal of every citizen on the island to press for reunification with the mainland - with the Confederacy as the government.

For the longest time, the mention of independence was intolerable not only to the mainland communists, but also the mainland losers who controlled Taiwan - being a "political dissident" or an "intellectual" (ie, potential troublemaker) could literally get you shot. Mandarin was the only legal language you could speak in school, which is one of the reasons why many young Taiwanese speak Mandarin, while their parents speak both Mandarin and one of several other dialects, and their grandparents (as a legacy of the Japanese occupation) speak Japanese and their home dialect, but usually not Mandarin.

The "colonials" have essentially been separated from mainland China for the better part of a century now, and recently became freed of the restrictions of the Chiang-kai-shek era (ie, speaking languages other than Mandarin in school is allowed now, or so I hear.) The Kuomingtang (the mainlander political party in Taiwan) is no longer in control, which makes it permissible to talk about independence, rather than reunification, even if the President of Taiwan must tread a fine line.

However, despite my American-propaganda filled youth, I can independently say that it is absolutely true that while Taiwan and the mainland obivously share a strong cultural bond, their current-day societies are different enough that any such integration would be extremely difficult and very destructive to smaller of the two.

Actually, the cultural bond goes deeper than you might suspect. Chiang, on his way to fleeing the mainland, looted a lot of cultural treasures (sculptures, paintings, scrolls, etc.) A lot of those items are still in Taiwan, as far as I know, and the mainlanders, despite now having a different written language (they simplified their writing system), would dearly like to have all that back...

Re:key word "control"

[nyseal]

So, I guess, was the Americans coming to the rescue of the French in the 1900's. Hmm.

Re:key word "control"

[tigga]

If you will, think of it as General Lee and what was left of the Confederate army, complete with families and other hangers-on, retreating to the island of Cuba, and declaring themselves the one true government of the USA.

It's nice analogy, especially if you consider fact that Taiwan NEVER belonged to China.

Re:key word "control"

[tigga]

Myself, I am *mostly* happy with the Chinese government, primarily because they have a workable system for economic development and sovernignity.

I wonder why Hong Kong citizens are not happy. Maybe they know some magical words mainland Chinese do not know?

Like freedom of speech or selfgovernance?

Re:key word "control"

[pilkul]

I certainly do assert it. Not so much transparency and free trade (though I think they can do good), but the democratic institutions.

You're crediting the Chinese government for economic growth. Indeed, 10% growth is impressive stuff. But how hard is it really to grow at that rate when you're starting from an extremely poor population (per capita GDP 1/10th of the US) and you have a huge wealth of technologies to copy from more advanced countries? Japan did the exact same thing decades ago, and they did it with a democratic government. China's system for economic growth is no better than that of Western liberal democracies. They're growing fast for now, but if and when they become an advanced economy they'll grow in the 2-3% range like everybody else.

And I'm not sure what you mean with your sovereignty comment. Massing armed forces, blustering and pointing missiles is a workable system for sovereignty? If you want to see a really workable system for sovereignty, take a look at Canada and Quebec, where they have well-disciplined referendums and legal procedures for the eventuality of separation. And more generally, Chinese foreign policy is not so well-advised; they are too chummy with North Korea and unreasonably hostile to Japan over 50-year-old grudges.

And there are bigger problems with China. Censorship, shooting dissidents and crushing religions you don't like is not acceptable in my book. Nor are massive ill-advised dam projects displacing millions of peasants (who in general are not at all well off in China today). Nor is being ruled by a dynasty of secretive, totally unaccountable technocrats who may or may not be acting in China's best interest.

Essentially the only thing China is currently doing right is their double-digit growth, and as I explained above it has been done by other countries in their shoes and mainly requires stability, avoiding corruption and being open to free trade --- essentially, just not screwing up. Considering the many obvious problems with the Chinese government, I don't at all understand how you can claim it is superior to Western liberal democracies. There is no evidence for that claim.

Re:key word "control"

[astar]

Big demonstrations recently in Hong Kong and they have the right of it AFAIK. Note this does look a little bit like freedom of speech and assembly, if you have the muscle for it, which is the usual rule. As far as self-governance, I live in the state of Washington, and we have limited self-goverance out here and get along pretty well.

Re:key word "control"

[trh]

You should really check out the book "1421: The Year China Discovered the World". It's absolutely fascinating, and is written by a retired British naval officer. Quite a good read.

http://www.1421.tv/

Oh, and they're having a PBS special in the US on July 21st about this book.

Re:key word "control"

[TigerTale]

Sooner or later, if China stays on its current path, they will arrive at the point where they think they can get away with an invasion. And all I can say is, I sure as hell hope there's a moderate in the White House on that particular day.

And the Taiwanese sure as hell hope there is a conservative in the White House on that particular day.

Re:key word "control"

[HungWeiLo]

Look what's happening in Hong Kong this very moment where they are no longer allowed to choose their own leadership.

Actually, Hong Kong has never in its history of existence been able to select its own leadership. After being leased to the British from the Qing government, the British appointed its governors just like all its other colonies.

Re:key word "control"

[astar]

I specifically used the words "general welfare", which I consider working for to be the basis of legitimacy of a government. (as so considered did our Founding Fathers) Your government, assuming it is the United States, is of questionable legitimacy and not simply on the grounds of election results. I think democratic republics are really a good approach, but I do not assume they automatically are worth anything but potential.

On your Japan example, I note that they had McArthur.

On your aggressive foreign policy position, I thought of U.S. foreign and trade policy and just shook my head. The Chinese are trying to preserve their soverignty by resisting U.S. pressure and doing a good job. Three cheers for them.

On your Three Georges Dam complaint, I like the dam, particularly given that the major limiter on Chinese economic development is a shortage of electricity. I also like big development projects in general. I think these infrastructure projects drive the economy. And that is the centerpiece of what the Chinese are doing right.

Re:key word "control"

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a dynamic address. The price of a static address is more. Isn't that because IPv4 doesn't have room enough? If so I hope the chinese standard spreads around the world.

Re:key word "control"

[Fat Cow]

Look what's happening in Hong Kong this very moment where they are no longer allowed to choose their own leadership

they were allowed to choose before? i thought that they were ruled by a british governer

Re:key word "control"

[Anonymous Coward]

China sees us as warlords holding temporary advantage due to the outcome of WWII. Chinese warlords have always extorted horrific tribute/taxation from their subjects, but wrapped it in a framework of celestial-academic (or, more recently, communist-rhetorical) self-justification. This is what they think we're doing to them when we say "you have to pay us billions of dollars because (mumble software patent mumble genome license mumble royalty blah blah)".

That is what we're doing to them when we say that.

Re:key word "control"

[Anonymous Coward]

How much time did you waste posting that shite? What garbage!

Re:key word "control"

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't half of those still in China?

Re:key word "control"

[Anonymous Coward]

Never is a very strong word. The island of Formosa was forcibly taken from the Dutch by Ming loyalists at the beginning of the Qing dynasty, in 1662. This is quite a famous battle; the general Zheng Cheng Gong overran superior forces, camped out in a sea fort, who were armed with guns and "modern" european weaponry. General Zheng had swords and bows.

It is considered one of the greatest strategic victories in the history of warfare. Eventually, once Qing rule became so entrenched that he could not oppose the clear mandate from heaven, Zheng made peace with the Qing and Formosa was reintegrated into the Middle Kingdom.

As I understand it, Taiwan had been, at various times, controlled (at least in name) by the Son of Heaven before the Dutch arrived as well.

Of course, one could argue that in the days before electronic communication, long range weapons, and such, an island such as Taiwan never really had to give up its own culture and heritage and that its "control" by the Emperor was largely ceremonial. The crops need planting and the emperor is so far away, goes the old Chinese proverb.

Still, to the Chinese, their historical claim on Taiwan does indeed exist.

But more importantly, it's a matter of Face. Chiang Kai Shek was a backstabbing, murderous asshat. So was Mao, of course; no one (except maybe Dr. Sun Yat Sen) in those days was the kind of guy you'd want your daughter to date let alone get anywhere near.

No one has forgotten the Communist Roundup in Shanghai, essentially a massacre. It's about face, and about submission. The Mainland government sees this as finishing what it started. If they had fled to Australia and established a government there, the Mainland would feel the same way.

As far as I'm concerned, history isn't a very good reason to say you own a place when you clearly don't. Like a previous poster said, no Taiwanese person I have ever met has considered himself to be Chinese in the mainland sense (or wants reunification). And no mainlander I have ever spoken to (I live on the mainland) has been willing to even consider the possibility that Taiwan is not China. I've had fights with my girlfriend about it.

The Chinese argument that Taiwan was once China and so should be China again is like saying that Germany was once France (or vice versa) and so the two should be one nation, speaking one language, etc. Historically, there may be precedent. But look at the two countries now, for christs sake!

Re:key word "control"

[pilkul]

Anyway, I've put my argument forward, and I don't think your response refutes it. I'll just address this point because it's factually inaccurate:

On your Japan example, I note that they had McArthur.

The SCAP left very early, I don't remember the exact date but it was around or before the Korean war. The Japanese economic "miracle" began well after MacArthur left, in the 1960s and 1970s. Ascribing Japanese economic growth to him is completely wrong because for most of his term he was actively trying to shrink the Japanese economy, to prevent them from ever again building an army that could threaten the United States. The United States only changed its tune when the Cold War started and they realized Japan was actually an ally.

Re:key word "control"

[jmorris42]

> I think the key here, and the point the parent poster was trying to
> make is that "it's not our country".

So? We fight for our vital national interests. We fought Saddam once over the oilfields of Kuwait and once to drain the swamp in the Middle East. We would and should defend Taiwan to keep the semiconductor fabs in friendly hands, to in other words ,ensure the free flow of DRAM at market prices.

Defending Free Societies is also protecting a vital national interest. If China were to invade, Taiwain would ask for our help and we should stand with them on pure moral principle. The Arsonal of Democracy doesn't just exist to defend Great Britain and France from German adventurism.

> That is their country and their internal dispute, and no other country
> has the right to intervene.

Bull. Go read your history book again. Here is one example for free; The main reason for Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was to keep the French from extending diplomatic recognition to the CSA, which would of course meant the end to the naval blocade of CSA ports.

> That's why there are these things called 'borders'.

No, borders seperate soverign powers. Relations between soverign powers is, has always been and probably always be governed by the rule of the jungle. Because by definition a soverign power isn't answerable to anyone for their actions except the community of other soverign nations. Right is usually defined by what one has the Might to get away with.

Fortunately the US has been pretty enlightened in it's uses of naked force compared to most of the other soverign states that have found themselves ascendent. Probably because we had good 'parenting' by the British. Despite the unpleasantness with King George and our forefathers, the British weren't half bad defacto rulers of the world in their day.

Re:key word "control"

[astar]

I will stand by my statement. Although it was a pretty innocent statement as given, it is intended to reflect that McArthur was part of the American System networks, and Carey, Lincoln's economist, was widely read during and after McArthur. I think you have an overly simple view of how economies work and do not work if you think McArthur's influence on Japan ended when he went to Korea. Then again, you may be sufficiently young that you have not seen a properly working economy up close.

Re:key word "control"

[tehanu]

Kneeling and the kow-tow is normal in Chinese culture. I have to kow-tow when offering sacrifices to my grandfather's shrine. The Chinese forcing Westerners to kow-tow to the Emperor had nothing whatsoever to do with them thinking Westerners were inferior (they did think it but the kow-towing part is not related to this belief). It is part of standard court procedure like say bowing to the king. Everyone had to do it, no matter how high or low they are or what nationality they were. The highest general, the chancellor and even the crown prince had to do it so why shouldn't the English/US/German abassador? *I* have to do it at my grand-father and my great-grand parents' shrines. To the Chinese, the Westerner's refusal to kow-tow would have been considered extremely rude. It would be like if you introduced the US ambassador to Queen Elizabeth and instead of bowing, he put his arm around her and ruffled her hair.

Re:key word "control"

[fbg111]

Somehow this philosophy has been lost on recent administrations but it's validity exists nonetheless.

It hasn't been lost, it has been purposefully discarded, and rightfully so. Morality is a factor and always will be when dealing with totalitarianism. You can argue the moral relativist side all day, saying that there is no universal absolute standard of morality and that ethics are only what each society decides they are, and hence this is an "internal debate". And while I don't presume to be a philosopher capable of arguing relativism vs. absolutism, let me just point out that relativism had a shitty track record the past century, directly responsible for scores of millions of state-sponsored murders. Just becuase countries have borders does not justify us condoning their controlling, oppressive, manipulative governments.

Re:key word "control"

[Anonymous Coward]

Plains, trains, automobiles, computers, networks all invented her in the good ol' rockin' US of friggin' A!

Planes, and networks, yes. I assume you put the rest in there to prove your point that the US Americans think they are the center of the Universe?

Re:key word "control"

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he's just trying to prove that if you make a really long post on Slashdot, it will get moderated up by people who say: "Wow! That's a long post, it must be Insightful!".

Re:key word "control"

[Scott Robinson]

And that it would be the Union army, and not the Confederate army that fled?

Re:key word "control"

[3riol]

But China's protocols are enforced by a power-abusing government, and aren't used by a majority of people in China anyway. The news post itself says it's only been tested in Shanghai for now. Your post contradicts itself.

Re:key word "control"

[bluethundr]

You should really check out the book "1421: The Year China Discovered the World". It's absolutely fascinating, and is written by a retired British naval officer. Quite a good read.

http://www.1421.tv/

Oh, and they're having a PBS special in the US on July 21st about this book.

Excellent advice, sir! I thank you for that! It will go on my reading list.

Re:key word "control"

[Jahf]

(replying to a score:0 in case you're not sure what this is about)

Dude you haven't been to China.

Are some of them without electricity and "modern" lifestyle? Sure. Is the percentage higher than the percentage of Amish in the U.S.? Most definitely.

However a significant amount of the population today in China DOES have a "modern" lifestyle. Do you know why there is such an oil shortage? Because China and India have been expanding the number of cars per capita DRASTICALLY in the last 2 years and there is no end in site.

And my statement was a generalization ... of the 5+ Billion non-Chinese that I mentioned a significant percentage also do not have electricity or networked computers.

Fact of the matter is that China has declared they plan on migrating 200 Million computers to Linux in the next couple of years. 200 MILLION. And those are computers that are in some form under the direction of the government. There may not be 1 Billion chinese people using IPv9 but I wouldn't be surprised if in 5 years there ARE 1 Billion Chinese -adresses- using it. That is still a very significant number no matter how you slice it.

Re:key word "control"

[TACD]

So if there is a 'war that changes the world' in America's future... maybe John Titor was right?

;)

Re:key word "control"

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Plains, trains, automobiles, computers, networks all invented her in the good ol' rockin' US of friggin' A!

Sorry to burst your patriotic bubble, but:

• Plains - France (Ader flew first powered plane)
• Trains - Britain (Stephenson locomotive)
• Automobiles - Germany (Karl Benz - yea the one and the same Benz of "Mercedes Benz")
• Computers - Britain (the WWII cypher cracking Colossus)
• Networks - Britain (Donald Davies is the dude who put the "P" in the TCP/IP as he invented the term "packet switching network")

Jolly good jingoistic try though. Keep up the good trolling.

Re:key word "control"

[Anonymous Coward]

Please quote the points that you are responding to. Slashdot stops indenting after so many levels, so unless your post is right after the post you are responding to, it's hard to tell what's what.

Re:key word "control"

[Anonymous Coward]

there own control

"their".

Re:key word "control"

[Anonymous Coward]

So ... you're basically a warmonging nation then?
Doesn't fit very well into a peace-striving world community, does it?

You are defining The Good-ol-US-of-A as a nation that needs to have a External enemy, unable to deal with it's own issues without blaming someone else. Unfourtunately, this definition is quite truthful, and thats really, really disturbing.

Re:key word "control"

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, it's only tested in small region of Shanghai.
But i should say, the government have a lot of dept, and diff dept have diff action. One maybe support IPv9, but another won't.
For example, WAPI -- chinese WLAN standard against Wi-Fi, had been suspend without day.
High-level of chinese gov only use it as chip of negotiate.
So take it easy.

Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just think of all the additional free-thought-squelching capacity China has now!

Re:Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the Bush administration must be absolutely green with envy!

Welcome China

[lpret]

We welcome our new Chinese overlords. The beer is in the fridge.

Read this: So far, China is the only country in the world that has consolidated domain names, IP addresses and MAC addresses into ten-digit text files. China and the United States are currently the only two countries that possess root domain name analysis servers, IP address servers, independent domain names, IP addresses and MAC address sources.

Re:Welcome China

[AndroidCat]

And now they've got Spock's ears.

Standards?

[kai5263499]

Does anyone have a link to an RFC detailing the IPv9 standard? Or did China just decide that they needed that much more addressing space and create thatir own standard?

Re:Standards?

[jea6]

There is a 1994 RFC here: http://rfc.net/rfc1606.html. Everything else Google came up with was in Chinese and, thus, just as unusable!

Re:Standards?

[aled]

1300000000 Chinese people may disagree.

Re:Standards?

[Fnkmaster]

Try this one: RFC 1347. IPv9 is another name for the TUBA protocol (see here), which was apparently a competing proposal of IPv6 for big-number addressing with TCP and UDP that has never been put into broad use. Some people seem to think it's superior to IPv6 in some ways, but I was under the impression that it's largely deprecated at this point. Obviously some people are still using it - perhaps they are using it as an interim solution until they can transition to IPv6 (when everyone else does - which will be a cold day in hell).

Re:Standards?

[bruns]

Well, when you keep handing out your only IP blocks to spammers, and then giving them more and more blocks whenever they get blacklisted... Yeah, I could see you needing more IP addresses quickly.

Perhaps if they tossed the spammers off their network, they might free up some /16s and such and be able to give some of it back to the rest of the world, which might actually have a legit use for those IP ranges.

Re:Standards?

[macdaddy]

RFC? We (they) don't need no stinkin' RFC!

RFC

[Simon (S2)]

here

Re:RFC

[Zarhan]

This is the old April fools joke, yes, but I have to ask if this is some sort of new thing. Doing a Google search for IPv9 returns bunch of IETF mailing list postings talking about that joke, and then loads of chinese pages. Is the article a new and improved version of the joke or something that really exists?

Re:RFC

[bitflip]

My tongue in cheek theory: The Chinese didn't know it was a joke, and rushed to implement it.

Re:RFC

[rsidd]

My tongue in cheek theory: The Chinese didn't know it was a joke, and rushed to implement it.

Could be: they have had trouble understanding American jokes in the past.

Re:RFC

[kasperd]

It wouldn't be the first time somebody implemented an April fools RFC.

Re:RFC

[Anonymous Coward]

But it would be, quite likely, the first time it was done without actually understanding it was an April Fools RFC....

Re:RFC

[GiMP]

Not an RFC, but another great joke gone to implementation

IPv9

[Amiga Lover]

IPV9, for when being able to individually address every single particle in the entire universe just isn't enough.

Re:IPv9

[Anonymous Coward]

IPV9, for when being able to individually address every single particle in the entire universe just isn't enough.

At some point in the future we might need to address the particles that are currently swapped out.

Re:IPv9

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe they expect to address particles in other universes and/or alternate timelines...

Re:IPv9

[Jesus_666]

Well, there are many people in China...

Re:IPv9

[shokk]

As if the PRC is going to allow those people to use the IP addresses on communication devices with which to freely express themselves. To think that a human being can't say "I think this policy is crap" without fear of having their head beaten in and being starved in a jail. Instead, I see a lot of IP based monitoring devices going into place.

Re:IPv9

[Patrick]

IPV9, for when being able to individually address every single particle in the entire universe just isn't enough.

Are you claiming that ipv6 has enough addresses for every particle in the universe? It doesn't. IPv6 has 2^128, or about 10^40 addresses. Even assuming 100% utilization of the available space, you're still a factor of 10^40 or more away from covering every particle in the universe.

Re:IPv9

[roshi]

IPV9, for when being able to individually address every single particle in the entire universe just isn't enough.

At some point in the future we might need to address the particles that are currently swapped out.

It's worse than you think. With all the virtual particles fizzing in and out of existence, it seems we're swapping constantly.... and our swap partition is HUGE.

Re:IPv9

[Anonymous Coward]

My organisation is responsible for developing a router at the root level to route traffice between parallel universes. The router itself needs to reserve 2^32 address prefix for the developed as well as undeveloped networks in those universes.

IPV4-IPV6-IPV9-???

[Anonymous Coward]

As everyone knows, a standard IPV4 engine has enough power for a small sedan. IPV6 adds cylinders to add extra power for sportier performance. And now, IPV9 improves incrementally on IPV8 by adding an extra cylinder hanging off the side.

Of course, I'll beat them all when I announce my patented IPV12 (tm).

Re:IPV4-IPV6-IPV9-???

[DerPflanz]

That would be IPv13 ...

Re:IPV4-IPV6-IPV9-???

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no...
IPv9 is 3xIPv3...

Re:IPV4-IPV6-IPV9-???

[DMUTPeregrine]

Oh Yeah? Well I have a new: TCP/TJ protocol. TurboJet will beat your v12 all the way. http://www.gordon-glasgow.org/thrustssc.html

Welcome to last week

[iamdrscience]

My computer is setup to use both IPv4 and IPv6, that makes IPv10! One bigger than IPv9! Eat that, China!

Re:Welcome to last week

[Zarhan]

My computer is setup to use both IPv4 and IPv6, that makes IPv10! One bigger than IPv9! Eat that, China!

While YOU are making this as a joke, I have a personal anecdote that really made my skin crawl. My (telco) company execs routinely used a term "11.5G", referring to "11.5 generation network", meaning 2G (GSM) + 2,5G (GPRS) + 3G (UMTS/WCDMA) + 4G (WiFi) concurrently.

Luckily, that buzzword was later changed to something about seamless mobility or something, basically just meaning that a terminal can roam between different radio network technologies. But for crying out loud, they really thought that this BIG number shows us being years ahead or something..

Re:Welcome to last week

[TheGavster]

The same could be said for WinAmp5, the skins of WinAmp3 overlayed on the clearly superior engine of WinAmp2.

Re:Welcome to last week

[sketerpot]

Shouldn't that be 2.875G? Or is that too many digits?

Re:Welcome to last week

[roybentley]

Winamp 5 is named such because "who wants a Winamp foreskin?"

Re:Welcome to last week

[bXTr]

My computer is setup to use both IPv4 and IPv6, that makes IPv10!

But, mine goes to 11.

Re:Welcome to last week

[jpmkm]

But these go to IPv11. You are over there computing all day at IPv10. Where can you go? Nowhere. When we need that extra network boost, we can go to IPv11.

Re:Welcome to last week

[Anonymous Coward]

Informative? You dumb fucks I'm just going to stop posting if you stupid shitheads mod like that. I just don't understand how anybody could find my post informative.

And what about IPv7 ?

[dougmc]

My first instinct was to check the calender ... nope, not April 1st ...

Which department is this from? The jumping-the-gun dept ... no clues there that this is a joke.

Then I looked at my keyboard. The 9 key is right above the 6 key. One could easily mean to type IPv6 and accidently type IPv9. Could that explain it? Of course, that wouldn't explain why somebody would say this is is compatible with both IPv4 and IPv6 ...

I can't read the article itself, since it seems to have fallen under the /. effect. So I guess I just won't know if 1) this is a joke, 2) a typo, or 3) China doing something different from the rest of the world just because they can. It's usually #3, so that's my guess.

Re:And what about IPv7 ?

[Chess_the_cat]

The 9 key is only above the 6 key if you don't know how to type properly. The numeric keypad is for data entry only sir. Thank you.

Re:And what about IPv7 ?

[gumpish]

Please shut up, okthxbye.

Re:And what about IPv7 ?

[ShallowThroat]

yes, because only the numeric keypad is for data entry. the rest of the keyboard is for eating of course.

yum.

Re:And what about IPv7 ?

[GreyWolf3000]

You're pretty sad if you had to pretend that the parent wasn't joking in order to sound smarter than him just to give yourself a chuckle and "pat on the pack."

Re:And what about IPv7 ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, I've eaten all but two keys on my keyboard, I only need the 0 and 1 on the numerical keyboard.

I see how this works

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Examine existing American IPV4 system, create a modified version to facilitate snooping^H^H^H^H^H^H virus protection.

2. ???

3. Profit!

Re:I see how this works

[HungSquirrel]

That episode OWNS.

Re:I see how this works

[dasmegabyte]

China is a communist nation, sir.

There is no Profit. Only power.

Re:I see how this works

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the economic system has undergone alot of liberalization, there is now a large percentage of private industries, either home grown or international, why do you think china's economy is doing so well?

China is communist in government, and in it's control of state industries. But it is not soviet russia, there is a large ammount of private companies and international investment.

A good thing for Spam

[BWindle]

This is a good thing for spam. Just wait until all of China is using IPv9, then figure out a way to drop any packets that have passed thru IPv9 routers; suddenly no more Chinese packets, and no more spam.

Re:A good thing for Spam

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes because it's so hard to drop chinese packets now.

Re:A good thing for Spam

[Anonymous Coward]

That is quite racist to say. Let me tell you : close to 100 % of all my spam is in english. A better idea would be to drop everything with english in it. That would work much better against spam

Re:A good thing for Spam

[Anonymous Coward]

Except... that almost all spam originates from the USA.

April fools joke?

[bollow (a) NoLockIn]

The article is full of nonsense words, so apart for the July date I'd suspect an april fool's joke.

Googling for IP V9 reveals an april fool's joke from 1994:

RFC 1606
RFC 1607

Re:April fools joke?

[Siva]

yeah...those RFC's are from 1994, and the article does say "After ten years of research and development..."

Re:April fools joke?

[Anonymous Coward]

The July date is easily explained by one simple fact:

The Chinese do not celebrate April Fools.

Sounds like someone over there took those RFCs seriously!

Re:April fools joke?

[OverlordQ]

Actually IPv9 is TUBA. Which is described in RFC1347.

Re:April fools joke?

[Fnkmaster]

I thought the same when I first read the summary, it's filled with meaningless goop-words. But "China IPV9" does return other hits in Google that lead me to believe this is at least semi-legitimate. See this company, or this powerpoint presentation. Apparently "IPv9", in addition to being used in those April 1st RFCs actually refers to something called TUBA (TCP and UDP with Bigger Addresses), an alternative "big number" addressing protocol to IPv6 that is described in RFC 1347 (see this post for example).

The original RFC is here.

Re:April fools joke?

[nyseal]

Well, I guess if it's not in a Google search it CAN'T be true. Sheesh.

Ten Digit Computing

[Anonymous Coward]

I have two Ten Digit computers--the first one I call a "digital" computer, and the second one is currently in my shoes and socks.

Works great unless I want to count higher than 10, in which case I have to "network" the two computers so I can count to 20.

Re:Ten Digit Computing

[hugesmile]

I have two Ten Digit computers--the first one I call a "digital" computer

Imagine my disappointment when I found out that my "Digital Prostate Exam" didn't mean that it was computerized.

What a pain in the a$$.

Re:Ten Digit Computing

[Mudcathi]

Imagine my disappointment when I found out that my "Digital Prostate Exam" didn't mean that it was computerized.

Yeah, but at least now the whole world knows that you're "open source."

(Unless you're "open sores" - which would be way too much information!)

Re:Ten Digit Computing

[myndzi]

If you do it right, you can count to 1024... or 1048576 if you are really flexible!

-myndzi

End

[ThisNukes4u]

This is but the beginning of the end.

Re:So...

[xYoni69x]

Does that mean those spamming chinks are off of our internet?

Phrased as flamebait, but a good question. A large percentage of the spam comes from China. Certain spam filters, such as SpamPal, have options to reject all mail coming from China, Taiwan, Korea, Russia, and similarly spammy countries.

Obligatory Great Firewall of China reference

[panurge]

In a way this could be a Good Thing for the rest of us. The longer the Chinese Government tries to keep out the round eye foreign devils outside the Wall, and protect its people from harmful influences (like democracy) and from questioning why party officials have Ferraris and peasants are still allowed to pull plows by hand, the longer it will be before the Chinese Empire takes over from the US Empire. If you think the Bush attitude to global warming, pollution and the rights of the citizen is backward, it's probably better for your blood pressure not to ask about China.

Last week there was a large pro-democracy rally in Hong Kong, which was (shamefully) handed over to the Chinese by the British in 1997, in circumstances that were never envisaged in the original treaty. The British built Hong Kong into a capitalist economy, educated the Chinese and taught them all about Western systems of government, and then said "Well, forget all that stuff about the Rights of Man and government by the people, we're handing you over to the 800lb gorilla who thinks Genghis Khan was an enlightened ruler." The people of Hong Kong seem, so some reason, to think this was a retrograde step. I guess the Chinese Government doesn't want that sort of thing happening in Shanghai or Beijing, and turning their back on the rest of the world may look like a good way to maintain the status quo.

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China reference

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

I guess the Chinese Government doesn't want that sort of thing happening in Shanghai or Beijing, and turning their back on the rest of the world may look like a good way to maintain the status quo.

Well, they've done it before. Remember that the Portugese sailing east bumped into Chinese traders working their way westward ... then the emperor died and the fleets were burned.

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China reference

[BWS]

You're right, but there is confusion between "Hong Kong" and "Hong Kong the Island" and that's where you're getting stuck. "Hong Kong the Island" was permantly given to the British and the origional treaty never had any stipulations about return to China. But what you don't mention and is the important thing is "Kwoloon". Kwoloon is a penisula (sp?) which is part of China given to the British after the Boxer Rebellion in 1898 for 99 years.

When people refer to "Hong Kong" now they refer to "Hong Kong Island", "Kwoloon", and a bunch of much smaller island. The vast majority of the population live in "Hong Kong Island" and "Kwoloon", with less then 5% living in the smaller island.

By treaty stipulations, again which China still claims were forced upon them, Kwoloon was to be returned to China in 1997. If the British just return "Kwoloon" as by treaty and kept "Hong Kong Island", it would be totaly redilicious. It would be like diving London into two pieces and saying this half now belong to France and you need a visa to cross between them.

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China reference

[BWS]

that's divding London int two pieces...

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China reference

[kundor]

It might be totally ridiculous, but it's been done many times before (Jerusalem, for example.) If what you say is true, perhaps the british have learned something from their previous escapades.

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China reference

[xstein]

Highly informative post. While hoping not to stray too far off topic, just wanted to add a little bit. While the British lease on "Hong Kong" (like you said, Kowloon, in particular all that was north of the Yau Ma Tei/Prince Edward area) was set to expire, the British wanted to keep the land permanently, but were faced by strong Chinese opposition, who essentially said they would build another Berlin wall dividing their land and Hong Kong Island, which would severely cripple the regions infrastructure, and essentially ruin the lives of all those living in Hong Kong. The British gave China their land to prevent this from happening, for the sake of all those living in Hong Kong, and to allow Hong Kong to remain on its track to prosperity as a port and hub to greater China. They did so, however, under a compromise that would force China to promise Hong Kong Basic Law and Hong Kong's free market economy would remain unharmed for 50 years. July 1st, the anniversary of Hong Kong's handover to the Chinese, draws citywide protests, which the Chinese have cleverly embraced and encouraged residents to do the same, as a celebration of national pride, unity, and patriotism.

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China Reference

[wan-fu]

Let's remove some of that misinformation, shall we?

First of all, things are not as easy as they seem. Maybe you think it is easy to distribute the wealth in China to all its people, but think about the logistics of it. China has a landmass comparable to the US with over 1.3 billion citizens. Getting the wealth from the coast to the inland areas is not easily feasible and it is one of the major economic reforms China is trying right now. In fact, the government attempts more and more to encourage development inland.

Party officials certainly do not "drive Ferraris." Yes, some party officials are better off than the people, but that's case even in the US. The salaries that the politicians make in the US put them into the upper-middle class.

If you think the Bush attitude to global warming, pollution and the rights of the citizen is backward, it's probably better for your blood pressure not to ask about China.
China actually does care about the environment. For example, during all years of schooling, children are required to learn about environmental issues in ways ranging from lectures to taking care of plants. Yes, citizens' rights is a concern, however, refer to a comment I have posted previously, It's 2004 People.

Last week there was a large pro-democracy rally in Hong Kong, which was (shamefully) handed over to the Chinese by the British in 1997, in circumstances that were never envisaged in the original treaty.
It was certainly not "shamefully" handed back to the Chinese. First, HK was rightfully part of China until the British took it by force and trickery. Instead of assuming the eurocentric viewpoint (you seem to imply a preference of Western education and government), let's examine the history: The opium wars... where the British addicted millions of Chinese to opium and then used force to get better trade negotiations and Hong Kong. It's not a shame that HK was returned to its rightful owner. Hong Kong is still a major economic center in Asia today under China's rule.

The British built Hong Kong into a capitalist economy, educated the Chinese and taught them all about Western systems of government
I disagree. Regardless of who ruled Hong Kong, it would have turned into a great economic force. It is one of the most important ports in Asia and it cannot be ignored.

we're handing you over to the 800lb gorilla who thinks Genghis Khan was an enlightened ruler
You want to cite your sources on this one? Genghis Khan ruled China by force, no one liked him, and he was overthrown by the Chinese because they hated him (Yuan dynasty, one of the only non-Han dynasties). That's hardly the kind of action the people would show for "an enlightened ruler."

I'm not criticizing you in particular, there are a lot of posts similar to yours on /. in general. Yours happened to have a bunch of the topics I wanted to address. I'm not saying China is the greatest place to live either, but let's give it some credit.

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China reference

[1u3hr]

But what you don't mention and is the important thing is "Kwoloon". Kwoloon is a penisula (sp?) which is part of China given to the British after the Boxer Rebellion in 1898 for 99 years.

It's "Kowloon" (and "peninsula"). HK Island was ceded in 1842, the southern part of Kowloon, up to Boundary Street, was added in 1858 in perpetuity. The rest, the "New Territories" was under the 99-year lease from 1898. Actually, the majority of the population still lives in the "perpetually British" part.

The problem is, that Hong Kong's existence is and always has been as a an entrepot for China trade. Even during the Cultural Revolution this role continued. Once Margaret Thatcher had rather stupidly opened the subject of extending the lease, which Deng Xiao Ping was apparently quite willing to allow to continue by default, it was impossible for China to lose face and allow this. And now they have many ports that do direct trade with the ret of the world, Hong Kong's role was not essential. Not to mention that HK doens't have enough fresh water for its population and buys it from China.

The whole legal basis for the treaties is moot, anyway, as they were signed with the Chinese Imperial government, and there have been two revolutions since then. Not to mention the fact that the 6 million inhabitants of Hong Kong, many born under British rule, were given no say at all in their fate, and though some were allowed British passports, the UK government was terrified of a Yellow Horde of refugees and severely limited the number.

The democracy march on July 1st, supposedly a celebration of the handover, had between 350-500,000 people, perhaps a tenth of the poulation. The aim is toshow Beijing that we aren't happy with the idiot businessman they put in charge, that we do want to elect our own leaders.

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China Reference

[Fnkmaster]

While I agree with much of what you say, I think your viewpoint is annoyingly anti-Eurocentrist. Hong Kong, and thereby China as a whole, benefitted immensely from the British occupation of HK, the creation of a stable bureaucracy, system of laws, educational system, local elections, and positive business environment. This backdrop created an immense amount of wealth and success for the people of Hong Kong, and given them a standard of living today they couldn't hope for if it hadn't been for the British occupation. This doesn't make the actions of 100-year-ago, now long dead British parliament members or prime ministers morally right, but it DOES mean people today living in HK should look back and appreciate what the British system as a whole did for their country.

I would point to India as another shining example of the success of Britain's colonial system - the educational system, widespread use of the English language, robust trade in urban centers, trade links to the rest of the world, relatively stable democratic system of government, these all came from the British system. Sure, the people of India are better off as an independent nation, not having their wealth shipped off to England, but their rapidly rising position in the world wouldn't be possible if it hadn't been for their place as a British colonial territory. Sure, we can bitch all we want about outsourcing, but right now India is reaping the benefits of their position.

I am not British, for the record, I'm American. And I have friends who are Indian who despite their national pride and harm done to their families or regions under British rule, privately admit that there have been a lot of long term benefits reaped from colonialism too. I think the British get knocked too much for the ill they supposedly did and get insufficient credit for the good they did. It's not that I think the people of these countries were barbaric heathens before the British came, nor that without the British they would have sat around in Stone Age squalor, but I'd imagine many people in Hong Kong today are looking back on British rule and realizing that despite their love for Chinese culture and their feelings of national pride, the British did a damn good job at maintaining a free, stable system that benefited everybody there, and the Chinese government will continue to see the Western mindset of the people of Hong Kong as a threat to their control of the mainland.

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China reference

[1u3hr]

The British gave China their land to prevent this from happening, for the sake of all those living in Hong Kong,

No, this was so the UK could get trade concessions from China. The people of Hong Kong were given no thought or care. The "guarantees"for HK peopel's rights in the "Basic Law" (handover treaty) have been steadily broken and weakened. Most recently by the ruling out of elections in 2007, though the Basic Law allowed this.

July 1st, the anniversary of Hong Kong's handover to the Chinese, draws citywide protests, which the Chinese have cleverly embraced and encouraged residents to do the same, as a celebration of national pride, unity, and patriotism.

What?? The Chinese, by which I assume you mean the Beijing government and their appointees in HK, did their best to downplay and discourage attendance, but knowing that being too heavy handed would not go down well, especially in the world press, had to let it proceed.

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China reference

[ahornby]

Er, the thames already does that ;^)

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China Reference

[1u3hr]

Party officials certainly do not "drive Ferraris."

Of course not, They drive Mercedes.

It's not a shame that HK was returned to its rightful owner.

The China that HK was a part of was Imperial China. This country does not exist any more. It's just as true, and just as irrelevant to say that the Communists stole China from its "rightful" owner, the Emperor.

And we're not talking about real estate, but 6 million people who were delivered to the rule of a government that many had risked their lives to escape from when they came to Hong Kong, of their own free will.

Genghis Khan ruled China by force, no one liked him

One thing I have to agree with, he wasn't even Chinese. However, Mao Zedong was, he did kill upwards of 50 million in the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, when of course people were risking their lives to escape in to Hong Kong.

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China Reference

[character_assassin]

China actually does care about the environment.

Thank you for that uproarious moment of coffe-spitting hilarity. Do a litle research on the Three Gorges Dam, or on Shanghai air quality, or on Chinese mining practices, or pretty much any Chinese environmental practice. Then get back to us.

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China Reference

[gordon_schumway]

Yes, citizens' rights is a concern, however, refer to a comment I have posted previously, It's 2004 People.

I think you underestimate the repressiveness of the Chinese government. Let's not forget that this is the same government that massacred hundreds or thousands of pro-democracy protesters in front of CNN's cameras. And, for the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, they shutdown access to the Square and 'disappeared' activists!

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China Reference

[blamblamblam]

There are a lot of painful truths about colonization, such as the examples of India, Hong Kong, etc. One other one to consider is the Japanese occupation of Korea in the early 20th century, as there is much evidence that the seeds of modern Korean industry and market structure were planted in the colonial era by the Japanese, or those Koreans who were attached with the Japanese authority. This is something very difficult to reckon with if you happen to be the subject of colonization--if you can imagine the feeling of being colonized, of being occupied and used as a political or economic tool of another nation or people, but then owing your colonizer the debt of modernization.

I for one have an extremely difficult time in granting some kind of ends-justifies-the-means pardon upon colonization because of the basic power structure of that relationship. You might say the people of Hong Kong or India were in fact better off under British rule than if they had not been, but that's a hefty counterfactual to try to push around. Plus, while the situations vary, there are good examples where throwing off the yoke of colonization works pretty well. You're an American, so you should be intimately familiar with at least one example...

That's irrelevant in principle, anyhow, because colonization, in the end, is about exploitation, and too many times the price of such "modernizations" have been far far too great. I give you Southeast Asia and all of Africa to consider. I will dare to throw out this statement: colonializaiton only works out for the colonized if they're very lucky. The interests of the colony itself are ultimately subject to the priorities of the colonizer.

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China Reference

[eyeye]

Do you go round telling black people they should be glad their ancestors where enslaved or they would be running round africa in a loin cloth?

You have a bizarre view of the world.

I am not British, for the record, I'm American.

No shit, that much is obvious.

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China reference

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there are a lot of reasons the Hong Kong treaties were questionable. Fact is, the only reason anyone was even faintly supportive of Britain retaining control of Hong Kong was because of what bloody-minded bastards the CPC are.

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China Reference

[aastanna]

From Monty Python's Life of Brian:

"All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China Reference

[Fnkmaster]

No, I don't go around telling black people they should be glad their ancestors were enslaved. I didn't say the ends justify the means in all cases, and your analogy is essentially a slippery slope argument.

Slavery was undoubtedly an unabashed evil, but that's not necessarily comparable to colonization under British rule. Furthermore, it is true that sometimes a person or an entire nation can benefit from evil things that were done to their ancestors. For example, my ancestors were Jews who were forced out of Eastern Europe due to pogroms, racism and poverty. I can loathe the individuals who did this (now long dead of course) without having to agree that my ancestors coming to America was a bad thing - undoubtedly, it had a good outcome for my family and I in the present as we are much better off and enjoy a higher standard of living than we would have as peasants in Eastern Europe.

And your final suggestion, that anybody with a rational argument that you disagree with must be American because the only way they could hold such an opinion is by conforming with stereotypes of Americans is a vicious ad hominem that is entirely unjustified. I share very few opinions with the vast majority of Americans, I'm a moderate democrat currently living in the Northeast, educated at a top Ivy League university. Thus your suggestion discredits your own ability to engage in rational discourse and recognize a reasonable person when you encounter one.

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China Reference

[HBI]

Thank you for counteracting the Communist propaganda above.

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China Reference

[Fnkmaster]

Agreed on most points, I don't think the ends always justify the means or that that gives a pass to those who sometimes did very reprehensible things in the past. But those individuals are now long dead and gone, and we can dislike them and their motives while still agreeing that some good came out of the situation they created. And in the case of British rule over Hong Kong, bad things from the 19th century aside, I don't think their rule of the island in the years leading up to the handover was by any means evil or capricious, at least based on what limited information I have. And it certainly seems that in many ways the people of Hong Kong were better off than they are now as a nominal part of China.

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China Reference

[Leto-II]

If you're going to try to correct people, don't get it wrong.

It's just as true, and just as irrelevant to say that the Communists stole China from its "rightful" owner, the Emperor.

The communists took over after WWII. The country was in a state of chaos. If you want to say they stole it from someone, they stole it from the Nationalists who fled to Taiwan. But at the time the Nationalists were certainly losing control anyway, hence the revolution. The Emperor lost power much earlier in the 20th century, long before the Communists came to power.

Also, another note about HK. Lots of people don't realize how much power didn't change hands with the return of HK to the PRC. Many of the previously appointed British officials still hold their offices. For instance, a British friend of mine has an uncle (also British obviously) who is still a magistrate in HK.

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China Reference

[Anonymous Coward]

you did say though what a 'shining example of success' the british occupation of india had been... you tell me how that's not 'end justifies the means'. second, by virtue of holding such an opinion you *did* act as a 'typical ignorant american', even if you consider yourself more enlightened. it just goes to show that your self-evaluation (or lack thereof) shows another sign of a 'typical arrogant american'. also what makes you postulate that a person cannot recognize a reasonable person by just one example (and your being resonable is an opinion of yours only, i might add)?

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China Reference

[Fnkmaster]

You are simply making things up now. I never said "The British were _justified_ in taking India as a colony because the results were good for the Indian people". Do you agree that India has done substantially better having been a former British colony than they would have never having had any relationship with Britain at all? Do you agree that the British imported educational system, parliamentary system and governmental bureaucracies have been highly beneficial for the Indian people? If you do, then you agree with the intent of my statement that British colonialism was in many ways beneficial in the long run for the Indian people. That doesn't mean it was justified to bring soldiers into the country and declare it a British colony in the first place - no more than it was justified to seize land from Native Americans when we wanted it for American expansion.

Which brings us to an interesting comparison that is closer to home for us in America - the way the Native Americans were displaced, forced onto reservations or killed outright in many cases. The results of American expansionism were generally very bad for the Native Americans, who didn't end up a successful powerful people with their own homeland.

Looking at individual acts, there were plenty of terrible things done by individuals in America, and plenty of terrible acts committed by others elsewhere. I'm sure there were British commanders who did awful things in India at certain points in time and those acts weren't justified. In general, the Indians probably weren't given, at the time, fair recompense for the natural resources or labor they contributed during colonial rule.

I am supremely capable of self-evaluation, and I regularly practice it. I don't hold to any sort of American exclusion whatsoever, and there was no evidence of that in my post. I do not hold the "opinion" that I am a reasonable person, I am stating fact - I have on many occasions been swayed by the presentation of evidence and convincing arguments that I am wrong about something. I have never been swayed by ad hominem attacks, however, and I try not to make them, which gets to the heart of the difference between you and I and the definition of "reasonableness". I can certainly recognize an unreasonable person from a single post on Slashdot like yours.

You have been proven wrong completely. You have lost. Give up, learn to tidy up your style of argumentation, and come back another day. I also highly recommend you spend some time with intelligent Americans to disabuse yourself of some of your rather peculiar notions about us - these stereotypes that I hear tossed about by the radical European liberal contingent here on Slashdot are pretty laughable - the biggest purveyors of racism I've ever seen, but it's all permissible because it's packaged in anti-Americanism, which is somehow okay because you are against the big-bad-enemy.

The words coming out of your mouth are no different than a white person going up to a black person and saying "You told a lie, and niggers are dishonest. Stop acting like a nigger, and I'll stop calling you one". Think on that before you spout off again.

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China Reference

[Richard_at_work]

As opposed to the US government and related bodies who shot dead 4 students at Kent State University for exercising their constitutional right to protest, who joined the 100 students dead by National Guard hands by 1972 for anti vietnam protests.

As opposed to the US government and related bodies who arrested nearly 4,000 students for exercising their constitutional right to protest against the vietnam war?

As opposed to the US government who routinely have 'free speech' areas well away from President Bush when he speaks in a PUBLIC place. And if you dont toe the party line while outside those 'free speech' areas? Well, then you get arrested!

As opposed to the US government who carried out genocide on an entire race of people, and got away with it?

As opposed to the US government who routinely point a finger at a financially poor country halfway round the world and say 'they present a threat to our national security', and then take punative measures against said country?

As opposed to the US government who have in the past removed democratically elected governments in other countries when said government didnt toe the line with the US?

It would seem to me that the western world have a selective memory when it comes to human rights abuses. Yes, China may not be top of the list for honours, but I wouldnt put the US up there either.

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China Reference

[Dachannien]

Additionally, China is putting approximately three metric assloads more cars on their roads per day, every one of which is under the thumb of some not-very-restrictive emissions control standards. Increased demand in China has been cited as a major reason for the increase in gasoline prices worldwide.

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China reference

[Lproven]

That's KOWLOON, also known as the New Territories. It was leased from China to Britain later on, after HK island itself.

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China reference

[Anonymous Coward]

Kwoloon is a penisula (sp?) "penisula"! like, Florida?

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China Reference

[Detritus]

As opposed to the US government and related bodies who shot dead 4 students at Kent State University for exercising their constitutional right to protest, who joined the 100 students dead by National Guard hands by 1972 for anti vietnam protests.

Bullshit. The Kent State students were not exercising their right to peacefully protest, many of them had engaged in violent acts such as arson, looting and throwing rocks. The National Guard troops were poorly trained, poorly led and overreacted. See THE MAY 4 SHOOTINGS AT KENT STATE UNIVERSITY: THE SEARCH FOR HISTORICAL ACCURACY. 100 students dead at the hands of the National Guard? That's pure fabrication.

As opposed to the US government and related bodies who arrested nearly 4,000 students for exercising their constitutional right to protest against the vietnam war?

Most of them were arrested for criminal acts related to the protests, not for protesting the war. Millions of Americans peacefully protested the war and were neither shot nor arrested.

Where do you get your "facts"? From your cell's political officer?

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China Reference

[Anonymous Coward]

Great post!

I'm an American that has lived in China and I totally agree with everything you said.

The post by "panurge" reads like typical arrogant ignoramus crap.

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China reference

[Anonymous Coward]

obviously, you have no idea about the history of either hk or china. the british never gave democracy to hk people, and the development of hk based on the mainland. hk make tons of money from trading between mainland and the west. after 80s, tha mainland opens its door to the west. hk is no longer necessary of the trading between china and the west. that's why the economy of hk goes down. if hk is still in british's hand, the situation would be worse because chinese center govement offers hk some benefits.

by the way, the british got hk throught the war which casue millions of people died. china took it back without a war.

by the way, i am a chinese. i love my country.

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China reference

[tehanu]

"Treaty" is a pretty pathetic word for it. To the Chinese of the time and still to many Chinese today, the "treaties" forced on the Chinese were extremely humiliating. It was one of the major forces weakening the Manchurian rulers of China. They were seen to be humiliating themselves in front of the other powers which drove resentment against them amongst the ordinary people. One of the major accusations against the government of the day was that they were letting foreign governments carve up Chinese territory. The rulers were pretty incompetent so even without the treaty problem they probably would have been toppeled, but the sense of extreme national humiliation over the "unequal treaties" definitely helped speed up the process. The grudge against the "unequal treaties" would be nearly on the top of a list of "Chinese greviences against the West". The sense of national humiliation from that time is still driving a lot of Chinese foreign policy, in the sense that there is a determination to be strong enough to never let it happen again. If the UK had refused to hand HK over, historical memories of past humiliations regarding HK would have made the Chinese response disproportionate to the offense. They humiliated us before and they are doing it again! I am sure the British realised this. While I believe that HK and all of China should ideally be democratic, the British are being particularly hypocritical about democracy in HK as for most of their time there they ruled it as a colonial power, rarely given the local populace much of a direct say under rules of a democracy eg. elections. The system under the British was definitely better than under the Chinese now eg. there was a free press, but as the Economist puts it, under British rule, "Hong Kong had many of the outcomes of democracy, even though it had few of the mechanisms." HK was definitely not democratic under the British. It was only a couple of years before the hand-over before the local population were even allowed to elect members to the Legislative Council! Before that, everyone was hand-picked by the British colonial rulers. Hardly a democratic system!

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China Reference

[1u3hr]

If you're going to try to correct people, don't get it wrong.

I am aware of the whole series of revolutions that took place in China between HK's becoming British in 1841/2, and its handover to the PRC in 1997. But I was just contrasting China then (Imperial) with now (PRC). The point being that the PRC is hardly a legal heir of the Emperors.

Also, another note about HK. Lots of people don't realize how much power didn't change hands with the return of HK to the PRC. Many of the previously appointed British officials still hold their offices. For instance, a British friend of mine has an uncle (also British obviously) who is still a magistrate in HK.

Magistrates and other public servants don't have much power. Those gweilos still in the government keep a low profile if they want a smooth passage to their pension. Those, like Anson Chan, former Chief Secretary, who are seen as being insufficiently patriotic; i.e. by standing up for the rights of HK people, are forced out.

But the tycoons who have had much influence over the territory, whether under British, Japanese or Chinese sovereignty, now have even more. Public housing schemes have been cancelled to keep the profits of the real estate billionaires up, for instance. They've been spreading money around in the Mainland for years to keep sweet with the cadres once they saw how the wind was blowing.

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China Reference

[eyeye]

Just to point out, the anonymous coward is not me although since you seemed to think they were.

It seems i'm not the only one to have noticed your bizarre attitude, or your american might-is-right stance.

p.s "radical European liberal" is a sterotype, does that help you deal with the fact that people think you are a nutjob?

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China Reference

[TPFH]

I think you are missing the most important one:

As opposed to the US government who gives China Most Favored Nation Status.

And it could be worse. They are not "disappearing" people within the US, at least not on a large scale, yet.

However, our government has supported numerous nations that do for decades, including China.

Oh, what was shown on camera durring the Tiananmen Square massacre was only the tip of the iceburg. The students who took part in the pro-democracy demonstrations were arrested and "re-educated." The peasants who supported them were mass-murdered behind the scenes.

Re:Obligatory Great Firewall of China reference

[Anonymous Coward]

Note: I post as AC because this post would probably affects my Karma.
Insightful my ass! Being a Hong Kong citizen, I am sure that you don't really know what we are thinking and believing. We don't thank British for building the economy - The Brits did not bring in democrazy until they know that they are going to hand the land over to China. None of the governors under the British rule was elected by Hong Kong people either.
Talking about Genghis Khan - who said that he's an enlighted ruler? He ruled by brute force and discouraged academics, trying to defeat the original Chinese culture. Didn't you know how long did the Yuan dynasty lasted, or you just drew your conclusion based on the freaking idiot named Marco Polo?
Go back and read the facts before you continue to critize China, ok?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Article shows lack of education of the globe.

[node 3]

It's plain to see that the article submitter, who is undoubtedly an American, didn't take into account that China is on the other side of the planet and that the "9" in the article, when viewed right-side up is actually a "6", and that the correct story is that China has switched over to IPv6.

I chalk this up as a clear and abject failure of our education system.

Re:Article shows lack of education of the globe.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, the earth is flat, see here , so you're wrong.

Re:Article shows lack of education of the globe.

[Epistax]

It's plain to see that the article submitter, who is undoubtedly an American, didn't take into account that China is on the other side of the planet and that the "9" in the article, when viewed right-side up is actually a "6", and that the correct story is that China has switched over to IPv6.

wait.. then it wouldn't be IPv6 for them either, it'd be 9^dI.

Re:Article shows lack of education of the globe.

[Anonymous Coward]

wait.. then it wouldn't be IPv6 for them either, it'd be 9^dI.

See, that's what IPv6 is in Australia. China is on the other side of the world, but still in the same hemisphere, so it'd be more like dvqI.
(damn you, slashdot! I want ∂!)

Re:Article shows lack of education of the globe.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nine is considered a lucky number in China.

Interesting link

[Xshare]

http://www.tianyigroup.com/zz-e/zz-e.htm
"IPv9 Datagram Head Protocol" standard of electronic industrybe carrying through "IPv9 Address Protocol"standard of electronic industrybe carrying through
ALSO (though it has been mentioned before), a humor article from 1994 regarding IPv9:
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1606.html

we can never have enough

[t_allardyce]

It might seem like overkill but the old adage "if you build it they will come" applies here. The more your addressing system can support, the more people will start using it for more and more pointless things - everything will have its own ip, rfid manufactureres will give their tags ip's because they can, cars will get their own all phones will, packages will - just so you can type the ip to track it (and once its delivered the ip will point to that card-board box forever) we're already talking about toasters with addresses its just going to get more and more complicated and the reasons for giving addresses will be more and more pointless (a toaster could easily survive on a subnet) the best solution is a system that can work with addresses of any length (bangs head on table) but people will still demand that their grains of sand have a 50 byte address, just be grateful for exponentials!

Re:we can never have enough

[xiando]

You can never get enough. I've got a tiny /48 IPv6 prefix, that's 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 IPs, and I WANT MORE.

Re:we can never have enough

[t_allardyce]

I bet you 300 addresses that in 30 years you will want more!

Re:we can never have enough

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, I want a seperate IP address to address the actual IP addresses ... infinity ought to do it!

Re:we can never have enough

[Jesus_666]

I have already pointed out befroe on /. that we need IP addresses if 1 MB length. Then we can assign an IP to every single component in aa device, put the IPs into virtual groups, which have their own IPs, and assign every IP address its own IP address just to be sure.

We could even assign every piece of IP (Intellectual Property) an IP (Internet Protocol) address* and then have debates on whether this new IP is my IP, which IP it has and whether it clashes with someone else's IP - or their IP or their IP's IP.

* We should not forget that sometimes "IP address" is colloquially shortened to "IP".

Re:we can never have enough

[CAIMLAS]

I know you're probably just trolling, as this is pretty rediculous, but:

IPV6 already has enough address space for that. 1Mb long IP addresses would also be redundant, as hardware devices already have independent addressing: that's how they talk to each other.

Re:we can never have enough

[damiam]

IPv6 has more than enough address space to individually address every particle in the entire planet. If you can find use for atoaster with an IP address, then why not give it one?

Re:we can never have enough

[Jesus_666]

I know. IPv6 should have enough address space for everything. No need for IPvN with N > 4, but still some people comment that in a few hundred years we might need N > 4 or that they need N > 4 because they are different from the rest of the world. I figured that an address of one megabyte should be enough for anyone and their dog.

What do you do to count to 21?

[Anonymous Coward]

Drop your pants?

Re:What do you do to count to 21?

[einhverfr]

Use a beowulf cluster of 10 digit computers ;-)

Re:What do you do to count to 21?

[jovetoo]

sexist!

Bush admin is green with money

[Anonymous Coward]

It was the Clinton administration that cozied up to the Communist Chinese - that's one thing at least no one can accuse Bush of doing.

Re:Bush admin is green with money

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, I was referring to the Bush administration being envious of China's ability to squelch the free thought of its populace.

Tell me, did you feel the breeze when my joke went by just over your head like that?

Re:Bush admin is green with money

[kcelery]

Every president knows cozying up with the Communist Chinese is a poison in the ballot box. It would almost certainly keep you from winning in re-election. So Clinton administration had kept a distance from the Chinese for the first 4 years and open up more dialog for the remaining 4 yrs. Similar movement could be observed in Bush admin if he's remain in White House after election.

IPv9 and Linux

[veg]

Why has it taken the world so long to take IPv9 seriously ?
It's the only protocol that has in-built, native support for RFC2549 and, more importantly RFC527.

Linus Torvalds has already announced that 2.7 will have kernel-level support for RFC2549, but maybe now the kernel developers will go the whole hog and adopt IPv9 ?

Re:IPv9 and Linux

[bferrell]

I suspect that in many cities the drivers for RFC2549 will be declared a public nuisance... And who's going to clean up the mess?!?!!

Re:IPv9 and Linux

[ThisIsFred]

Silly, but your prophecy about the kernel may turn out to be true. At some point operating systems will have to support it, or foreigners may risk missing out on business with China.

Re:IPv9 and Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

And why whould anyone want to encourage busness going to Chuna??? The Chinese have enough people to write the drivers. Linus and gang surely must not waste even a single second on this.

Re:IPv9 and Linux

[evilviper]

in-built, native support for RFC2549

And how would it do that exactly? The protocol prints out the data on your printer, cuts it to the right size, and attaches it to the pidegon?

Let's not forget, it also has to set the BRD= flag to "1".

Article text

[Anonymous Coward]

China's New Generation Of Ipv9 Network Technology Ready
July 2, 2004

At the New Generation Internet Ten-Digit Network Industrialization & Development Seminar held on June 25th at Zhejiang University, it was announced that China's Internet technology, IPv9, had been formally adapted and popularized into the civil and commercial sectors.

After ten years of research and development, IPv9 will be used on projects with the National Safety Defense System, National Digital TV Network, IPv9 network experimental programs and many other organizations.

Based on a ten-digit computing method, IPv9 has its own address protocol, nameplate protocol, transitional protocol, and digital domain name regulations and standards as stated by Mr. Xie Jianping, founder of the IPv9 protocol and leader of the Ten-Digit Network Technology Standard Team. Along with being compatible with IPv4 and IPv6, IPv9 can also realize logistic separations between them and safely control them. On small-scale trials in Shanghai's Changing and Jinshan Districts, IPv9 technology has proven stable and safe.

IPv9 consists of three sets of root domain name servers and two sets of hard-connect servers. The two sets of domain name parsing servers each have a parsing capacity of three million users and fifty percent simultaneously. Digital domain name parsing servers, English domain name parsing servers, Chinese domain name parsing servers, IP address primal allotment server, DHCP server, IPv4/IPv9 duel-used 1000M routers, 1000M channel router, IPv4/IPv9 address switching server, crystal circuit transmitter and crystal circuit light routers have been applied to IPv9 protocol demonstrative projects.

So far, China is the only country in the world that has consolidated domain names, IP addresses and MAC addresses into ten-digit text files. China and the United States are currently the only two countries that possess root domain name analysis servers, IP address servers, independent domain names, IP addresses and MAC address sources. Shanghai Jiuyao Digital Network Co., Ltd has been established to popularize the IPv9 technology. The company will work with telecom operators such as China Telecom, China Unicom, China Mobile and China Netcom to better publicize the IPv9 technology.

Re:Article text

[Anonymous Coward]

The two sets of domain name parsing servers each have a parsing capacity of three million users and fifty percent simultaneously.

Slashdot accepts the challenge... somebody post a link.

Re:Article text

[Jesus_666]

[...]IPv4/IPv9 duel-used 1000M routers,[...]

1000M routers? That's 1,000 * 1,000,000 = 1,000,000,000 routers. Who needs one billion routers to let IPv4 and IPv9 have a duel? And who picks the weapons anyway?

Re:Article text

[Anonymous Coward]

What is that, Engrish?

Re:Article text

[luke923]

He might have meant "1000M(eter) routers," or 1000M may have been some Chinese off-brand of router. Also, if it was 1000 Million, it wouldn't be 1,000,000,000, because the English dialects that would say 1000 Million would also call 1,000,000 One Thousand Thousand. One Million would be 1,000,000,000. So, 1000 Million would be One Trillion to us. Still, in any regard, it is highly excessive to have One Billion routers to comparison test IPv4 and IPv6.

Like IPv6 isn't good enough

[xiando]

There is a total of 2^128, or 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,45 6 unique IPv6 adresses.

Isn't this enough?

Re:Like IPv6 isn't good enough

[HungSquirrel]

Egg-friggin'-zactly.

Re:Like IPv6 isn't good enough

[Prowl]

but don't forget the chinese will be first to colonise the moon, so they'll need both lunar and terran ip numbers.

we ought to introduce some new tlds as well. i propose .moon, .earth, .mars

Re:Like IPv6 isn't good enough

[Heidistein]

No.

Re:Like IPv6 isn't good enough

[hugesmile]

The concern isn't the quantity of available unique addresses - the issue is that the address space must rapidly get divided up for assignment.

If the addresses were going to be assigned serially (ok, who wants IP address # 000000001?, ok 0000000002...) then you never run out.

But if you slice the 128 bits in half immediately, as a way to divide them up among companies, and then the companies subnet them, and the 128 bits keep getting whittled down, then you start crowding the address space. Yes, 2^128 is PLENTY, but the problem will be the 2^100- sized gaps between various assigned numbers.

To answer your question, "isn't this enough?", it's plenty for the short term, if managed properly. Hard to say about the long term, and hard to say about the "proper management". YOu have to weigh the costs of having a bigger address space, and ask "is the benefit worth the cost" (The benefits being the ability to poorly manage the number assignments, and the potential longevity of the protocol).

Just my opinion.

Re:Like IPv6 isn't good enough

[piffy]

God, I'm glad we got that number out in the open, because that "review" is the worst written thing I have ever read. If I have to go back and re-read whole sections because each sentence in a paragrah has some kind of twisting grammatical errors, then I say screw it.

Re:Like IPv6 isn't good enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's just give everyone(aprox 10 billion or so) 1 trillion personal adresses. I don't know though, that would only leave 340,282,366,920,938,453,463,374,607,431,768,211,45 6 for everything else.

Re:Like IPv6 isn't good enough

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they need it because every IP-equipped device will be fitted with its own IP-based filter and counter-revolutionary thought monitor, automatically doubling the number of IPs required.

Re:Like IPv6 isn't good enough

[Shinglor]

From Wikipedia, "This is the equivalent of 4.3 × 1020 (430,000,000,000,000,000,000) unique addresses per square inch of the Earth's surface."

Re:Like IPv6 isn't good enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's just give everyone(aprox 10 billion or so) 1 trillion personal adresses.

Actually, IPv6 addresses will be assigned in blocks of at least 64 bits (even for home users), which is over 18446744 trillion addreses (2^64). A typical business will get at least a /48, or 2^80 addresses.

This page explains it, and RFC 3177 has more details (including the authors' reasoning that this is not a waste of address space).

Re:Like IPv6 isn't good enough

[gnuman99]

A typical business will get at least a /48

Let's assume each *person* is a business then. Then you have 48 bits remaining. That's enough for 281474976710656. That's 281 trillion businesses!!

IPv9 is about control, not the IP address space.

Re:Like IPv6 isn't good enough

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a common fallacy when working with powers of numbers to think that 2^100 compared to 2^128 is any sort of big deal. Realize that it's 2^28 smaller, which is a pretty big huge number, and already approaches the size of the 2^32 IPv4 address space (which is also full of holes). They're not actually talking about dividing at that sort of level, though, and not everyone who has an IPv4 address would need a /100 subnet, so this whole argument is pretty specious. The divisions (which you can find in the appropriate RFCs and policy documents) aren't spaced out equally; some areas have huge blocks set aside for experimental use and future allocations, while others will satisfy the need for addresses for the foreseeable future. Also, just because of the way routers work, it's more efficient to allocate from smaller, more densely packed subnets, as you can encode more routing information for the backbone network into the address that way, without huge routing tables.

The 128-bit address is waaaay too big to be exhausted; there's something like 1 for every electron in the universe, or something like that. Even the original 48-bit and 64-bit address spaces were pretty big, but just to be on the safe side, the standard committee kept cranking it up (rather than adopting a performance-sucking variable length address). As a practical matter, the human race probably won't exist by then, and we'll probably never need to move off of IPv6 (except maybe to adapt to a paradigm shift that renders the IP-derived protocols irrelevant anyway).

Re:Like IPv6 isn't good enough

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I thought this IPv9 was supposed to add some sort of security and managability, not IP addresses. Not that I've heard of IPv6. Not sure what computer systems can use it.

Re:Like IPv6 isn't good enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and no one will ever need more than 640K of memory either.

Re:Like IPv6 isn't good enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, almost none of those addresses are going to need to be routable, nor even desirable to be routable, so for security most things will still be behind a NAT firewall, with one real address per house or business. Businesses might run a couple extras for special purposes. What's the point of IPv6 again?

Re:Like IPv6 isn't good enough

[Vagary]

Sorry, but I doubt our new Chinese masters (who I welcome, BTW), will be willing to allow Engrish to continue to be the lingua franca of the Net. If they're generous enough to continue to use our crude alphabet, I expect the TLDs will be .yueliang, .diqiou, .huoxing But it's more likely we'll just end up using Unicode.

Re:Like IPv6 isn't good enough

[Sunnan]

2^28 times smaller.

Re:Like IPv6 isn't good enough

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

Your concern is, well, rather unfounded.

Say we divide it into 4 32-bit slices.

Each country can get a slice, so long as there are less than 4 billion countries.

Each ISP can get the next slice, so each country can have 4 billion ISPs and each ISP can have 4 billion clients.

Each client has an address space as large as the ENTIRE ADDRESS SPACE under IPv4.

Alternately...

Take 64-bits and assign them as a "user ID". Every person in the world can have a user ID, and every one of them can have more IPs than they could ever need (2^64).

There is no need for a "class A/B/C" system. There are TONS of IP addresses to go around with IPv6.

Re:Like IPv6 isn't good enough

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you need to re-read the parent message. He said that 2^128 is plenty big enough if properly managed.

Conversely, I can run out of addresses in ipv6 simply by assigning all addresses starting with a 0 to IBM and starting with a 1 to HP. Walmart comes along and asks for a block, and oops... we're out of addresses. "But I thought 128 bits would last forever! I thought 128 bits would map every particle in the universe!" yeah yeah

Proper management is the key. So in fact, the parent's concern is quite founded. And yes, I know that ipv6 specifies how to divide up the addresses, and it is NEITHER the method you suggested nor the one I suggested! RTFParent

Re:Like IPv6 isn't good enough

[Anonymous Coward]

128-bit can easily be exhausted with improper management (which is what the parent message said). I think you need to re-read the parent message. He said that 2^128 is plenty big enough if properly managed.

Conversely, I can run out of addresses in ipv6 simply by assigning all addresses starting with a 0 to IBM and starting with a 1 to HP. Walmart comes along and asks for a block, and oops... we're out of addresses. "But I thought 128 bits would last forever! I thought 128 bits would map every particle in the universe!" yeah yeah

Proper management is the key. I doubt that the addresses will be assigned to each particle as you described. And I *know* that the addresses won't be assigned as I described. The key is to select a method that doesn't leave gaping holes of waste in the address space.

No matter what bit-length you select for an address space, I can poorly manage it, so that we run out of addresses. That is what the parent said! (In fact, he even said that 128 bits were plenty!)

Re:Like IPv6 isn't good enough

[pmsyyz]

You obviously aren't aware of how many people there are in China.

My IP protocol goes to *11*

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's two better than all you blokes using IPv9!

Re:My IP protocol goes to *11*

[Anonymous Coward]

But...why don't you just have it go to 10 and make 10 be louder?

Re:My IP protocol goes to *11*

[Anonymous Coward]

But...why don't you just have it go to 10 and make 10 be louder?

Because, mine goes to 11.

Re:My IP protocol goes to *11*

[Anonymous Coward]

Another /.er failing to realize the density of the mods that shall never get their jokes.

sounds like

[mpost4]

sounds like china want to just have this so they can have better control over what they can filter out of the net to keep thier population from seeing.

MOD DOWN, WRONG!

[Anonymous Coward]

The US does NOT control addresses for China. APNic would be the reponsible body. Its not even located in the USA!

Stupid.

China needs to control technology

[Cycnus]

China is currently doing all it can to "re-invent" everything that carries information.
There are reasons for this:
- Chinese are very nationalisitc by definition (in chinese, China (Zhong Guo) mean the "Kindgom of the middle", they really thought -and still do to a certain extent- that China is the center of the world) and they are proud to "re-invent" or "re-conquer" to make it their own.
- they do not want to license foreign Intellectual Property, so they develop their own video format for instance, for both pride and economic reasons as well.
- The Chinese government think it needs to control information.
I believe that the latest is probably behind the move to IPv9.
By encouraging non-standard protocols, they ensure that the equipment has more chance to be manufactured in China, and they have more ways to control the information passing through it.
China recognizes the importance of the Internet and know it is essential to its progress, yet they also realize that it is the most dangerous way to propagate those "subversive" ideas like democracy and freedom of speech. So the best thing to do is probably to "embrace and extend"...
Now, where have I heard that before...?

Re:China needs to control technology

[aled]

China (Zhong Guo) mean the "Kindgom of the middle"
Like Mediterranean? be serious.

Re:China needs to control technology

[kundor]

wth? Have you never heard of "The Middle Kingdom"? That's what China is known as...

And "Mediterranean" means "Surrounded by land," not middle kingdom.

Re:China needs to control technology

[Dun Malg]

China (Zhong Guo) mean the "Kindgom of the middle"

Like Mediterranean?

No, "mediterranean" means "in the middle of the land". It's meant to describe the Mediterranean Sea, which (apart from a small gap a Gibraltar) is surrounded on all sides by land; contrast with the Atlantic Ocean which (as far as people at the time knew) was essentially unbounded.

be serious.

He is being serious. It does translate to "kingdom of the middle", which in chinese essentially means "that around which all else revolves".

Re:China needs to control technology

[aled]

mediterranean

\Med`i*ter*ra"ne*an\, a. [L. mediterraneus; medius middle + terra land. See Mid, and Terrace.] 1. Inclosed, or nearly inclosed, with land; as, the Mediterranean Sea, between Europe and Africa.

Middle Land is close to me. Every people believes they are the center of the universe and/or the choosen people and the others are strange barbarians.

Re:China needs to control technology

[Anonymous Coward]

By encouraging non-standard protocols, they ensure that the equipment has more chance to be manufactured in China

As if anyone with a clue haven't outsourced manufacturing of electronics to china already. Of course they may hope chinese companies will be the ones issuing the contracts to manufacture these things.

Re:China needs to control technology

[Anonymous Coward]

\Med`i*ter*ra"ne*an\, a. [L. mediterraneus; medius middle + terra land. See Mid, and Terrace.] 1. Inclosed, or nearly inclosed, with land; as, the Mediterranean Sea, between Europe and Africa.

Middle Land is close to me. Every people believes they are the center of the universe and/or the choosen people and the others are strange barbarians.


You are oversimplifying. Unless you have some knowledge of Chinese, it is hard to realize the middle in "Kingdom of the Middle" does not have the same denotation as the Meditteranean middle. Think about it, it is Medittereanen (middle land) Sea. Literally, the sea is in the the middle of land. While many cultures in Europe believed themselves to be the middle in the same sense as China, it simply is not reflected in the etymology for Meditteranean.

Re:China needs to control technology

[Xformer]

- they do not want to license foreign Intellectual Property, so they develop their own video format for instance, for both pride and economic reasons as well.

Pride, if anything... last I checked, no one is paying anyone royalties to use IPv4, are they? If anything, they should be handing back the IPv4 address spaces that they'll no longer be using.

Re:China needs to control technology

[evilviper]

(in chinese, China (Zhong Guo) mean the "Kindgom of the middle", they really thought -and still do to a certain extent- that China is the center of the world)

That was true around the 14th century or so. I have to doubt that most of them believe that is true today.

- they do not want to license foreign Intellectual Property, so they develop their own video format for instance, for both pride and economic reasons as well.

They licensed VP6 for use in "their own video format"

Before that, they used MPEG-2 in their SVCD format.

So much for not wanting to license foreign IP... They just try to get a better deal than they get with the established formats (DVD, HD-DVD, etc).

I want one...

[Griim]

...that goes to eleven!

Where can you go from 9? I want one that's at least one louder.

Standards are great...

[Komi]

we've all got one!

New DPS system

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure it'll have support for a Domain Pictograph Server system, to translate chinese calligraphy into IPv9 numeric addresses.

All that for censorship?

[gweihir]

The only reason I can see is that the chinese
want to make the computers available to their population incompatible with the rest of the world on the Internet. Then they can filter/look into/controll al traffic at the gateways.

For the masses this may actually work. Competent indiciduals will still get through, but it weill require some effort.

Damn it!

[per11]

I just finished upgrading my network to IPv5.

The dragon rises ...

[quarkscat]

I, for one, do not welcome our new Chinese
overlords.

It has become apparent, between PRC's
proprietary WiFi security standards, their
adoption of proprietary multimedia formats,
their proprietary Cellphone standards, and
now their proprietary TCP/IP standards, that
they either believe that:

(1) their emerging market share gives them
the power to dictate standards to the
rest of the world, OR

(2) that this is their attempt to circumvent
WTO trade agreements to restrict foreign
products from their markets, OR

(3) have adopted Micro$oft monopolistic
tactics in their quest for world
domination.

As there was a recent report out about the
rate of foreign investment in the PRC
exceeding that of any other country in the
world (including the USA), one might draw
the conclusion that it is actually

(4) ALL OF THE ABOVE.

If the PRC mades goods for al lof the rest
of the world, and forces their products down
our throats (via WTO governance), AND ALSO
prevents foreign goods to enter the PRC
without compliance with their proprietary
standards (under strict licensing), what
do you think will happen with every other
country's balance of trade with PRC? They
would eventually have total control of these
countries economies, through BoT leverage.

I say, "Nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only
way to be sure (they are destroyed)."

Re:The dragon rises ...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look at all the products in the U.S. that are actually made in china, you realize that they seriously might be able to control the "standards."

Re:The dragon rises ...

[shokk]

So sooner or later we are due to have our market of cheap products squeezed just like our market for cheap oil is being squeezed. This wouldn't be a danger if we relied more on homespun tech. Sure, those cheap jobs aren't really good enough for Americans, but any job is better than none.

Re:The dragon rises ...

[martingunnarsson]

Do you have a REALLY small monitor?? You should upgrade, man! You could easily get like four times wider text!

:-)

Re:The dragon rises ...

[cyberon22]

The government is not enforcing WAPI compliance. The concession came several weeks ago thanks to both domestic and foreign pressure. Their multimedia and cellular formats are no more proprietary than foreign offerings, and usually have lower licensing fees.

As well as the Great Firewall

[vlad_petric]

It's against everything the Internet stands for.

1/5 to 1/4 quarter of the world popolution

[jackb_guppy]

1/5 to 1/4 quarter of the world popolution can not be wrong...

Boy is that a standard.

Re:1/5 to 1/4 quarter of the world popolution

[bofkentucky]

No, but their flawed government can be.

Re:1/5 to 1/4 quarter of the world popolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't that mean that 4/5 to 3/4 of the world population would HAVE to be wrong then?

Re:1/5 to 1/4 quarter of the world popolution

[nyseal]

Can you re-state that? 75 - 80% of the world population can not be wrong....

Re:1/5 to 1/4 quarter of the world popolution

[anicholo]

Yes, that's true.
But it is true for ALL goverments to some degree (yes, your's too (your's specially, if you are american)).

The fact that the chinese comunism stinks so bad doesn't mean America's Imperialism smells like flowers. It doesn't.

Re:1/5 to 1/4 quarter of the world popolution

[Anonymous Coward]

The American Government is not perfect, but it is FAR from imperialistic.

The Japanese government of the 19th and early 20th century... THAT was imperialistic. The British, Spanish, French, and Portuguese governments of the 14th - 18th centuries were imperialistic. The American government... how is it imperialilstic? HOW?

You fucking troll.

Re:1/5 to 1/4 quarter of the world popolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Hint: You don't need to mark your sig with [SIG]. Those of us who care get an account and turn on "sig dashes."

Re:1/5 to 1/4 quarter of the world popolution

[Fnkmaster]

I hereby declare a moratorium on America bashing for the next 24 hours on Slashdot. Seriously. I'm fucking sick of it. Only we (Americans) get to talk about how much our government sucks. Just like only black people can call each other "nigger" without getting beaten to a bloody pulp. 90% of the Slashdot American readership thinks George W. Bush sucks and should be booted out of office. Preaching on about it here is about as masturbatory as you can get. We all agree some Americans are bad people, just like some of every other country's people are bad. And we mostly agree that the current American administration is horrible.

I won't even bother addressing your inappropriate use of the word Imperialism. Not every right wing government that you or I hate is Imperialist, and not every nation that seeks to exercise political or economic power abroad is Imperialist.

Re:1/5 to 1/4 quarter of the world popolution

[Anonymous Coward]

You must have a lot of hate for blacks if you somehow can bring them into a conversation that has nothing to do with the article. I guess you have been waiting forever for an opportunity to get it off your chest. Relieved?

Re:1/5 to 1/4 quarter of the world popolution

[COBRAws]

ROFLMAO

Re:1/5 to 1/4 quarter of the world popolution

[COBRAws]

they deploy their army wherever they want and opress countries. Thats imperialism, am i wrong? lol

Re:1/5 to 1/4 quarter of the world popolution

[Anonymous Coward]

>You fucking troll.

Multiple personality disorder, perhaps? Self-hate is bad for you!

Re:1/5 to 1/4 quarter of the world popolution

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL!!! ME and COBRA are on AOL !!11!! together. ROFL!! WE ROFL all day long. Da da da .. wtf?? LOL..

Re:1/5 to 1/4 quarter of the world popolution

[philwx]

So it's ok to blame American citizens for the stupidity that their leaders do. Sweet.

Can we blame European civilians for sitting idly by while millions and millions of Jews were exterminated? Looking the other direction as their friends and neighbors were carted off one by one and incinerated?

"I don't know what that smell is John, it couldn't be burning human flesh though."

If Abu Ghuraib is the worst we've done (not to make light of it, it was bad) than I'm not overly worried.

The cool thing about us in the US is, we do something about it. We will vote this guy out of office and we won't pretend it didn't happen. And we openly confront his BS rather than turning away and pretending it doesn't matter.

Re:1/5 to 1/4 quarter of the world popolution

[anicholo]

Can we blame European civilians for sitting idly by while millions and millions of Jews were exterminated? Looking the other direction as their friends and neighbors were carted off one by one and incinerated?

Inaction when aware of a crime is condemnable.

If Abu Ghuraib is the worst we've done (not to make light of it, it was bad) than I'm not overly worried.

That is very sad. So, only because PeopleKilledByNazis > PeopleKilledInAbuGhuraib means you don't have to worry about it? It just doesn't "overly worry you"?
That is exactly the mentality I was repudiating in my first post.

The cool thing about us in the US is, we do something about it. We will vote this guy out of office and we won't pretend it didn't happen.

I really hope that happens so.

And we openly confront his BS rather than turning away and pretending it doesn't matter.

That, I admit, seems true. And it is good.

Re:1/5 to 1/4 quarter of the world popolution

[philwx]

Just to clarify, "not overly worried" != "not worried." I found it to be quite disturbing in fact. It was only in the context of beheadings and nonstop suicide bombs that it didn't seem to make me feel like the sky was falling in of itself.

The fact that we should be better than that does make it an ugly scar on our history. And I regret the day Bush was voted into office by the narrowest of majorities.

Re:1/5 to 1/4 quarter of the world popolution

[Anonymous Coward]

your's too (your's specially

"yours" (both places).
No apostrophe.

Re:1/5 to 1/4 quarter of the world popolution

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't even bother addressing your inappropriate use of the word Imperialism.

From dictionary.com: "1: a policy of extending your rule over foreign countries 2: a political orientation that advocates imperial interests 3: any instance of aggressive extension of authority". All three of these are part of current American government policy. According to def. 1, the US government practices "temporary imperialism", that is, it extends rule over other countries (Afganistan, Iraq) for a temporary period. According to def. 2, America is imperialistic because it secretly advocates Israel's imperialism over the Palestinian territories, despite its public pronouncements to the contrary. According to def. 3, well, def. 3 is self-evident.

Re:1/5 to 1/4 quarter of the world popolution

[anicholo]

Ouch! Thanks! I'll be taking note of that.

Re:1/5 to 1/4 quarter of the world popolution

[Fnkmaster]

You are wrong on all three counts. Conquering other nations and then establishing freely operating governments within those nations is not Imperialism. The US government did the same in Japan and West Germany at the end of World War II after temporarily occupying those countries. Are those countries ruled by the US in any meaningful way now (beyond close economic ties)? Absolutely not. So argument 1 is invalid on the face of it - temporary occupation of a defeated by a conquering power does not necessarily imply intent to extend rule over those foreign countries. I don't even think I can address your second argument it's so inaccurate - the US doesn't support Israel secretly, it does so openly, and the term "imperial" in that definition means literally the formation of empire, as in one nation that swears fealty to another nation - it has little to nothing to do with the situation in Israel. It's hard to imagine calling a nation smaller than many of the 50 states in the US an "empire" just because of a long-standing set of ethnic and border disputes between two resident populations. As for the aggressive extension of authority, I think the Canadians and Mexicans would disagree with you, though I suppose it all depends on what you mean by authority. The US has authority in the same way that China has authority - in the globalized economy, big producers and big consumers exercise a lot of sway. If you consider economic or political influence and its exertion to be "imperialism" than the word has so little meaning as to be beyond useless and we should just throw it away now, since every government capable of and needed to do so does just that. And that was exactly the point I have made a million times over that always seems to fly over the heads of the foaming-at-the-mouth euroliberals.

Linux packages anyone?

[tecker]

Hmm. A Dogpile search didn't give me much. Child Imunization in texas? Doesn't sound like computers to me. I will take it seriously when there are linux kernel and networking packages in GPL and there is a 1000+ page PDF outlining the entire protocol. Untill then, China can keep it.

Off-Topic: Re:key word "control"

[issachar]

Off-Topic, but Karma is only a number, and I need to say this.

If it weren't for the fact that attitudes like yours have consequences your post would be rather funny. Before we begin, I should point out that I'm Canadian and we have rather than our American friends to the south. In our case it is simply a matter of the popularity of the law because we have no right to bear arms in our consitution. Therefore our duly elected government may enact any law on the subject.

Like it or not the US is a different case. Your constitution states very clearly that Americans have the right to bear arms. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". There are two statements in that sentence. The first seems descriptive to me, but the second is clearly prescriptive. More importantly, US rights are given to individuals, not to groups.

The fact is that the US constitution guarantees no infringement of the right to bear arms. If you don't like that, there is a clear solution: replace or eliminate the second amendment. I really see no problem with this. The US constitution is not a secular bible. It can be changed. It even has a mechanism for that. So use that mechanism!

Unfortunately, several anti-gun groups aren't willing to undertake this admittedly daunting task and are instead trying to pretend that the second amendment doesn't in fact say what it clearly does. If you go down that route you go down the unfortunate path of making up the law as you go along. If you get the Supreme Court to go along with you, you end up in the undemocratic world of judicial activism and making up law as you go along.

I believe in democracy and free speech. Judicial activism is to say the least very unhealthy in a democracy. The best example I can think of comes from Canada. Most of our controversial judicial cases these days spring from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A few years back, (sorry I couldn't find the date), our court decided to add "sexual orientation" as a prohibited grounds of discrimination. (Section 15). If you read section 15 in the charter, the document clearly does not prohibit descrimination on those grounds. Perhaps it should. Perhaps it should not. That's not the point. The point is that the supreme court is not the procedure laid out to revise the charter. The supreme court's job is to interpret the charter. That does not mean that the court can "read-in" things that simply aren't there at all, even if they "should" be there. (Our court is appointed by the Prime Minister, but even if it were elected, that wouldn't make it the proper channel to revise the charter). If the supreme court can't even follow the laws of democracy in place in our country, we don't have a truly democratic country any more. That's bad news for everyone, but I find that increasingly large numbers of people don't care about democratic solutions as long as their interests get promoted.

Re:Off-Topic: Re:key word "control"

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, if you doubt the constitution's need for interpretation now, try shouting "I have a bomb!" in a crowded theatre and seeing how far your first amendment protestations get.

Re:Off-Topic: Re:key word "control"

[Anonymous Coward]

Before we begin, I should point out that I'm Canadian and we have rather than our American friends to the south.

"Preview" is your friend.

Safe?

[Sinus0idal]

How can 'small scale testing' prove anything to be safe?

Wikipedia; How to find articles on IPv9

[ArtLung]

I originally read this at IP list -- I did some googling and when ?I saw that there was no entry at Wikipedia I started one -- IPv9. There are other articles google-able out there, but many are the April Fool's RFC -- to remove those you should use IPv9 -historical - of course most of those are in Chinese (gah!!), and few of them play well with Babelfish.

Where's my real time translation so I can read some of those articles?

Re:Wikipedia; How to find articles on IPv9

[Anonymous Coward]

The first article on the list in Chinese is the same as the English article linked to. Too tired to read the others for now. The first commenter does note that it would be fine in country but wonders about outside the country in particular America.

Turn that argument around

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll find that most of the arguments you're using against China already apply to the USA: protectionism, market dominance, monopolistic tactics. Your conclusion might seem less appealing in that case, but Dubya seems right on track to piss someone off enough to deliver it to you.

this isn't much different

[Rinisari]

We don't like having to pay for Windows, so we developed our own: Linux.

We aren't that much different; we're just a lot more global and less self-centered.

Re:this isn't much different

[Spy Hunter]

You don't have to pay for IPv6. It's a free open standard developed by an international community process that anyone can join. If China wanted their concerns addressed in IPv6, they should have joined the IPv6 mailing list and made the changes themselves. Having a huge segment of the Internet using a different protocol than everyone else, even if it's "compatible" (yeah, right), is bad for the future of the Internet.

Re:this isn't much different

[dougnaka]

d00d, they don't SPEAK ENGLISH, so how could they join yer st00pid mailing list...!! sheesh

Glory

[Anonymous Cowdog]

In all the speculation /.ers are doing about the reasons for this protocol's existence, one reason is missing: Glory for the inventor. Notice the press release made a point to work in the name of the "inventor." His ego is a big part in this.

Look at History

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,45 6K should be enough for anybody

Bill Gates 2004

Because IPv4 sucks for surveillanc and censorship

[Salis]

The Chinese government is notorious for watching its 'citizens' and what they're doing on the Internet. I don't know if IPv9 is real or not, but if it is it's only purpose is to invade privacy and catch 'dissidents'.

Technology doesn't have to be empowering.

Space Race?

[acidradio]

Could China be preparing for intergalactic IP networking? IPv9 may be necessary when we start networking to other planets. Do you think the Enterprise uses IPv9 or is that just too old-school for them?

very bad mistranslation no doubt

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/news/index2004_2.htm is the English language NEWS web site of the University in question and it gives NO indication of ANY of the stuff mentioned here in slashdot.

The news items it DOES mention are:

* Professor Robert William Fogel Was Appointed as an Honor Professor (06/30/2004)
* 2004 Undergraduate Commencement Held (06/29/2004)
* International Symposium on China's Rural Economy Was Held (06/29/2004)
* Dr. Richard A. Houghte Was Appointed as a Guangbiao Chair Professor of Zhejiang University (06/25/2004)
* The 6th China-Japan Symposium on Architectural Structures Was Held (06/24/2004)
* Prizes Issuing Convention on Subject Competitions Was Held (06/24/2004)
* Mr. Lutz Stramann Visited Zhejiang University (06/22/2004)
* Chinese Universities Call for High-Level Personnel (06/22/2004)
* The 5th World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation Was Held (06/18/2004)
* China to See More Juris Masters in Coming Decade (06/17/2004)
* Harvard Wants More Chinese (06/17/2004)
* 3,500 Taiwan, HK, Macao Students Apply for Mainland Universities (06/15/2004)
* A Collaboration Agreement Was Signed between Zhejiang University and Hangzhou High New Technology Zone (06/14/2004)
* Mr. Yibing Wang Was Awarded a Professorship of Zhejiang University (06/14/2004)
* Zhejiang University Re-signed an Agreement of Interuniversity Collaboration with Hong Kong City University (06/10/2004)

Spam Control

[Anonymous Coward]

So they are now able to track down and jail the spammers, or are they now generating additional spammers. Just what does the government there want to do.

What's this "we" shit?

[slittle]

Linus didn't like Minix (and thought Tanenbaum was a bit of a tool), so he developed his own: Linux.

Fixed that for you ;)

whoops

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I meant "not that I've heard of IPv9".

What happened to versions 5, 7 and 8 anyway? Is the article even real?

Re:whoops

[Richard_at_work]

Version 5 existed, and was rejected as impractical. IT was a minor improvement over IPv4 for great cost.

Re:whoops

[Jarnis]

Dunno, but 1, 2 and 3 were sabotaged and destroyed during construction, and 4 vanished without a trace 24h after becoming operation... oops, wrong subject :)

Hmmm. Ten Digit Computing...

[ZenShadow]

Ten Digit Computing? WTF is that?

You can't seriously tell me that these people have only now learned how to count on their fingers?!

--ZS

old adage?

[Sunnan]

if you build it they will come

I thought this was from the novel Shoeless Joe, film as Field of Dreams in the eighties.

Maybe but

[einhverfr]

The point of IP is that it has routing information. RFID tags are more similar to MAC addresses (which don't have routing info but do have manufacturer info).

If you give an RFID tag an IP address, how do you route to it?

Re:Maybe but

[t_allardyce]

The RFID tag wouldnt have packets actually routed to it, the company that makes them or the warehouse that uses them would have a big block and these would point to their website with an individual page for each stating its purpose etc (yes i know its stupid and they could just have one page that takes the 'id' number but this is what i mean about if you build it they will come, someones gonna find a reason to do this sooner or later)

Wouldn't IPv3 be better?

[bezuwork's friend]

If they want security, wouldn't IPv3 be better?

Bear with me. With IPv9, they essentially use a superset of the system the rest of the world uses. Padding addresses of IPv4 and IPv6 packages will make them compatable with the Chinese system, right? Thus a satellite feed could be used, the addresses padded, and surrepticiously put on the Chinese internet. The gov. will certainly be able to detect it and put a stop to it, but leaks could presumably occur from time to time.

With IPv3, the Chinese system would be a subset of the rest of the world's and thus wouldn't be able to address everything simultaneously. Thus any covert hookup wouldn't function. Much better for security, I would think.

Re:Wouldn't IPv3 be better?

[sean23007]

They also wanted to improve on what the rest of the world was using. It was a consideration for them to be able to say "Look how advanced we are! We're compatible with the rest of the world, but better." If they used IPv3, people would look at it, rightly or not, as a failure.

The key phrase...

[argent]

IPv9 can also realize logistic separations between them and safely control them

If every connection between the IPv9 "chinanet" and the IPv4 or IPv6 Internet has to go through a protocol conversion gateway, the only way to run a secure channel will be steganography.

Can't wait...

[Gallvs]

... till it's in Portage!!!11

And safely

[Anonymous Coward]

"safe" ... the .cn government will make it so ...

China...the Swarm...nanobots

[Anonymous Coward]

I think China is prepairing there swarm of nanobot bees to pillage the world's supply of honey. Or maybe they are nanobot mosquitos? Or nanobot rice? How sinister: nanobot rice!

This sounds like a job for Powdered-Toast-Man!

"Remember, thanks to me! --"
-Powdered-Toast-Man

9 is a "lucky number" to Chinese People

[Anonymous Coward]

The number 9 to Chinese people has supersticous meaning to Chinese people. It's similar to the number 7 in the Western World.

Series of Experiments

[Ray Radlein]

Let's all hope this works out better than those unfortunate IPv7 experiments based around the Schumann Resonance. Restoring reality from an offsite backup can be a real bitch.

Re:Series of Experiments

[randomErr]

Present day, Present Time! Hahahahahaha!

Re:Because IPv4 sucks for surveillanc and censorsh

[Richard_at_work]

The Chinese government is notorious for watching its 'citizens' and what they're doing on the Internet

And the US government isnt known for doing exactly the same? Watch where the US is going, its not a pretty sight!

Informative?!

[EvilStein]

God, you Slashdot rookies really need to get out more.

You missed the Spinal Tap reference. :P

That should have been +5, Funny - because damn it, it was funny. heh.

So is IPV9 any good?

[randomErr]

Tons of yucks have been thrown at the decade old April Fools joke, but has anyone seen any performance data on the real IPv9? Is it better the IPv6? Does it have faster and more secure transmission abilities then what is already being used? Can you get a patch for *nix or a driver for Win2000/XP to try out?

Sweet Jumping Jesus

[Anonymous Coward]

People, this is a Spinal tap reference!!!

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting, more than half my spam comes from the USA. Quite a lot from South America and Asia too, though.

Khan!

[meehawl]

we're handing you over to the 800lb gorilla who thinks Genghis Khan was an enlightened ruler.

Ghengis Khan invented the world's first international postal system and, being a strict yet tolerant atheist, decreed freedom of religion throughout his Empire. He promulgated research programs to ensure that teachers and doctors were free from taxation. He outlawed torture throughout the Mongol Empire (are you listening Mr Bush?) and spread knowledge of the abacus and the compass from Asia to Europe. Whereever he found existing feudal aristocracies he annihilated them utterly and replaced them with a strict meritocratic civil service. It is perhaps this last measure that alienated most of the other European and Asian empires and caused them (especially the jealous and fearful European barbarians) to write about him in such vituperative terms.

Heh...

[Cyno01]

Reminds me of the piece in the onion by the CEO of Gillette or whatever. "Fuck This Shit, We're Going Straight to Five Blades!"

Re:Because IPv4 sucks for surveillance and censors

[Salis]

Does the U.S govt have a team of 100,000 agents spoofing your packets to see if you're talking about the government? Probably not, considering that U.S citizens are allowed to criticize their government any time, any place. Not just on the Internet.

Or, if you disagree, how did Farenheit 9/11 ever make it to the theaters?

There's a big difference between civil liberties in the U.S and China. If you can't tell the difference, then you're either ungrateful or ignorant.

This is old news see old rfc archives

[Anonymous Coward]

In June 1992 rfc 1347 Tuba :) Tcp/Udp over bigger addresses

Ipv9=TUBA

RFC 1347 TUBA: A Proposal for Addressing and Routing June 1992

RFC 1561 - Use of ISO CLNP in TUBA Environments

1994
http://www.tml.hut.fi/Opinnot/T-109.501/20 02/repor ts/IPv6.pdf
The key strategy behind TUBA

This has been in devel for the last 10 years it is nothing more than a nasty hack/nat gateway. Its only use is to encapsulate all of the packets in clnp, to make monitoring and firewalling easier. Its also a Ipv4-Ipv6 bridge. Its a f**cking old ass rfc that never went anywhere except in china. Where a few developers had a clue and saw the BS ip address shortage. It is nothing more than a stop gap between ipv4 and ipv6. It is a waste of time and resorces. They should have just switched to ipv6.

tzar tzu

What's the "Ten-Digit" stuff?

[billstewart]

I wasn't sure if that was some addressing thing, or if that was really some Chinese Ideogram translation thing (double-wide Big5, anybody??.) All sounded fuzzy and non-technical to me.

"Stability" - bwahahaha

[billstewart]

The blurb announces that their new stuff has proven to be stable in small trials. Cool! Outstanding! If it really is stable, and they've also done a lot of modelling work to figure out how it scales to really huge networks, then they're probably almost ready to try it out on medium-sized networks and see if their theoretical models are vaguely correct. I won't say it's easy to make things be stable in small networks, because even those can go appallingly wrong and buggy, but working on a small scale is no guarantee of not exploding in bizarre ways when tried on a larger scale.

Re:1/5 to 1/4 quarter of the word pollution

[3riol]

Pedant attack, for the good of the discussion!

not every nation that seeks to exercise political or economic power abroad is Imperialist.

the Oxford (Compact) English Dictionary disagrees with you.

imperialist n. [...] 2 a policy of acquiring dependent territories or of extending a country's influence through trade, diplomacy etc.

If your personal definition of "imperialism" differs from that of most people, they cannot be held responsible.
Aside from that, I for one agree on the American-bashing moratorium, though I fully believe we of the 'rest of the world' have a right to gripe about any and all decisions of the elected American government that affect others than just their population (refusing the Kyoto protocol, protectionism, invasion wars, funding terrorism, weakening the UN, refusing to be held accountable for possible* war crimes, &c.).
As such, though your argument that there's been enough of it is entirely valid, but in many respects, your government (which in a prefect democracy we'd hold you accountable for) is and should be a matter of worldwide complaint. :-)

Right, that's all for today on the off-topic side.

---
*: the word 'possible' was included solely for motives of diplomatical politeness.

The doom of so-called IPv9 - my personal view

[firedragon168]

First, I am a Chinese. Second, "THIS" IPV9 sucks and will not go any further instead of a joke. I bet that no people will talk about the implemention of IPV9 two years from now Third, the Chinese are proud of the "creation"? NO! I can tell you that after I surfed several major chinese tech wesbites. 90 percent of people believe it just a huge joke and are shame of this kind of stupid report. Why this kind of report comes? People suspect the small lab want to cheat some money from "research budget" from government-back fund, some dirty guys get that kind of money for surviving take advantage of the corruption of government officers. - They even do NOT know how to write a HTML code When we look into that web address of the "IPV9" company who owns the "IP", when you check their webpage source code, they even do not know how to write a good HTML code :) or they even have no moeny to hire a good web designer to write the code. How can you believe they could write a "new generation communication protocol"? http://www.91num.net/index1.htm - The company address is one room in a building somewhere, probably just his own home/office. It is not a "university lab" or "national-class lab", even so, most of these kind of lab sucks government money and produces nothing really useful. for example, some years ago a guy boasted he could use water to drive car engine and so on - our poor middle-east countries will collapse if it is true. - Look the "IP creator" background and the team The "creator" major is nor math. neither computer/telecom.....whatever you believe ir not his major is chemistry - LOL. And so-called lab is under a small office of a local chemistry company. That is the funniest thing I found out. The "team" found in 2001 and now has only 29 people...you even can reach the creater by his personal phone number byi021j62906873. You try it.....if you want to know what is the IPV9. - so far no any available documents on the IPV9...even a "IPV9 for dummies". How could a entire "new generation protocol" was developed without any documenation? miracle - Why IPv9? The only reason I could find "9" in chinese means "long life" and "forever", instead, "4" somehow means "dead" because of same prounciation. Using "good" to replace "bad" in term of meaning, that is the only reason I could find so far ^_^ CONCLUSION: IT IS JUST A JOKE, or **someone** believe it is NOT but finally will find out IT IS JUST A JOKE. I am proud of my country, but not our IPV99999 Take it easy.

The doom of IPV9

[firedragon168]

First, I am a Chinese.

Second, "THIS" IPV9 sucks and will not go any further instead of a joke. I bet that no people will talk about the implementation of IPV9 two years from now

Third, the Chinese are proud of the "creation"?

NO! I can tell you that after I surfed several major Chinese tech wesbites. 90 percent of people believe it just a huge joke and are shame of this kind of stupid report.

- Why this kind of report comes?

People suspect the small lab want to cheat some money from "research budget" from government-back fund, some dirty guys get that kind of money for surviving take advantage of the corruption of government officers.

- They even do NOT know how to write a HTML code

When we look into that web address of the "IPV9" company who owns the "IP", when you check their webpage source code, they even do not know how to write a good HTML code :) or they even have no money to hire a good web designer to write the code. How can you believe they could write a "new generation communication protocol"?

http://www.91num.net/index1.htm

- The company address is one room in a building somewhere, probably just in his own home/office. It is not a "university lab" or "national-class lab". Even so, most of these kind of lab sucks government money and produces nothing really useful. for example, some years ago a guy boasted he could use water to drive car engine and so on - our poor middle-east countries will collapse if it is true.

- Look the "IP creator" background and the team

The "creator" major is nor math. neither computer/telecom.....whatever you believe ir not his major is chemistry - LOL. And so-called lab is under a small office of a local chemistry company. That is the funniest thing I found out. The "team" found in 2001 and now has only 29 people...you even can reach the creater by his personal phone number by 021-6290-6873. You try it.....if you want to know what is the IPV9.

- IPV9 Document?

So far no any available documents on the IPV9...even a "IPV9 for dummies". How could a entire "new generation protocol" was developed without any documenation? miracle -

- Why IPv9? My perspective..^_^

The only reason I could find "9" in chinese means "long life" and "forever", instead, "4" somehow means "dead" because of same prounciation. Using "good" to replace "bad" in term of meaning, that is the only reason I could find so far ^_^

CONCLUSION:

IT IS JUST A JOKE, or **someone** believe it is NOT but finally will find out IT IS JUST A JOKE. I am proud of my country, but absolutely not our IPV99999.

Take it easy.

Re:The doom of IPV9

[Anonymous Coward]

Good! I'm chinese too, and i wrote a article about IPv9 in my blog: IPv9 -- Another Big Joke with Chinese Characteristics. But I found ur post is better, especially the reason they choose 9 not 4...

IPv12

[amphibian]

Remember Autonomy? They were using IPv12... whose main purpose was to make surveillance and censorship easier.

Sounds to me like ENUM

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2916.txt

IPv9 is looking more like a major rip of other protocols and technologies.

RE: US Refusing to ratify the Kyoto protocols

[some guy I know]

refusing the Kyoto protocol

While I agree that the American government (not its people (not all of them anyway, since I am not responsible for the government, because none of the people for whom I vote ever seem to actually get elected (on a national level, anyway (not since Carter, and that was a mistake (but I was very young, and it was my first Presidential election, and I didn't know about third parties at the time, and I thought that Ford was a buffoon (in retrospect, a harsh assessment)))))) sucks in many ways, and has done all sorts of very naughty things, I have to disagree with you on the Kyoto thing. The Kyoto protocol was based on flawed studies, and provided unrealistic goals.
The world, and especially the US, has to decrease the amount of pollution it creates, but the goals have to be realistic, and the science behind them has to be scientific.

As an American citizen, I have no problems with the rest of the world bashing the American government, or even the herd of sheep that is comprised of most Americans, as long as they don't bash all Americans.
Many of us are not responsible for what is happening here, because the people for whom we voted are not the people who are running things.
It sucks to be a political minority.

Innovations from China

[some guy I know]

It must irk them on some level that all of the important technologies (cars, computers, networking, flying, you name it) come from the west.

Not all.
For example, rockets were invented by the Chinese.
However, I can't think of any important technology that has come from any communist country.
As China becomes more and more capitalistic, I expect that we'll start seeing more and more innovations from that part of the world.
As the US continues to decline, China will continue to rise, until it eventually become the next dominant world power.
But that won't happen until its government gets rid of its communist ideology, the way the old USSR did.

Please learn how to make links.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please learn how to make links.

<a href="http://www.1421.tv/">"1421: The Year China Discovered the World"</a>

yields: "1421: The Year China Discovered the World"

FYI

[Anonymous Coward]

You do not have to hit the "Enter" key at the end of a text box. The browser automatically wraps lines for you. It's very distracting trying to read such short lines, and I stopped reading about halfway through your post. Those people who wish to read short lines will have already adjusted their browsers accordingly, in order to read the other posts here. You should do the same if you like short lines, and stop manually wrapping your text.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

IPv9 packets contain the Version Number 0100.1

[Anonymous Coward]

Your IPv8 packets appear to contain the Version Number 0100.0, which is 4.0 or 8 (01000) depending on whether you consider the binary point. IPv9 packets contain the Version Number 0100.1, which is 4.5 or 9 (01001).

The extra Version Number Bit is located directly to the right of the Identification Field bits. Modern InterNAT devices properly set the IPv9 Version Number and take advantage of the 11 Bi-Directional Extended Address Bits in the deprecated TOS Field and the re-engineered Identification Field. The TOS Field is split into two 4-bit fields and the Identification Field is re-worked into two 7-bit fields with a 2-bit field for classic identification functionality. The 4-bits and 7-bits combine to provide 11 extended address bits for both the source and destination, end-to-end, agents.

Layer 8 and Layer 9 discussions sometimes refer to IPv8 as AM and IPv9 as FM. You appear to only have access to the AM net. There is another entire net experience, people have been enjoying for years. With a modern InterNAT system, you can access both the AM and FM InterNAT services. Voice, Video and Vibration are show-cased on the InterNAT, along with 3D3V real-time cyberspace experiences.

IPv6 IS a different Protocol - Why is THAT not Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

IPv6 IS a different Protocol - Why is THAT not Bad

IPv8 and IPv9 are fully compatible with IPv4.
There is just an extra Version Bit.

The 4 gets shifted right, making it an 8.

4 times 2 equals 8

Duh The 4 Gets Shifted LEFT not "Right"

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh The 4 Gets Shifted LEFT not "Right"

0100
01000
01001 = IPv9

The 49th Bit (the Hawaii Bit) Contains 1 for IPv9

[Anonymous Coward]

The 49th Bit (the Hawaii Bit) Contains 1 for IPv9

And so, owing to the impending status of Hawaii, the new record label
proudly named itself "49th State Hawaii Records". (Of course we know
that the change in status took much longer than expected, and Alaska
beat Hawaii to the 49th designation - but the "49th State" label
remained and has gained in historical significance from that time)

Microsoft Does Not Have IPv9 - Linux and BSD Do

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft does not have IPv9 technology.
They are not able to understand it.

Only Linux and BSD developers have been using
IPv9 (and IPv8) for years.

ICANN Chairman Calls for Public Floggings and IPv6

[Anonymous Coward]

Cerf and Crocker and some of the other good old boys were just in China, trying to force IPv6 down their throats. The Chinese are very smart engineers. They did not swallow it. They want FREEDOM from people like ICANN and the ISOC. Now, Vinton Cerf, the Chairman of ICANN is calling for public flogging of people. He suggests that people be entrapped via sting operations. You can listen to his video taped comments here with Farber. http://news.com.com/1606-2-5239781.html

Re:IPv6 IS a different Protocol - Why is THAT not

[Spy Hunter]

Because the Internet community debated and settled on IPv6 as the replacement for IPv4. It's already done. IPv6 is the standard next-generation protocol for the Internet. If someone else comes along after the fact and starts using a different protocol, it will only mess everything up, cause confusion and incompatibilities, and delay the adoption of the real successor to IPv4. I'm not debating the technical merits of this "IPv9" against IPv6. Even if it is marginally better than IPv6 (which I doubt), I would still argue that at this point, when IPv6 has already been decided on and implementations are out there, it would be bad for the Internet to switch again and start implementing IPv9.

Also, about the "full compatibility" you claim: even if the *only* difference in IPv9 is the changed version bits, that makes it *completely* incompatible with IPv4. v4 devices will refuse to process the packets because of the different version number, regardless of the packet contents. Software would have to be updated everywhere to accept the new version number, and firmware would have to be replaced (in many cases by buying new devices). I hardly call that "completely compatible." Even if the packet format is identical, changing the version breaks everything.

Re:1/5 to 1/4 quarter of the word pollution

[Fnkmaster]

No, that is a definition for the common-use liberal term "imperialist", as in "cultural imperialist", "social imperialist", etc. It has nothing to do with true Imperialism, and if you note, I used the capital "I" to be absolutely unambiguous that I do not use newspeak claptrap like that OED entry. Certainly no political scientist would agree with that drivel. Other dictionaries have definitions that seem shockingly at odds with that one, for example check out the many dictionary.com entries, such as the American Heritage and Merriam-Webster definitions - none of them seem to agree with the secondary definition you provided from the Oxford Compact English Dictionary. Which just goes to show that even a great dictionary is still the work of humans, and can be flawed at times.

Re:1/5 to 1/4 quarter of the word pollution

[3riol]

Good Heavens. All your definitions agree with the one I cited (with the exception of the one referring to the alternate meaning related to a system governed by an emperor).

Imperialism englobes extension of cultural, social, economical, and military influence. You still haven't defined your personal 'true Imperialism'. And your abuse of the word liberal in its neo-conservative 'newspeak' sense is telling.

At least the other readers probably understood your misuse of the term, which is all that matters.