Slashdot Mirror


China's New Internet Plan

eldavojohn writes "The internet in China is diverging rapidly from the state that the rest of the world enjoys it. Recent news of China's leader, Hu Jintao, has revealed a strategy to distort it even further. Jintao is tackling the issue his Communist party is having with the youth of China that are too young to remember Chairman Mao and the fanaticism the populace had for him. A strategy he is proposing is 'cleaning up' China's internet & lacing it with a little propaganda like the need to 'Consolidate the guiding status of Marxism in the ideological sphere' online. The meeting notes also declared that 'Development and administration of Internet culture must stick to the direction of socialist advanced culture, adhere to correct propaganda guidance.'"

259 comments

  1. And this diverges ... how? by Opportunist · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I mean, aside of the (probable) cutting off of non-pro-China webpages that we already have? I mean, do I care whether I get corporate or party spam?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:And this diverges ... how? by mi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      do I care whether I get corporate or party spam?

      You (should) care because corporations are many and competing, whereas there is only one Party (in China).

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:And this diverges ... how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thank God I live in America, where this kind of behavior is only exhibited by corporations (like Google, Apple, and Microsoft), and our government. Oh, wait a minute...

    3. Re:And this diverges ... how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I'll be crying all day long that I can't be spammed. I truly will.

    4. Re:And this diverges ... how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China create a separate internet just within China, it's similar a company's intranet, just much bigger.
      Originaly created for the purpose of the unicode domain names, thus chinese characters. With an added bonus of complete control by government.
      Chinese can access the regular internet and this new internet. But I can see regular internet gets more and more restricted and the new one gets promoted.

  2. Echoes of 1936 by Billosaur · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Communist Party is preparing for a congress later this year that is set to give Hu another five-year term and open the way for him to choose eventual successors. In 2008, Beijing hosts the Olympic Games, when the party's economic achievements will be on display, along with its political and media controls.

    The parallels to the Olympics of 1936 are kind of eerie -- then it was Hitler attempting to show off German might and industry, his neat and orderly Aryan society, and the superiority of the German race. Perhaps this is not as sinister, but it is certainly disturbing.

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    1. Re:Echoes of 1936 by Zarhan · · Score: 1

      The parallels to the Olympics of 1936 are kind of eerie -- then it was Hitler attempting to show off German might and industry, his neat and orderly Aryan society, and the superiority of the German race. Perhaps this is not as sinister, but it is certainly disturbing.

      So who's going to be the Jesse Owens of 2008?

    2. Re:Echoes of 1936 by ReidMaynard · · Score: 1

      So who's going to be the Jesse Owens of 2008? CowboyNeal, naturally.
      --
      -- www.globaltics.net

      Political discussion for a new world

    3. Re:Echoes of 1936 by Aminion · · Score: 2

      So who's going to be the Jesse Owens of 2008? Hopefully a Tibetan guy/girl.
    4. Re:Echoes of 1936 by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      Or someone from Taiwan...

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    5. Re:Echoes of 1936 by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

      Ahh, Jesse Owens. Clearly a fine exemplar of the Aryan race... OH SNAP!

      --
      SRSLY.
    6. Re:Echoes of 1936 by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't recall the Chinese claiming to be any kind of master race, so some guy beating them at running really isn't going to bother them that much. I guess getting whipped at gymnastics might annoy the people who came up with the whole gymnastics boot camp thing, but it's really not going to piss on their whole ideology like Jesse Owen did the the Nazis.

    7. Re:Echoes of 1936 by wumpus188 · · Score: 1

      No, they're buddhists, they don't sive a shit about Olympics.

    8. Re: Echoes of 1936 by Gospodin · · Score: 1

      Silly to draw any conclusions from two datapoints, but: Nazi Germany hosted the Olympics in 1936, and by the 1948 Olympics they were no more. Soviet Russia hosted the Olympics in 1980, and by the 1992 Olympics they were gone. Now Red China is hosting in 2008. Any predictions for 2020?

      --
      ...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
    9. Re: Echoes of 1936 by Gospodin · · Score: 0

      I don't recall the Chinese claiming to be any kind of master race...

      Try a Google search on "Racism in China". Eye-opening. Han Chinese strike me as pretty f'ing racist.

      --
      ...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
    10. Re: Echoes of 1936 by moore.dustin · · Score: 2, Funny

      We (USA) hosted it in 1996... any predictions for the next 18 months?

    11. Re: Echoes of 1936 by Gospodin · · Score: 1

      We (USA) hosted it in 1996... any predictions for the next 18 months?

      Ah, but we also hosted in 1984, and the only thing that happened 12 years later was another Olympics. We didn't even get the sort of regime change that happens every 4 or 8 years here. :)

      --
      ...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
    12. Re: Echoes of 1936 by Stefanwulf · · Score: 1

      And the U.S. hosted the olympics in 1996!

      That gives us about a year and four months, by my clock.

    13. Re: Echoes of 1936 by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      I should really have said the Chinese government. The Chinese people may be pretty racist but the Chinese communist party doesn't have any kind of racist ideology like the Nazi party did, the USA in the 30's would probably be a closer parallel.

    14. Re: Echoes of 1936 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. The Chinese government would rather just have the whole thing go off without a hitch and have lots of people leave with a pleasant view of China.

    15. Re: Echoes of 1936 by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We didn't even get the sort of regime change that happens every 4 or 8 years here.

      In a real regime change, the creeping plague of bureaucracy is reset.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    16. Re: Echoes of 1936 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was kind of the plan of the Nazis too. Everyone was supposed to think, why those Germans, aren't they nice, I hope their Reich lasts for a thousand years, and I do hope those nasty Jews stop being mean to them and plotting a secret world government.

    17. Re: Echoes of 1936 by tzhuge · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Try a Google search on:
      "Racism in France". Eye-opening. The French strike me as pretty f'ing racist.
      "Racism in Italy". Eye-opening. Italians strike me as pretty f'ing racist.
      "Racism in USA". Eye-opening. Americans strike me as pretty f'ing racist.
      "Racism in England". Eye-opening. The English strike me as pretty f'ing racist.
      "Racism in Israel". Eye-opening. Jews strike me as pretty f'ing racist.

      It seems that the hypocrisy of a comment that associates an entire ethnic group with racism is lost on /. mods (+3 Informative... HA).

    18. Re:Echoes of 1936 by vertigoCiel · · Score: 1

      I'm a fan. In preparation for the olympics, they passed a law decreeing that all shopkeepers and vendors must not be rude or sarcastic to customers. Now there's a lot less people ganging up to sell their products to rich wai-guo ren's (foreigners) like me.

    19. Re: Echoes of 1936 by metalogic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Aren't you yourself "f'ing racist" when you accuse the whole "Han Chinese" race of sharing a same trait? They are all the same, right? Perhaps you can tell us why do you hate "Han Chinese" so much?

    20. Re: Echoes of 1936 by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 1

      I wonder if someone's done a study of racism by race?

    21. Re:Echoes of 1936 by jandersen · · Score: 1, Troll

      Oh. come on. Every Olympic game is used by the host nation as an opportunity to show off; why the hell would any country want to spend the tens to hundreds of billions of dollars on what is basically a slightly lame entertainment project?

      Apart from that, I think it is petty and stupid to keep criticizing China without any real insight into to country and its culture. Yes, there are things that are not right in China, and it is right to point that out, but that is not what is going on at Slashdot. Instead of insightful commentary and opinion, all you get is an automatic yapping of whatever people happen to have picked up from Fox News - or possibly the Simpsons, which is only slightly better.

      The population of any country have certain expectations to their leaders - they want them to deal with what they perceive as problems, and in China the vast majority of people feel that the internet is a filthy mess and that the government should do something to clean it up, so their children are not led astray by unhealthy, foreign influences. Chinese parents are afraid of the internet and computer games; they want their children to do well in the future, not waste time. This is perhaps an alien concept to a westerner, but in China this is almost fundamental - 'Work hard, study well' is a phrase you hear all the time, and I bet if you know any Chinese students, you'll know that most of them work harder than anybody else.

      Don't just assume per automatic that people in other countries want the same as you - to an American 'freedom' may be a sacred ideal, but to Chinese and to many others it is more important to fit in and be successful. Who can say who is 'right'? Or, to turn it around, don't you believe in the right of others to choose what they want, even if it is completely different from what you would have chosen?

    22. Re: Echoes of 1936 by Gospodin · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows there's racism in Western countries, so that's not too eye-opening. But you're right, I shouldn't accuse all Han Chinese of being racists. My intention was merely to point out to OP that racism is alive and well in China.

      --
      ...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
    23. Re:Echoes of 1936 by Billosaur · · Score: 1

      Don't just assume per automatic that people in other countries want the same as you - to an American 'freedom' may be a sacred ideal, but to Chinese and to many others it is more important to fit in and be successful. Who can say who is 'right'? Or, to turn it around, don't you believe in the right of others to choose what they want, even if it is completely different from what you would have chosen?

      Yes. As far as I'm concerned, everyone is free to do as they choose. I have a problem when they decide that the way they do things is the way I should do things, and I don't have any say in the matter. Now that might be fine for the Chinese people, but that's not fine for me.

      And I'm not sure how you go from my relatively benign statement of the parallels involved to a diatribe against the Chinese way of life and why I'm against it. I am not free to form my own opinion based on the evidence before me? I'm not a China expert, but despite their foray into mass markets and manufacturing, it's still the same repressive government, that is more concerned with indoctrination than general social welfare. The Chinese people are free to make any choice they like... so long as it is approved by Beijing.

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    24. Re:Echoes of 1936 by jandersen · · Score: 1

      You find comparing China of today with Nazi Germany 'relatively benign'? I find it hard to believe that you honestly think it is; after all, has there ever been a regime worse than the Nazi one? Pol Pot's was on par, USSR under Stalin was not far behind, but China does not come near, not by a mile. The Nazis systematically slaughtered a whole segment of the population; China, to compare, not only recognizes the rights of their ~50 minorities, but actually in some cases gives them greater rights than the Han Chinese - eg. many minorities are excempt from the rule of one child per family.

      So why do you call the Chinese government 'repressive' and 'indoctrinating' - as opposed to the American, I suppose? Isn't it simply because you have been brought up with a diet of narrowminded 'communist-hate'? I put it in quotes because as far as I can see, what you hate isn't really communism, but some terror-image that has been constructed by certain people in power; the McCarthies, the enlightened people at Fox News and others of the same kind. They are more or less the same that also perpetuate the hysteria against cannabis, abortion rights or gays; how can anybody take them serious? To me it seems that America is just as repressive in its own way, or perhaps even more, and you, my friend, are a living example of American indoctrination.

    25. Re:Echoes of 1936 by Billosaur · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you are misunderstanding me, so let me be plain: my statement said there were "parallels", meaning that circumstances in 1936 and now bear more than a passing resemblance. At no point did I articulate my dislike, disgust, or disregard for the Chinese people in my original statement. I have high regard for their culture and history given its broad span and their accomplishments, especially in the sciences, but their culture entering the 20th Century became rather stilted and their move to Communism effectively put a wall up between China and the rest of the world. Though the wall has crumbled somewhat, the structures belying it have not, and if you believe that all is hunky-dory and peachy-keen behind the scenes, I defy you to ask a member of the Falun Gong how well treated and respected they are in their own country. Just because the acrid smoke of a million chimneys is not filling the air with the putrid stench of burned corpses doesn't mean that they aren't quietly eliminating opposition in their country.

      As far as I know, agents of the United States Government have not told me what I have to think and how I should feel about things. I've come to these conclusions based on my own knowledge and research. Your responses to my posts hint at a reactionary stigma, too prevalent in our society, where discourse has been replaced by "is to... is not...". For the record I find Fox News pedantic and CNN self-important. I don't take news at face value. I don't like being told what to believe. If I want to know, I find out for myself. If my indoctrination includes freedom of expression, freedom of thought, and the right to form and keep my own opinion, then that's the kind of "indoctrination" we could use more of, rather the reactionary negation you favor.

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    26. Re: Echoes of 1936 by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      Chinese people are racist? I don't think so. Try googling Japanese, republicans, the south.

  3. What can really be done about this? by zappepcs · · Score: 2, Funny

    I do not buy anything made in China. Its not easy to find out what parts of a laptop of computer are made in China, so my plan isn't foolproof, but it's what I know that I can do to stop support for the Chinese government.

    What else can people do? Ideas?

    1. Re:What can really be done about this? by TheLazySci-FiAuthor · · Score: 4, Funny

      We can bring democracy to them - works every time!

    2. Re:What can really be done about this? by giorgiofr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Erm, you're only stopping support for Chinese manufacturers, I'm afraid. Their gov't is totally unintersted in your actions. If what you're thinking about goes along the lines of stopping support for their industries so that the people will rebel against a gov't that, by alienating foreigners, takes their livelihood away: remember that China will shortly be a self-substaining market.
      I believe there is no way to make the Chinese gov't change their mind. Only the peoples of China can choose to get rid of it, and apparently they're not really that keen on doing so.

      --
      Global warming is a cube.
    3. Re:What can really be done about this? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      How do you know that stuff you buy isn't made using stuff made in China? Plus I'm not sure if it's possible to live like a normal person in society without somehow supporting china. You buy a drink from McDonald's, the cup is probably made in China. You can try to reduce it, but I don't think you're going to get very far.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    4. Re:What can really be done about this? by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

      I remember George Carlin coming on stage waving a flag of (I think) Japan and saying "I wave this flag for the reason that it was the only one I could find that was made in the USA".

      I find it kinda bizarre to buy a US flag only to find out that it's made in China. No kidding, I still have it as proof.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:What can really be done about this? by SQL+Error · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Buy stuff made in Taiwan. There's plenty of it, it's cheap, usually good, and it'll piss off the Chinese.

      Except that a growing number of Taiwanese companies have factories on the mainland these days...

    6. Re:What can really be done about this? by ReidMaynard · · Score: 1

      I do not buy anything made in China. Its not easy to find out what parts of a laptop of computer are made in China, so my plan isn't foolproof, but it's what I know that I can do to stop support for the Chinese government.

      What else can people do? Ideas?

      I get pre-owned notebooks and parts used off eBay / Craigslist. Even though I know Thinkpads have been made in China for many years, I feel it's a pretty good balance between me getting a good product and money *not* going overseas.
      --
      -- www.globaltics.net

      Political discussion for a new world

    7. Re:What can really be done about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>What else can people do?

      Skip Wal-Mart is a good start

      http://dotnetsamplechapters.blogspot.com/

    8. Re:What can really be done about this? by beckerist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...or they ARE keen to and are immediately silenced.

    9. Re:What can really be done about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can help the great rise of Chinese middle class by buying Chinese products from non-state own manufacturers, teaching Chinese English, supporting Chinese overseas students... China has more than 1 billion people, their inner market is huge. You can't hurt the government by hurting the people, resisting their work. But you can let them know that you love them and you can help them living better lives by helping them construct a better society.

    10. Re:What can really be done about this? by grumpyman · · Score: 3, Insightful
      . Only the peoples of China can choose to get rid of it, and apparently they're not really that keen on doing so.


      How do you know that they're not really keen? You need another 1989 to prove that they're keen?

    11. Re:What can really be done about this? by giorgiofr · · Score: 0

      A small fraction of the student population puts up some resistance 18 years ago (and is promptly squashed) and you call that being keen? Face it, most people are satisfied with the way things are in China. First, I've actually heard that a lot from Chinese people. Second, a 1 billion strong population who is keen on changing cannot be stopped. Or maybe it could, but then I believe we'd witness a more, how to say, notable reaction from the gov't.

      --
      Global warming is a cube.
    12. Re:What can really be done about this? by jcr · · Score: 1

      I do not buy anything made in China

      Your heart's in the right place, but that doesn't help. What's going to bring down the commies in China is increasing prosperity, which will bring with it improved internal communications. If the protestors in 1989 had been able to communicate with the whole country the way they can today, we'd be reading about China's elections today.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    13. Re:What can really be done about this? by jcr · · Score: 1

      A small fraction of the student population puts up some resistance 18 years ago (and is promptly squashed) and you call that being keen?

      It was rather more than that. There were PLA units marching in support of the protests, factory workers, etc, etc. If it had just been the students, the thugs wouldn't have gotten so freaked out.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    14. Re:What can really be done about this? by orzetto · · Score: 1

      Buy stuff made in Taiwan. There's plenty of it, it's cheap, usually good, and it'll piss off the Chinese.

      Except that, for very interesting and intricate historical reasons, both the ROC and the PRC mark their products as "made in China", as both governments (at least formally) consider themselves the government of both mainland and Taiwan. I would not be surprised if the ROC had a law to ensure that producers use "Made in China" instead of "Made in Taiwan", this used to be a hot political issue.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    15. Re:What can really be done about this? by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 1

      I do not buy anything made in China. Its not easy to find out what parts of a laptop of computer are made in China, so my plan isn't foolproof, but it's what I know that I can do to stop support for the Chinese government.

      What else can people do? Ideas? My idea is that you do exactly the opposite. Buy stuff that is made in China. This encourages the development of a capitalistic middle class.
      It helps develop a group of Chinese people who know more about the west than their government tells them ( they have to learn about their markets ) and who work with private banks ( they have to when they do large scale business in the west ) and who like private property.

      In other words, it encourages the growth of a group of people whose values and beliefs are contrary to the Chinese government.

    16. Re:What can really be done about this? by vidarh · · Score: 1

      Funny how I've bought lots of stuff over the years that says "Made in Taiwan" then...

    17. Re:What can really be done about this? by Hyperspite · · Score: 1

      I know a couple chinese americans who say they hate china and what it did to their families. I guess the people who wanted to leave most left :P (unless they didn't have the means).

    18. Re:What can really be done about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, many Chinese are satisfied, and some people I know have studied abroad in China or have bought a retirement home there. But I don't agree that a squashed rebellion implies weakness or indifference. In fact, it may just be that the government is powerful (within its own borders). Just because change hasn't come about in Zimbabwe or Burma does not mean that the people aren't keen; both governments have been brutal in reinforcing their own power. It was also clear that the voters wanted Aung San Suu Kyi to become president of Burma, but unfortunately that didn't happen. As for China, I would argue that propaganda and brainwashing contributes partly to their "satisfaction". For example, they tried to hide the news that Jiang Zemin (I think) was stepping down, for fear that it would lead to another Tiananmen Square.

      By the way, I'm ethnically Chinese, although my grandparents fled China after the revolution. So I'm biased against their government.

    19. Re:What can really be done about this? by Old+Benjamin · · Score: 1

      Actually you want to buy stuff from China. First, the Chinese heavily subsidize stuff coming from there, so essentially they give you free money. Second, this increases the trade deficit, so the US owes China more money. It sounds bad, but its good, because not only do they give us more money, but we owe them money, so, should they ever want to declare war on us, or vice versa, they can look forward to economic collapse. The best way to ensure the peace is to make countries economically inter-dependant

      --
      "The quickest way to end a war is to lose it" -Orwell
    20. Re:What can really be done about this? by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      I find it kinda bizarre to buy a US flag only to find out that it's made in China ... not. Most of your fabrics (clothes) are manufactured there; why would a flag be any different? Seriously, it's moronic to think you're making some kind of a political statement to say that your flag needs to be manufactured in your country. It doesn't mean you can't still wave it just as patriotically.

    21. Re:What can really be done about this? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So it's patriotic to support the economy of a (possible) competing country for the world market?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    22. Re:What can really be done about this? by niktemadur · · Score: 1

      I do not buy anything made in China. Its not easy to find out what parts of a laptop of computer are made in China, so my plan isn't foolproof, but it's what I know that I can do to stop support for the Chinese government.

      Even beyond electronics, how can you know if what you're buying doesn't have something-or-other made in China?

      Many US pet food companies, as an immediate example, were caught with their pants around their ankles, buying melamine-contaminated wheat gluten originating from China. And if that wasn't enough, a month after the recall, then they were caught with contaminated rice gluten, again from China. Even so-called holistic pet food companies, such as Natural Balance, were using the ingredients without listing them on the labels. And the thing is, they weren't even breaking the law, as there is a six-month grace period to change the labels after switching ingredients.

      First it was dogs and cats that were tragically affected through liver failure, and now it's been detected in California farm hogs, so the culprit has been detected entering the human food supply.

      Notice how the US importer, as well as the pet food companies, are all listed by name in the press releases, which is the way it should be, but there's not a sausage of information on the chinese side of things. Aren't the chinese suppliers of wheat and rice gluten subject to any kind of oversight in their operations? Or are they given special treatment because, you know, trade is all-important and good, and you do NOT want to piss off the chinese?

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    23. Re:What can really be done about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Products made in Taiwan either say:

      Made in R.O.C.
      Made in R.O.C. (Taiwan)
      Made in Republic of China
      Made in Taiwan
      Made in Taiwan (R.O.C.)

    24. Re: What can really be done about this? by transporter_ii · · Score: 0

      Erm, you're only stopping support for Chinese manufacturers

      A lot of goods in China are made by slave labor...and a lot of those are political prisoners. Boycotting may stop support for Chinese manufacturers, but if enough people did it, it would send a strong message that we care more about people than about money. But since money is what we really care about, everyone can move along here, nothing to see...

      Transporter_ii

      --
      Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
    25. Re:What can really be done about this? by VendettaMF · · Score: 1

      Ummm, dude, from experience, these people you refer too... They _ARE_ the government.

      --
      kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
    26. Re:What can really be done about this? by bogjobber · · Score: 1
      You need another 1989 to prove that they're keen?

      Yes. It's not a natural conclusion that everybody desires a democracy. That's something that seems to get glossed over in our society. As long as people are materially comfortable and are relatively free in their personal lives, most people don't give two shits about how the government is run. I agree that a democracy is the best thing for the world and China. For the foreseeable future, however, as long as wealth is building and people have jobs there will not be a strong democracy movement in China. It's hard to believe that a large amount of Chinese are worried about their freedom of speech when most are uneducated workers simply trying to feed themselves and find work.

    27. Re:What can really be done about this? by grumpyman · · Score: 1
      A small fraction of the student population puts up some resistance 18 years ago (and is promptly squashed) and you call that being keen? Face it, most people are satisfied with the way things are in China. First, I've actually heard that a lot from Chinese people. Second, a 1 billion strong population who is keen on changing cannot be stopped. Or maybe it could, but then I believe we'd witness a more, how to say, notable reaction from the gov't.


      You just make yourself look like a communist as you sounds exactly like the Chinese government propaganda.

      1. "small fraction of the students population" - there were hundreds of thousands of people protesting in Beijing and by the end of May there are protest in every major cities in China as well as oversea. Not only it included students but also the general population.

      2. "promptly squashed" - they had the protest a good 40+ days before they used the army

      3. "1 billion strong population who is keen cannot be stopped" - do you have a tank at home?

      4. "notable reaction from the gov't" - using tank and guns killing 2600 armless people and injurying 30000. I'm not sure what the hell you mean by 'notable'.

      If you are trying to point out the 1989 Tiananmen Square isn't loud enough, well, you are totally full of crap. Go read some more on wikipedia.

    28. Re:What can really be done about this? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      An excellent question, and one that has not been adequately addressed - the Americans seem intent on blaming themselves for the melamine contamination. I work in China with Chinese suppliers, and things can be really opaque. Whenever there's a problem, the Chinese have a simple solution - lie. He doesn't work here. He used to work here, and now he's gone. No, you can't go into his office, it's closed. It's being fumigated, toxic gases will come out if you kick the door open. Been there, done that.

      There are two reasons why the Chinese suppliers aren't being mentioned. First, they're hard to find. Second, the American press is only interested in bashing American companies.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    29. Re:What can really be done about this? by giorgiofr · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying it wasn't loud enough. And obviously I am not an expert in revolutions. However you cannot deny (and in fact you don't) that the political unrest in the 80s in China *was* indeed stopped. The hundreds of thousands of people protesting are still a small fraction, compared to the whole of China: every 100K is 0.01% of the population. My country is 60M strong and I can assure you that a 6000-strong march would be noticed and considered cute but not really interesting. Heck, there'll be *way more* people in Rome for the concerts on the 1st of May.
      And again obvioulsy I don't have a tank at home but history shows that when a country is really torn by political dissent, the usual consequences range from civil war to mass strikes to mass emigration (...wait a second! the Chinese *do* migrate a lot). I just don't see that happening.
      If the reason why this happens is that the Party controls information so well, then I've been fooled and they are indeed masters of propaganda techniques. This is, of course, possible.

      --
      Global warming is a cube.
    30. Re:What can really be done about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chinese won't make Japanese flags.

    31. Re:What can really be done about this? by anoopjohn · · Score: 1

      If you have read the book - The World is Flat - then you wouldn't worry much about this issue. Chinese economy is growing so fast and the people are getting richer and richer each day that it is going to be very tough to impose restrictions on them. The greatest flattening force is capitalism and that is the way to bring democracy to countries. Empower people and let them eventually choose democracy. Rather than not buy Chinese products we just keep on buying the better product be it from China or India and let time prove this theory true.

      --
      "Be the change you wish to see in the world" - M. K. Gandhi
  4. Status Quo by FooGoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This sounds like every other government/corporate plan to me so it's governance/business as usual. When will goverments and corps realize that the internet doesn't belong to them. It belongs to the users we just allow them to use it and profit from it if we so desire. If you can't compete on your own merits as a company, ideology, or political system this is not the place for you.
    FG

    --
    People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
    1. Re:Status Quo by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      The internet is owned by everybody who takes part of it. That includes the government who facilitates it (the US government at least, who started it, provides laws which facilitate its continued existence, as well as funding a centralized name system, which everybody highly depends on,) the corporations who build the infrastructures that no individuals could possibly build, and the users who ultimately provide the content. If you remove any one of those three, you don't have an internet. So yes, they do own it, but so do you.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    2. Re:Status Quo by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      When will goverments and corps realize that the internet doesn't belong to them.
      When they are forced to admit it at gunpoint.

      Seriously, the persepctive of modern corporations and governments is that there is no such thing as public property in the traditional sense -- everything has to be owned by someone. Government ownership != public ownership anymore (if it ever did).

      If you can't compete on your own merits as a company, ideology, or political system this is not the place for you.
      Well, if they can legislate ownership, and force their citizens to comply, wouldn't that mean that their political system/ideology outcompeted other systems? By virtue of being able to implement control of the internet, they have demonstrated the superiority of their system (within China) to a distributed control system. If, in the long run, the "extranet" in China becomes more important than the internet, then we'll have seen distributed control outcompete.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  5. Jintao? by mcsestretch · · Score: 0

    Jintao is behind this?

    Somebody call Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker!

    1. Re:Jintao? by tsalaroth · · Score: 1

      Apparently, I'm the only one who got this.. and here I am having spent the last of my mod points a few hours ago..

  6. Great firewall of China by giorgiofr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know it's not really what the TFB is about, but does anyone have any tech details about the Great Firewall of China? How does it work, is it some kind of giant NAT? Are there blacklist-based IP filtering, real-time content filtering? Are ISPs routes set up so that foreign IPs can only be reached via a few select routers that do the censoring?

    --
    Global warming is a cube.
    1. Re:Great firewall of China by sharp-bang · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wikipedia is your friend YMMV. ;-)

      I remember the part about circumventing blocking by ignoring the reset packets being publicized about a year ago. Dunno if it was ever fixed, though.

      --
      #!
    2. Re:Great firewall of China by thewils · · Score: 1

      If there's content that is being blocked by the GFOC, how about a concerted effort by webmasters of sites that aren't currently blocked to provide a webring of sorts to each carry some blocked content.

      I'm sure this sort of thing can be organized over the net in time for - say the Beijing Olympics, when the Chinese will have world focus, and lots of other things on their hands at the same time.

      Just a thought. It would need a website where you could sign up to either provide or host some content (just a page or 2 will suffice), with links to other sites. If you could "turn on" all this content at the same time, they'd be so overwhelmed that there's no way they could get round to censoring it completely.

      --
      Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
    3. Re:Great firewall of China by Dogtanian · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wikipedia is your friend Wikipedia is not your friend. It's only pretending to be so that it can play with your shiny new Playstation 3.

      Next week: We reveal that Digg doesn't really love you, and is just using you for sex.
      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    4. Re:Great firewall of China by Caffeinate · · Score: 1
      It may be my friend, but from the article . . .

      The Golden Shield project was started in 1998. The first part of the project lasted three years, completed in 2006. 2006 - 1998 = 3. This is truthiness if I ever saw it.
      --
      Godless heathen.
    5. Re:Great firewall of China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember, we count from zero, so the Zeroth part lasted from 1998 until 2003.

    6. Re:Great firewall of China by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      The wikipedia is absolutely not your friend. The last issue of 2600 had the best technical analysis of the 'great firewall' I've read. The wiki article is pretty slim on information and facts. It reads like a general 'how things can be blocked' article.

    7. Re:Great firewall of China by progprog · · Score: 0

      I know it's not really what the TFB is about, but does anyone have any tech details about the Great Firewall of China? How does it work, is it some kind of giant NAT? Are there blacklist-based IP filtering, real-time content filtering? Are ISPs routes set up so that foreign IPs can only be reached via a few select routers that do the censoring?

      I don't know the exact details, you can extrapolate from my experience with it.

      1. It is not consistent across all of China. At times blogspot may be available in one city and unavailable in another.
      2. Domains that are not blocked by default may be temporarily blocked for a while. For example if blacklisted words appear in GMail, Google Reader, Amazon, etc, your subnet will be blocked off for maybe an hour. Yes this means if your neighbor received "subversive material" from GMail, you will have no access to google for some time
      3. The filters are based on very crude blacklists. For example, this url gets you blocked off from Amazon temporarily: http://www.amazon.com/adidas-Mens-Revolution-III-P ant/dp/B000KL3FEC/

      A sampling of blocked domains: wikipedia, blogspot, xanga, geocities, livejournal, ...

      My tracepath output is throwing the lameness filter, so let's just say it starts spewing "no reply" after about 7 hops.

      Now, for my thorough analysis of what all this implies%)$)*#@)NO CARRIER

    8. Re:Great firewall of China by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

      And slashdot mod this informative?

      We're either good at modding stuff and have an okay system, or we're the tribal tribe of digg, where we think our shit don't smell.

      --
      I like muppets.
    9. Re:Great firewall of China by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      I was thinking of making a joke around that too, but it's simply a response to a problem with the +Funny mod. This doesn't add to karma, which sounds justifiable until you realise that negative counter-modding *does* reduce it. Thus, controversial "funnies" that get repeatedly modded +Funny and -Overrated/-Troll can *only* have a negative effect on karma, quite seriously in certain cases. So some people prefer to moderate a certain percentage of +Funnys as +Informative/+Insightful, even though they aren't, really... :-)

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    10. Re:Great firewall of China by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

      we mod underated for that, 1 funny + 4 undeated = +5 funny.

      I also have funny set to -6. Soviet russia jokes got old.

      --
      I like muppets.
    11. Re:Great firewall of China by giorgiofr · · Score: 1

      Thanks, very interesting. Indeed, as you point out, it seems very crude.

      --
      Global warming is a cube.
  7. Marketing is the key by sharp-bang · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Consolidate the guiding status of Marxism in the ideological sphere"

    "Development and administration of Internet culture must stick to the direction of socialist advanced culture, adhere to correct propaganda guidance"

    "Internet cultural units must conscientiously take on the responsibility of encouraging development of a system of core socialist values"

    Boy, does that Politburo know how to turn a phrase. I know I'm inspired.

    And what, exactly, is an "Internet cultural unit"?

    --
    #!
    1. Re:Marketing is the key by Soch · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure an "Internet Cultural Unit" is an ISP... or the police looking over the shoulders of the ISP. Same thing really.

      Communists always did know how to turn a phrase and use spin - better than capitalists. While us Capitalists talk of a free market - an idea that many people can think about and get behind, but that lacks emotion - communists go on about permanent revolution - a phrase that calls to the heart, and the young. Sure, permanent revolution is only apealing if you are a revolutionary permanently, but the language is so much more appealing!

      --
      Everything and everyone is an aspect of Gd. So remember to show proper respect!
    2. Re:Marketing is the key by GCP · · Score: 2, Funny

      And what, exactly, is an "Internet cultural unit"?

      It appears that this is Marxist political terminology for, um, Slashdot.

      "... must conscientiously take on the responsibility of encouraging development of a system of core socialist values"

      --
      "Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
    3. Re:Marketing is the key by sharp-bang · · Score: 1

      True enough. Of course, capitalism is known less for its rhetoric than for its fruits. It'll be interesting to see how the Powers That Be in China spin this idea of "permanent revolution" to a generation that wants iPods.

      --
      #!
    4. Re:Marketing is the key by mi · · Score: 1

      Boy, does that Politburo know how to turn a phrase. I know I'm inspired.

      Of course they do. Its easy — just look around this very forum, where a dozens of morons are already posting "insightful" comments on how America's evil corporationy corporations are controlling our minds just as bad as Chinese totalitarians are trying to control their subjects'.

      All, they know about Communism, they learned from "Motorcyle Diaries" and other scumbag-romanticizing crap like that...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  8. Why cant they simply write a book ? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In China the communist party wants to woo another generation with the story of how the revolution was made. Why cant they hire the guy who wrote "How StarWars was made" to write another book "How the Revolution was made".? If there is one thing Chinese communists really like it would be Force, I guess.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  9. In the meantime by iamacat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    US announced sweeping controls of radiowaves whereby an oligarchy of a dozen media companies will promptly fire anyone who contradicts the official culture by quoting a best selling rap singer.

    1. Re:In the meantime by mi · · Score: 1

      So long as the quoted singer remains free and best-selling (along with fierce government critics like Michael Moore), things aren't so bad here, are they?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:In the meantime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A little Mao never goes a long way - maybe you should try reading him sometime

    3. Re:In the meantime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Rev. Al Sharpton is comparable to China's leader Hu Jintao?

  10. Is slashdot.cn part of the new plan? by EveryNickIsTaken · · Score: 0
    Or would that be s-rashdot.cn? hah.

    Sections: The Evils of Capitalism; China Rules!!!!11one; Sweatshops; and YRO (or lack thereof).

    1. Re:Is slashdot.cn part of the new plan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that would be:
      YRO : Your Rules Online.

  11. Marxism?! by Aminion · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Now that China is rapidly transforming into a market economy, what Marxism is there to speak of? Or maybe the good chairman wishes to enlighted the Chinese youth of the crimes of communism in China and atrocities committed by his predecessors? It would be a great lesson in how a fundamentally flawed ideology can retard a nation with great potential for decades and decades.

    1. Re:Marxism?! by DeepHurtn! · · Score: 1
      How much Marx have you read? Marxism is primarily a critical and descriptive apparatus, rather than a prescriptive one. A great deal of very interesting and valuable work has been inspired by and built upon the Marxist tradition. To dismiss the whole shebang as a "fundamentally flawed ideology" is deeply misguided.

      I'm certainly not trying to defend the Chinese government here, but it's interesting to see how decades of American Cold War propaganda continues to circulate.

    2. Re:Marxism?! by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      I find the Chinese talking about Marxism to be quite amusing, seeing as they have never been a Marxist nation, and basicly piss on Marx's ideas every day of the week. Mao was even worse than Stalin at twisting Marx's ideas to his own insane bullshit, Maoism wasn't even close to Marxism. The chinese communist party wouldn't know what Marxism was if someone bitch slapped them with the communist manifesto.

    3. Re:Marxism?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make good points, but the various worldwide Communist Parties don't seem to agree with you. When it comes to putting things into practice, "Marxism" is generally taken to mean the sort of brutal, soul-destroying, mass-murdering, Stalinistic mess which defined the USSR and survives today in North Korea. When the Communist Party of China talks about "Marxism", they mean that kind, even though Communism in modern China is more lip service than anything else these days.

    4. Re:Marxism?! by vidarh · · Score: 1

      What Marxism was there ever to speak of in China? I'm not aware of much... Care to enlighten us, combined with references to what part of Marx' works it's related to?

  12. I'm cheering for the bureaucrats. :-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let the bureaucrats take over the country again. The Chinese economy will tank and we'll get our jobs back.

    Seriously, the reason our economy and technology developed so well was because of our basic freedom. The Soviet Union could not compete with us because of their top down economic system. The Chinese can compete because there is almost no regulation of businesses. It's kind of like the wild wild west. On the other hand, when the bureaucrats clamp down, they'll kill the goose that laid their golden egg. There's no way they can clamp down just on the stuff they want to stifle. They'll stifle everything and, if there's one thing an economy needs, it is the free flow of information.

  13. Re:This shows why I fear china by Notquitecajun · · Score: 4, Funny

    do not fear chinese. They are no different than anybody else.

    Yes they are. They know Kung Fu.

  14. Fear is the Mind Killer by CheeseburgerBrown · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    It is controlled by people who are NO different than Mao and unlike in America or nearly any other country, they can not be removed.

    Right -- unlike in America...just ask Karl Rove and Wouble-You Bush.

    You're talking about a country where an elected leader can be sacked for getting head, but an unelected leader can't be prised from the grip of power with a shoe-horn made of righteous indignation millions strong.

    Are you sure the contrast is as stark as you're suggesting?

    (NB: Note to American intelligence officials: don't take my comment the wrong way. I love America! Just the other day a crazed Muslim was all like, "Don't you hate America?" and I was like, "No sir, it's all that and don't let me hear diff'rent.)

    1. Re:Fear is the Mind Killer by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I understand you well. I love the USA. I love the country. I love the people. A good deal of my friends and people I care for live and work in the US, simply because they were born there and live there.

      I hate the US government, I hate the way corporations grasp more and more power over the people, I hate the loss of liberties for fake security.

      I love the country. I hate the way it's run.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Fear is the Mind Killer by SQL+Error · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're talking about a country where an elected leader can be sacked for getting head
      Really? What country is that? Little tip: Clinton was impeached; he was not removed from office.

      but an unelected leader can't be prised from the grip of power with a shoe-horn made of righteous indignation millions strong.
      Again, a little tip: Bush was elected. Twice. You may not like it, but that's how it is, under the rules set out in the Constitution. Indignation, righteous or otherwise, is completely irrelevant. And come January 2009, he is gone.

      Are you sure the contrast is as stark as you're suggesting?
      More stark, if anything.
    3. Re:Fear is the Mind Killer by smidget2k4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And he wasn't impeached for getting head (which is simply bad PR, not really an impeachable offense), he was impeached in the House for lying under oath about getting head.

      BIG difference there. One is a felony, the other is being an asshole.

    4. Re:Fear is the Mind Killer by rlp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let me add this little thought experiment:

      Set-up two local sites: one in China, one in the US. In each, post articles denouncing the local country and call the country's leader every vile name known to man. In the US, you'll end up with a popular left-wing web site. In China, you'll get a knock on the door in the middle of the night and will never be heard from again.

      --
      [Insert pithy quote here]
    5. Re:Fear is the Mind Killer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought one was a felony, and the other was bein' a stone cold pimp, yo!

    6. Re:Fear is the Mind Killer by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      Again, a little tip: Bush was elected. Twice. You may not like it, but that's how it is, under the rules set out in the Constitution.

      Can you show me where in the constitution it says it is appropriate to stop a recount being carried out according to law?

      Can you show me where in the constitution it says that you should list citizens in good standing on a list of felons and disenfranchise them?

      I didn't think so.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Fear is the Mind Killer by nsayer · · Score: 2, Insightful
      the other is being an asshole

      Let me clarify the clarification. Even getting head is not so bad. Clinton's actions were "assholish" on two counts:

      1. He was married at the time. Granted, there are open marriages out there where it may be ok to get some on the side, I don't recall any evidence that this was the case with the Clintons. The fact that he had to seek her forgiveness, in fact, supports that it was a move with "asshole" status.

      2. He was getting it from a subordinate employee approximately half his age. Retire the cup.

      The parent is correct that the only reason it became grist for Congress' mill was the fact that he lied about it under oath. Besides, rumors abound that he wasn't the first president who might have got his winky wet the wrong way.

    8. Re:Fear is the Mind Killer by debrain · · Score: 1

      Again, a little tip: Bush was elected. Twice. You may not like it, but that's how it is, under the rules set out in the Constitution. Indignation, righteous or otherwise, is completely irrelevant. And come January 2009, he is gone.

      Not to belabour the same-old, but I think it's funny (and true, though please, anyone, feel free to clarify). Technically, George W. Bush became the President based on a ruling by the members of the Supreme Court of the United States on a disputed vote count in the State of Florida, which State was being run by George W. Bush's brother, and which members of the Supreme Court were appointed by the previous Presidents (including one or more by president George Bush Sr.?), and due to the uncertainty in the US Constitution arising around voting disputes, George Bush Jr. was permitted, with less overall votes than the next candidate (Mr. Gore), to become President by way of winning a majority of college-electoral districts, which districts are (spoken cynically, I admit) fabricated by the Executive branch of government to preserve predictability and the marginalization of the regional voting trends(*). Phew.

      So, while technically George Bush Jr. was elected, it was an awful shady thing, and where the rules of the US Constitution were silent the interpretation by the SCOTUS went against the popular vote of the United States citizens. Given that the federal voting power parity of the average US citizen is nearly always zero (i.e. meaningless), except in swing states, thanks to the college-electoral system, I find myself melancholic when I try to think of it as a righteous preservation of freedoms and fair representation.

      (*) The only example I remember was in Ohio, where 9 Republican districts won, each with something around 52% of the vote being Republican. One Democrat district, which was right in the center, won with 95% of the vote being Democratic. I'm not really sure how that works or where it was (or even how true or why it is), and even though my wallowing in ignorance generally preserves me from shock, it was somewhat jaw-dropping.

    9. Re:Fear is the Mind Killer by JeanPaulBob · · Score: 1

      Your first question would be so much more convincing--check that, it would have the bare minimum of validity--if it demonstrated any awareness of the Supreme Court's rationale in ending the recount, along with some indication of why that rationale was wrong.

    10. Re:Fear is the Mind Killer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rationale was this: 5 republican-leaning judges is one more vote than 4 democratic-leaning judges. If Gore had been ahead by a few hundred votes in an otherwise identical situation, all of the individual legal arguments would have been inverted and the court would have ruled that the recount proceed.

    11. Re:Fear is the Mind Killer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That devil trying to slip that one by us! We're not so easily duped Bill, and by god we know what's important.
      Americans do not tolerate dishonesty in the whitehouse!

    12. Re:Fear is the Mind Killer by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      George Bush Jr. was permitted, with less overall votes than the next candidate (Mr. Gore), to become President by way of winning a majority of college-electoral districts, which districts are (spoken cynically, I admit) fabricated by the Executive branch of government to preserve predictability and the marginalization of the regional voting trends(*). Phew.

      knit one: college-electoral doesn't mean anything. You're thinking of the electoral college (or as homer called it, the eletrical college)

      fabricated electoral college districts? You mean.. STATES? Each *STATE* determines how their electoral college votes go, it has nothing at all to do with federal laws.

      Given that you have such a poor understanding of how the electoral college works, am I at all surprised by the rest of your post? Nope!

    13. Re:Fear is the Mind Killer by myth24601 · · Score: 1

      The rationale was this: 5 republican-leaning judges is one more vote than 4 democratic-leaning judges. If Gore had been ahead by a few hundred votes in an otherwise identical situation, all of the individual legal arguments would have been inverted and the court would have ruled that the recount proceed.


      Possibly but lots of other things could have happened after that finally culminating in Florida not sending any electors to Washington (because time was running out) and the election of being thrown to the US House where Bush would have won easily.

      --
      No matter where you go, there you are.
    14. Re:Fear is the Mind Killer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you show me where in the constitution it says it is appropriate to stop a recount being carried out according to law?

      Well that depends on your spin I guess.
      Can you show me where it is law that you can have MULTIPLE recounts?
      According to the courts you don't get to demand recounts until you win.

      But you knew that didn't you?
      Kerry lost face it, get over it(!) and move on.
      That is what happens when you piss off the military both active and retired in this country.
      That is a heck of a lot of people that take pride in their service to the USA.
      And now you can even get your citizenship there to.

      You know the parallels to the Roman Empire and the US at the moment are really getting disturbing.

    15. Re:Fear is the Mind Killer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what? You're the worst fucking kind of yankee. Sitting on your ass, reaping the benefit of the oppressive foreign policies of your government. I wish you and yours the very worst.

      Fuck you.

      Yankee, enemy of humanity.

    16. Re:Fear is the Mind Killer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans do not tolerate dishonesty in the whitehouse!

      Right-o:
      - "Iraq has WMDs"
      - "Saddam and Bin Laden worked side by side"
      - "We fight the terrorists in Iraq so we do not have to fight them over here"

      That would be three manifestations of what is known as The Big Lie, which the Bush government still repeats over and over again, and most gringos sleepwalk through them, un-outraged, all the way to American Idol tonight at eight.

      So a majority of the US population now wants to pull out of Iraq? That's just because the body count is rising with no end in sight, not because it was an illegal invasion of a sovereign country through false pretenses.

      But a BJ in the Oval Office? OMG, call the cops! We don't want anybody having sex in there, now do we? We want our great leaders uptight, unrelaxed and robotic in their body language, and call that heroic. What a pathetic hero-quality resides in the mindset of US republicans and their media extension. "Last night a somber president Bush declared war on the nation of Iraq..." Yeah, somber, right. And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.

    17. Re:Fear is the Mind Killer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt it. Yours is the kind seething with hatred. Hatred which eats at someone from the inside, makes them want to shoot up their schoolmates. You should clean yourself up before that happens.

    18. Re:Fear is the Mind Killer by jmac1492 · · Score: 0

      Right -- unlike in America...just ask Karl Rove and Wouble-You Bush.

      You're talking about a country where an elected leader can be sacked for getting head, but an unelected leader can't be prised from the grip of power with a shoe-horn made of righteous indignation millions strong.

      Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that tomorrow you wake up and read in the newspaper that bin Laden was captured. The next day, the entire Iraqi insurgency announces their intention to stop terrorist attacks immediately and work together with the US for a better Iraq. The following day, Bush has a Republican ally in the House of Representatives proposes a bill that will create a new health care system that is absolutely perfect for everyone's needs. His/her collegues on both sides of the isle, realising a good idea when they see one, vote overwhelmingly for the bill and it becomes law. The next day he strikes a perfect balance on abortion. Next week sometime, the Office of Management and Budget releases a report saying that the Federal government is awash in money because Bush's tax cuts are working. And then Bush announces a federal plan to spend some of the money to pay off the national debt entirely. And then use the leftover funds for other things. Like fixing social security. (This is another "magic fix" that is absolutely perfect for everything.) Also, he proposes a plan to spend a massive ammount of money on AIDS research. And the next day he gets Congress to give him a bill that will completely prevent corruption in government so he can sign that one. And there's still money left over. And then the bad parts of the Patriot Act are repealed and better laws that are more respectful of civil liberties are enacted to take their place. And by the end of the month, AIDS is cured worldwide.
      Say this rosy fantasy future continues through January 2009, with George Bush ending his term with 100% approval ratings. There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY IN HELL that George Bush will be president in February 2009. And if the American people elect someone worse to take his place, there is still ABSOLUTELY NO WAY IN HELL that George Bush will ever be president again.
      The fact is, in this country, we do have elections. Sometimes they're really close. (If the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of Gore, conservatives would be saying the same things about Gore stealing the election that liberals say right now.) The American people elected George W. Bush president twice. If we wanted to, we could have picked John Kerry, or anyone else. The fact is that in November 2004, enough people wanted Bush to remain president that he got re-elected. People's opinion of him has changed since then. So in November 2008, we are absolutely going to pick someone who isn't him. Partially out of disapproval of him, and partially because of term limits. The fact is that he's a lame duck who's almost done anyway.
      --
      Jenny's got a new number! 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    19. Re:Fear is the Mind Killer by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      First, in America, you will be monitored. Secondly, are you sure that you will not disappear? Gitmo, Kazikstan, etc are not being filled up JUST with those that fight America abroad. The fact that the media has somewhat comedown on the admin for locking up Americans in gitmo, will make them want to move Americans to other more discrete places.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    20. Re:Fear is the Mind Killer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah and you're just like everyone else who believes everything the media spouts off.

      "OMG, they just attacked NYC and they have WMD's lets go obliterate them!!11!"

      "OMG, our 'experts' say they don't have WMDs after all, so this whole fight is all about one big lie and Bush is an idiot!!"

      Really, you need to learn to read between the lines and think for yourself a little. The truth is a lot more mundane, and probably runs something like this:

      1. Yes they had some WMDs, and like any sensible terrorist network would do they got them the hell out of there when they knew the USA was coming. It's not like they didn't have at least a few months to do it.
      2. No the WMD problem wasn't nearly as big a deal as first thought.
      3. Either way, getting Hussein out of the picture was a good thing.
      4. Yes this war has dragged on longer and cost more money and lives than it should have.
      5. Finding the right way to pull out without making things worse is a hell of a lot harder than most people realize.

      As for the difference between Clinton and Dubya, Clinton made a very stupid mistake that everyone and his dog knows is a dumb thing for a President to do and get caught at. At least Dubya's mistakes have mostly been made simply because of ignorance.

      Also don't forget that this is by far not the most costly (in terms of lives) or stupid war that the US has fought. That distinction would go to the one caused (debatably) by one of the "best" Presidents in US history - none other than Mr. Abe Lincoln himself. Of course, that war was to free all the repressed black people in the US, which is clearly a much more noble cause than freeing the repressed people in Iraq.

      Point is, it's always best not to criticize someone too much until you know what the hell they're actually facing.

  15. More "free" trade with China, Now !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cuz the average American wins with global libertarian free trade !!!

  16. Doesn't...? by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Doesn't the Internet route around damage?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Doesn't...? by McDutchie · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the Internet route around damage?

      Yeah. It'll route around China just fine.

    2. Re:Doesn't...? by gknoy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Doesn't the Internet route around damage?


      Yes. However, if you're on the inside of the damage, that doesn't help you much. The rest of the world can go on uninterrupted, but China's citizens are getting a very different view.
  17. You forget by d3ac0n · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That communism isn't about competition. Communism is about eliminating all competing ideas and asserting absolute control over every aspect of life. The communist leaders understand perfectly well about the "competition of ideas". They also know they can't compete because communism is a failed ideology. Thusly they seek to control access to information and keep their people in the dark. It's typical totalitarianism.

    (To the commie trolls: Yes, I KNOW that's not how communism and socialism is supposed to work, I've read both Marx and Mao. The problem is that in practice it cannot possibly work the way it's designers envisioned it because they didn't take human nature into account.)

    --
    Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    1. Re:You forget by FooGoo · · Score: 1

      I agree. I think at some point the question needs to be asked. At what point does a network cease to be part of the Internet? And what should be done when this change threshold is met?
      FG

      --
      People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
    2. Re:You forget by AltGrendel · · Score: 1

      That has got to be one of the most insightful things I've read on /. in ages.

      --
      The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

      - Douglas Adams

    3. Re:You forget by HUADPE · · Score: 1
      China makes an interesting case, but it's pretty clearly an internet connected local network. This is akin to many corporations and schools who route all traffic through a central hub before putting it on the internet. China is just much...bigger. When they stop using the accepted transmission control protocol/internet protocol, or if they set up their own DNS servers then we can talk about them ceasing to be a part of the internet

      Not trying to make it sound bengin though, this network administrator is watching closely for political speech and can have you arrested/killed if they don't like what you say. Not quite the same as a campus network.

      --
      This sig has not been evaluated by the FDA. It is not designed to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure any disease.
    4. Re:You forget by vertinox · · Score: 1

      The problem is that in practice it cannot possibly work the way it's designers envisioned it because they didn't take human nature into account.

      I would beg to differ. Communism worked under Stalin.

      If you execute thousands of people and sends millions off to gulags on a yearly basis, then Communism works as Stalin intended and can basically overcome anything capitalism throws at it. They went from a backwards medieval agricultural country to a technological/industrial super power in less than 20 years.

      Of course this requires an external enemy and that you don't get assassinated by your underlings in the process, but a Stalinist economy can outperform and advance faster than any other except most likely National Socialism (who also employed masses of slave labor I might add).

      That said... I wouldn't like to live under Stalinism or National Socialism and I wouldn't recommend it to any politician since it is morally objectionable.

      Of course if you are talking about "as designers intended" I am assuming as Stalin intended rather than Marx.

      It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Lenin had lived or Trotsky had taken power instead of Stalin, but it might have ended up the same.

      The same applies to Mao except he was so anti-intellectual he killed off all his engineers and scientists (rather than Stalin who employed them as prisoner engineers)which left China backwards until the 1980s.

      Basically, Communism collapsed in the USSR because their leaders were not longer willing to be brutal like Stalin because (you are right) of human nature. Fear and pain work just as well as greed and reward in that respect.

      I would say that China's economies resemble Germany's National Socialism model with allowing capitalism but with nationalistic fervor and cooperation for those goals.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    5. Re:You forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That communism isn't about competition. Communism is about eliminating all competing ideas and asserting absolute control over every aspect of life.

      Sounds like Islam and Sharia law.

    6. Re:You forget by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So let's stop calling it communism-with-a-small-c, and call a spade a spade: Totalitarian China. Or maybe Fascist China?

      If that's a little too far, then we should make the distinction between communism and the Communist Party Government of China -- we shouldn't allow the Chinese to pretend they are something they are not (and in the same vein, we should stop referring to the US as a democracy). Labels have power, and the Chinese political machine knows it.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    7. Re:You forget by vic-traill · · Score: 1

      They also know they can't compete because communism is a failed ideology.

      Well, I'm sitting here in North America (as I'm guessing you are) and like you, my view from here is that communism is indeed a failed ideology.

      I'll also guess that the view from Beijing is not quite so clear cut. Communist China (or what passes for Communist China today, which is a dialogue unto itself) is a nascent (or possibly re-emerging) economic and political powerhouse.

      I think a lot of the dialogue on /. revolves around acceptance and rejection of the social and political spins that we encounter daily as we browse the www of the western world. If you don't recognise that the web as we see it is chock full of the values of the capitalist/judaeo-christian/whatever culture that we live in, then you're just kidding yourself, IMHO.

      I'm not engaging in a dialogue on the relative merits of capitalism vs communism, but I am suggesting that the digital instance of either culture is going to reflect the values of that culture, and I'm also asserting that China's very existence plus its position in the hierarchy of power nations takes a lot of steam out of the 'communism is a failed ideology' assertion.

      And no, I'm not a ' commie troll' - whatever that may be - nor am I attempting to categorise or denigrate your reply before you've even articulated it.

      I have an acquaintance originally from Beijing who has no problem squaring up the totalitarianism of Tiananmen Square with today's China and its role in the modern world. On the flip side, I know another fellow from Shanghai who is a dyed-in-the-wool free market advocate.

      Both of them are competitive as hell - as individuals, as well as economically and ideologically. I recognise that this is just another shitty sample being used on /. to advocate something much larger, but nonetheless my gut tells me that China will compete the hell out of the western world for the remainder (and beyond) of my lifetime.

      --
      [17] Leary, T., White, C., Wood, P. R., Bhabha, W. D., and Wirth, N. Lambda calculus considered harmful. In Proceedings
  18. Rupert murdoch. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    I guess what china really needs is to hire rupert murdoch to assist them in their propaganda efforts.

    he's been so successful at it he's managed to pull even other organizations to the right. before his day i never heard such hyperbole from cnn as a border fence being called "mexico's insistance on interfering with our national security".

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  19. You help best by buying their stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You help them best by buying their stuff. When the chinese gets richer, they will get more power and demand more rights, freedom and democracy.

    All trade blockades suck in opening up countries. Look at cuba. Look at iraq pre 2003 invasion. The only people suffering if you do not buy chinese products is the chinese labourers.

    Support the people in china by buying their stuff. You get cheap stuff and they get good salaries, compared to unemployment or small-scale farming. Its a win-win situation for everyone except the chinese government in the long run.

    1. Re:You help best by buying their stuff by jaysones · · Score: 1

      If you don't like Best By you can always try Sircuit Sity.

  20. The obligatory... by wittmania · · Score: 0

    ... "how long before we see this in America?" post.

  21. Ah, real life Abbott and Costello classics... by Bazman · · Score: 5, Funny

    A: Who is the Chinese President?
    C: Yes.
    A: Who?
    C: I told you.
    A: When?
    C: Wen is the Premier.
    A: When is the Premier what?
    C: The Premier of China.
    A: Who is the Premier?
    C: No, Hu is the President!
    A: That's what I wanna know!

    and so on...

    1. Re:Ah, real life Abbott and Costello classics... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone know the difference (to the chinese) between the Premier and the President?

    2. Re:Ah, real life Abbott and Costello classics... by coaxial · · Score: 1

      It's the same difference as every other country with a Premier and a President. I suggest you use a dictionary.

    3. Re:Ah, real life Abbott and Costello classics... by coaxial · · Score: 1

      Greene: Oh, I see what your problem is. Look, you're confused by their names, because they all sound like questions. Well, I'll explain it to you. See, the President is Hu, Hu Jintao, and you're probably not familiar with that name because his grandfather was Chinese. And the Premier's name is Wen. W-E-N. Coincidently his grandfather was also Chinese.

      McGillicuty: That's it. You're hopeless, you're pathetic, you're the worst straight man I ever worked with. I quit. I should have never saved you from those seals.

      Greene: What are you talking about? I auditioned for this job.

      Ahh Kids in the Hall.

  22. How about they practice a little Marxism first by MikeRT · · Score: 1, Interesting

    And have the party cadres live like the proletarians? I am a hardline libertarian myself, but I think even Marx would be quite disturbed to see how these revolutions have gone. At least the old regimes had honesty. The ruling class was not part of the rest of society. Funny thing is that at least in Europe, you were probably in real terms freer in the 18th or 19th centuries than you are today by a pretty wide margin. "Advanced socialist society" is a nice way of saying "we think the cost of scientific advancement is that we must regulate you from cradle to grave."

  23. So the chinese can't read this article by Paulrothrock · · Score: 0, Troll

    Here are a few keywords that the Great Firewall will keep the sensitive citizens of China from having to think about:
      - Freedom
      - Human rights
      - Liberty
      - Representative government
      - Elections
      - More than one political party
      - Freedom of speech
      - Freedom of religion
      - Freedom to assemble
      - Freedom of the press

    --
    I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    1. Re:So the chinese can't read this article by VendettaMF · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And yet I just read them all and am replying to them from Shenyang, Liaoning, China.

      It ain't so cut and dried.

      --
      kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
    2. Re:So the chinese can't read this article by sakdoctor · · Score: 1

      Ok, let me try:

      freedom, reform, elections, multi-party, rehabilitate, dictatorship, fascism, freedom Tibet,
      independence taiwan, Xinjiang independence, Tibetan independence, crime against humanity,
      communist bandits, Chinese traitor, massacre,
      how many murdered Tiananmen students does it take to top a tank,
      genocide, oppression, overthrow, coup, down with communist party,
      protect rights, laogai, re-education through labour, red terror, heixiazi island, yinlong island,
      cultural revolution, great leap forward, Dongzhou protest, Taishi village, Suijiatun, Dalai Lama,
      Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, Choekyi Nyima, tiananmen mothers, Wei Jingsheng, Wang Dan,
      Wu'er Kaixi, Chai Ling, Feng Congde, Ding Zilin, Wang Ruowang, Liu Binyan, Harry Wu,
      Szeto Wah, Fangzhouzi, dharma chakra, dafa, hongzhi, and finally Playboy.

      If you live in China, mod me up.

    3. Re:So the chinese can't read this article by tong.lin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you need these to be censored.. you need to type them in Chinese.. Not many Chinese in China are going to search in English or Ping Ying. BTW, I was in Chengdu, Sichuan. I was reading these articles all the time.

      --
      - Tong Lin
    4. Re:So the chinese can't read this article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, now assemble some of your Chinese peers together to let the local Party Representative know about these foreign ideas, then see what happens!

    5. Re:So the chinese can't read this article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They would just brush you off and tell you to write them a letter (which will be thrown in the bin).

      Much like every Government representative on Earth does.

    6. Re:So the chinese can't read this article by VendettaMF · · Score: 1

      AC 1 : "Great, now assemble some of your Chinese peers together to let the local Party Representative know about these foreign ideas, then see what happens!"

      AC 2 : "They would just brush you off and tell you to write them a letter (which will be thrown in the bin).

      Much like every Government representative on Earth does."


      Precisely. Unless it directly influences their bottom line government members (and police) here don't care about anything.

      --
      kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
    7. Re:So the chinese can't read this article by VendettaMF · · Score: 1

      Still here.

      --
      kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
    8. Re:So the chinese can't read this article by VendettaMF · · Score: 1

      Additionally, Slashdot has refused me mod points for more than two years now, despite Excellent karma and regular meta-moderation, ever since I used a full set of five on one inane, loudmouthed moron in one thread.

      Slashdot censors me more than China does. :-P

      --
      kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
    9. Re:So the chinese can't read this article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - Goatsx?

  24. Re:FP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, funny the first time...retarded from here on out! Add another line to the "automatically ignore" (ie: back of my head) list, since /. doesn't freaking have one...

  25. And then reality sets in... by penguin_dance · · Score: 0, Troll

    Jintao is tackling the issue his Communist party is having with the youth of China that are too young to remember Chairman Mao and the fanaticism the populace had for him.

    Yes, well popularity does tend to fade with the restriction of basic freedoms, jailed/killed political dissidents and persecution of one's religious beliefs!

    --
    If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
    1. Re:And then reality sets in... by zzo38 · · Score: 1

      That is because China doesn't follow their own constitution! Their constitution says that free speech and stuff is allowed, but the government doesn't like that, so they don't use the constitution. When your constitution reaches zero, you're dead!

    2. Re:And then reality sets in... by Hyperspite · · Score: 1

      Actually I've read part of their constitution and it does have all that stuff in there about free speech etc. However, their constitution, unlike the US constitution, seems to try to be more specific than ours is (it talks about jobs and crime etc). In US history class a while back, my teacher mentioned that it was widely agreed that the key to a good founding document is flexibility, so you have to be general. China's is a lot less general than ours.

      In addition, theres usually an escape clause for the government, some kind of gottcha:

      Article 36.
      Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief. No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion. The state protects normal religious activities. No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state. Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination.

      Emphasis mine. Who decides what is normal etc.I know we have that problem in the US when we deal with cults, and extremists. When worded like that, you can pretty much define anything to be abhorrent. That's why the founders of the US said that the government couldn't regulate religion at all, because they were afraid of those gottchas. Then they said that they can get you for "disrupting public order". Well we all know what that means.

      In any case, heres a link: PRC Constitution
    3. Re:And then reality sets in... by zzo38 · · Score: 1

      So, does it mean, that if you pray, you must pray only in private when nobody has a chance of noticing, because if they notice then they will catch you to jail. Or is there something else that I have missed? Well, Article 36 seems almost fine, except for the fact that the government has power, which is what ruins everything. Am I right?

    4. Re:And then reality sets in... by Hyperspite · · Score: 1

      I don't think the problem is that they have power, it's that they say it more bluntly. The expression in words reflects the way they want to act.

    5. Re:And then reality sets in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll? Hmmm...has the Chinese government invaded Slasdot? Or is posting the truth simply banned?

  26. National boycotts do not work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do not buy anything made in China. Its not easy to find out what parts of a laptop of computer are made in China, so my plan isn't foolproof, but it's what I know that I can do to stop support for the Chinese government. I have yet to see a case where a national boycott on a country ever worked. Boycotts on businesses work because since if sufficient people join, its directors will see a direct effect on its bottom line and seek to remedy the situation.

    Less so for a country. There are many factors that can influence the economy, so it's unlikely that any boycott will affect a nation's economy to a degree where the government will notice. And even if they do, they are more likely to use it as propaganda against the US rather than change their policies (ie: Cuba or Burma). I also hurts citizens who have (especially in the case of China) absolutely nothing to do with their government's policies. This is the equivalent of a Muslim country boycotting Google over the actions of the US government.

    There has never been a case where economic sanctions alone have brought down a repressive regime. While many claim that this was true in South Africa, the collapse of Apartheid had more to do with the ending of the Cold War and the subsequent withdrawal of US support.
    1. Re:National boycotts do not work by Caffeinate · · Score: 1

      I have yet to see a case where a national boycott on a country ever worked. We call them sanctions when they're on a national scale. I confess they've never been totally effective on their own, but it is a strong level of pressure against a government and would be exceptionally bad for a country who's economy relies so strongly on trade and manufacturing such as China.
      --
      Godless heathen.
    2. Re:National boycotts do not work by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "it is a strong level of pressure against a government and would be exceptionally bad for a country who's economy relies so strongly on trade and manufacturing such as China."

      It surely would force China government to drastically change their economic plans but don't fool yourself: you just *can't* boicott the economy of a country with 1200 million people the wide China is. They could just close their borders for forty years and they even wouldn't notice (not to say they haven't more opportunities opening their borders than closing them, but that a country the size of China is a whole world on and by itself: their internal market is enormous and they are aplenty of raw materials).

  27. Same as the "cleaning up" shit in Turkey by unity100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Same kind of people everywhere. Bunch of retarded morons that are relics of cold war age, struggling to FORCE the youth to live like they did.

    They need to die off fast so that the new ages can have a good chance.

    1. Re:Same as the "cleaning up" shit in Turkey by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      They need to die off fast so that the new ages can have a good chance.

      ...to grow up and to become the fascists.

      Everyone in the Chinese government today was a child once.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Same as the "cleaning up" shit in Turkey by unity100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      what era do children grow up, matters much.

      these were the ones who grew up in ww2 and start of the cold war. the furthest extent their vision can go has been long walked past by.

  28. Oh well by Plutonite · · Score: 1

    The internet in China is diverging rapidly from the state that the rest of the world enjoys it. 1) eldavojohn rarely does this, but I believe the first sentence contains a serious grammatical hiccup.

    2) Communists finally discovering that totalitarianism needs proper planning/resources to be implemented right on the internet. New age of confrontation begins, but frankly I think the commies will lose this one. When the main battlefields are lost to censorship, Chinese youth will be wondering why they can't access general information websites.

    This said, I think wikipedia and other places should begin investigating serious methods of discovering government tampering (as opposed to the lone propagandist). Would it be ok to solicit the help of our intelligence agencies, me wonders?
    1. Re:Oh well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because the CIA has never heard of this here so-called China thingie until Wikipedia clued them in.

    2. Re:Oh well by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Would it be ok to solicit the help of our intelligence agencies, me wonders?

      Sure it would, because then we'd know for sure who was doing the tampering.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  29. Re:This shows why I fear china by bladesjester · · Score: 1

    Actually, the communists tried to outlaw kung fu.

    They found out that they couldn't do so with complete effectiveness, so they tried to make it into more of a sport - competitve wu shu in which the actual martial aspects were downplayed and basically removed.

    The main reason most kung fu that still exists actually still exists is because the teachers either went underground or were out of the country at the time.

    --
    Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
  30. Re:This shows why I fear china by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

    I think China, if they want to remain Communist, should shut down their internet all together. Perhaps they should also limit computer usage rights to government, science, and the commercial business zones. Then, they would have total control over the young people once again, educating them only with propaganda filled text books and nothing else. People could also be imprisoned for even hinting at something that the government does not consider patriotic. Personal websites may be banned and consolidated into one big Facebook style website with strict controls. Imagine being forced to make pro Communist remarks through out your blog. Perhaps there will even be a quota for internet users... something like - "you must say something good about the PRC or Hu every 3 days in order to keep your PatriotBook website." The result of painful restriction would also work in favor of the government, as fewer people will be inclined to use it. Both ways they win... and soon, provided they decide to stay connected with the world, they will own most of the internet and be able to force their will on everyone. FUD is fun!

  31. Not really different by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What's funny is that if you take out the specific references to Marx and China, this reads almost like a press release from the Democratic National Committee.

  32. Rope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And not only are we selling these clowns the rope they'll use to hang us with ( it's a quote ), we're building the factories for them to make it in. Does anybody else feel even slightly nervous about outsourcing all our industries to them ?

  33. Re:China is not a Socialist/Communist/Marxist Coun by zzo38 · · Score: 1

    True. China/Cuba and other countries that call themself communist, aren't really communist, they are actually blasphemies, not communist. Communism doesn't exist.

  34. But who cares? by hackingbear · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This may sound like a big trouble to you who are not in China.

    But nowaday in China, no ordinary people pay any attention to these kind of useless propaganda any more. (Students may have to memorize this thing so they can pass the exams, but I can ensure you it has zero impact on their mental state otherwise, as it hasn't had any on mine when I was a student there in 1980's.)

    1. Re:But who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you live in China I guess you should quite often bump in to these young Chinese guys that act like they have a stick stuck up their ass.

      You say something that is not "China is the best", you get back "WHY DO YOU HATE CHINA?"

      You forget to say "Chinese is peaceful and wonderful",
      you get back "YOU ARE NOT CHINESE, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND CHINA".

      It goes on with "ONLY TALK ABOUT CHINA IF YOU KNOW CHINESE"

      You might say, "There is no freedom of press in China", you most definitely get back "AMERICA IS RACIST WARMONGERING COUNTRY" (I'm Swedish by the way).

      I have many Chinese friends, have spent several years in China and have studied two years at a Chinese university. I live with a Chinese girl in Sweden since two years. I look at the Chinese exchange students here in Sweden and these guys really don't blend in with the rest of the international students. Seem to me that the party's effort to manipulate information has some sort of effect.

      It makes people act like they have a stick up their ass.

    2. Re:But who cares? by jez9999 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      as it hasn't had any on mine when I was a student there in 1980's.

      Were you brought up in the US and went to study in China, already having decided on your outlook, or did you grow up from early childhood in China? Big difference.

    3. Re:But who cares? by clragon · · Score: 1

      I'd have to agree with the parent.
      stories like these get more attention here than in China, most Chinese people tune out the propaganda in their lives and get on with the better stuff.
      (this is from someone who went to school in China in the 90s, born there too)

    4. Re:But who cares? by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      no ordinary people pay any attention to these kind of useless propaganda any more.

      Really? Then why has there been no revolution yet?

      Even the well-educated, usually skeptical university students don't know who the "Tank Man" was, nor do they know about the 1989 massacre in Tianannmen square (intentionally misspelled), where the "Tank Man" incident took place.

      What is needed is more than just "[not] pay[ing] any attention" to propaganda. What is needed is free speech, to uncover the things that propagandists are hiding, and that won't come without a fight.

      - RG>
      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    5. Re:But who cares? by Sassinak · · Score: 1

      If you substitute much of your life history relating to "China" with "Taiwan" (with time off for good behaviour in "Japan") Then you have the bulk of my life. (the rest spent throughout England, France, Spain, Greece, and the US).

      All of that is to say that there are some exceptions to everything. And unfortunately for much time and history, China was dumped on by groups. (Accusations of lazy, cheating, etc... and much of it undeserved) So its not really surprising that you hear a lot of the younger generations taking offence to what may be perceived as belittling and not understanding China (and by extension Chinese). For many Chinese, they believe (and to some extent it is true) that no one understands Chinese except for Chinese.

      You can get a lot of the same reaction by going into some very "nationalistic" locations in the US or in Spain and get pretty much the same thing (allotting for cultural differences). (I almost got shot mentioning in public that Bush is an idiot. At least in Spain, you might get punched, but the chances of a gun shot are much higher in the US for someone that disagrees with you.

      --
      God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
    6. Re:But who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, why do some of my chinese friends say that the events at Tiananmen didn't happen as depicted on TV, that the people of Tibet weren't mistreated, that the Internet isn't censored, and such ?

    7. Re:But who cares? by rainofchaos · · Score: 1

      Yes,as a Chinese living in China ,most of the posts are just something out of time. Maybe I am be called brain washed,but when choose between A strong country & a free country ,I will choose the first. PS: We are more free than lots of people think. Good will will not always reach good result . USA help to improve demoracy in Iraq ,but people people there are free to be killed. That is the result ,no matter what the will is. We wan't the stability of the country to promote our economy ,to improve the living standard of all the people. And demoracy in China is improving as the economy grow. As the "Tianan men",maybe you should compare the way Russia and China take, who suffer huge inflation? who suffer from the oligarch China changed rapidly. When I return my hometown two times a year,I can feel the change in both the economy and people's mind. So if anybody really wan't to know real China ,please pay a visit . Don't be amazed .

    8. Re:But who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would still stick to my point that many Chinese stand out. Perhaps not as much as North Koreans (I had a bunch living in my dorm at BeiDa), but very different from what I think are _relatively_ open-minded Taiwanese, Singaporeans, and Japanese (lesser extent South Koreans). Try to discuss something on any Chinese BBS and you will be surprised of the consistency.

      Don't get me wrong, I've met really creepy xenophobic people from all the countries you mention too, looking for excuses to hate whatever American. Looking at my university in Sweden, I can see that the most from the Taiwanese or Singaporean group have no problem hanging out with the rest of the international crowd, while the Mainland Chinese seem to be completely lost. When talking with other people some can't separate an opinion about their country from themselves. The contrast to people form the US, who love to discuss or critizise their country, is enormous.

      I've been to all of those countries you mention except Taiwan (and Greece). I have studied together with a whole bunch of Taiwanese both in Sweden and Beijing, and have also lived in Singapore.

    9. Re:But who cares? by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Maybe I am be called brain washed,but when choose between A strong country & a free country ,I will choose the first. The American attitude is that it is not an either or situation. You can be both. Statements like 'Development and administration of Internet culture must stick to the direction of socialist advanced culture, adhere to correct propaganda guidance' are pretty sickening. But maybe that was just a translation problem?

      America has had similar problems in the past, in the McCarthy Era, when it was battling communism and free speech was attacked. The government also gets too involved with issues like pornography and gambling. And for sure the Iraq war was a fiasco. But still, the idea that people shouldn't be allowed to speak out against the government is a terrible one, and when news stories like this come out China will always be scorned.
  35. Human Nature by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't think I'm a commie troll, but I think that at least part of your objection applies to capitalist systems as well.

    If I were playing devil's advocate I might say "capitalism cannot possibly work the way its designers envisioned because they didn't take corporate nature into account." For example, there is a tendency in corporocracy to treat *everything as a transaction and *everything as property (see for example "intellectual property", the privatization of drinking water, etc).

    I think the fact that corporations have co-opted our ostensibly democratic government so thoroughly is almost as serious an indictment of capitalism as the corrupted Party's betrayal of basic democratic principles in the Reddish parts of the world.

    Just thinking aloud, really.

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
    1. Re:Human Nature by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Capitalism isn't "designed", it's a consequence of free markets. Any time you save some of your income to invest in your own or another business, you're practicing capitalism. ADM and the other corporate welfare queens aren't a result of freedom, they're a result of government having usurped our power to decide which businesses to pay or not pay for their products or services. If you want an end to corporations looting the taxpayers, you can start by voting for Ron Paul.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:Human Nature by vidarh · · Score: 1
      Capitalism isn't "designed", it's a consequence of free markets.

      Funny you should phrase it that way. It is very much a central tenet of Marxism that communism isn't "designed", it's an inevitable consequence of class struggle, and more directly of capitalism.

    3. Re:Human Nature by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nobody designed capitalism. Capitalism more or less happened as people felt the need for certain things like e.g. money. I tend to think of as being the more civilized cousin of natural selection. Natural selection doesn't guarantee you a better species, nor a perfect one. But it does move in the direction of providing the fittest. Likewise, capitalism doesn't guarantee the best outcome or the best products. It does however move rapidly into the direction that the society as a whole chooses. In the course of this, some people win, and some people lose.

      Communism, on the other hand, moves in the direction that the state chooses, and this is more comparable to selective selection. Selective selection, for those who don't know, is the process with which humans selectively bred animals like wolves into animals like pugs. This is entirely the result of somebody saying "hey, lets make this." Pugs are not a naturally occurring animal, wolves are on the other hand. Pugs are only useful to humans, and not to themselves. Likewise, a communist society is only useful to its state, and not necessarily to itself. The end result is that everybody is equally miserable.

      Natural selection isn't fair, and neither is life. Capitalism works in harmony with that, whereas communism tries to work against it.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    4. Re:Human Nature by Loundry · · Score: 1

      It is very much a central tenet of Marxism that communism isn't "designed", it's an inevitable consequence of class struggle, and more directly of capitalism.

      It's an example of cart-before-the-horse turned into dogma. Capitalism doesn't come from "class struggle". Rather, "class struggle" (code for wealth envy) follows capitalism, in which people who work hard and make good choices are rewarded while the lazy and stupid are not.

      Granted, there are exceptions. Sometimes the lazy and stupid wind up rich (think about the rich liberal living-on-trust-fund brat denizens of the Hamptons), and sometimes those who work hard and make good choices are punished (victims of 9/11). Capitalism isn't designed to cure all problems. It's merely that which exists without government intervention, which always creates more problems than it solves (and it never solves anything).

      By the way, did Marx ever define what a "class" was?

      --
      I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
    5. Re:Human Nature by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      How about a compromise: only allow criticism of gov't every 3rd Tuesday of the month.

    6. Re:Human Nature by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      follows capitalism, in which people who work hard and make good choices are rewarded while the lazy and stupid are not.
      That's not an accurate description of capitalism at all. Capitalism doesn't reward those who work hard; it rewards those who have money to work hard for them. Capitalism doesn't reward those who make good choices, it rewards those who make choices that are good within a restricted value set. That value set includes wealth accumulation, which is of debateable value. It's a tautology to say that capitalism rewards those who make good choices, since the choices you are referring to are only 'good' because of the capitalist system they are made in.

      True communism, for example, rewards those who work hard and make good choices as well. How? Their society benefits, so the individual does as well. Marxist Communism also rewards those who work hard and make good choices -- the difference being that choices are made by a group, rather than an individual.

      I don't think you'll ever be able to grasp the concept of Communism until you let go of the primacy of personal wealth accumulation. For example,

      "class struggle" (code for wealth envy)
      Class struggle isn't about wealth envy, it's about self-determinism. In a pure capitalist society, wealth outweighs or defines all other factors of self-determinism (education, access to influence, etc).

      Sometimes the lazy and stupid wind up rich (think about the rich liberal living-on-trust-fund brat denizens of the Hamptons)
      What about the rich conservative living-on-trust-fund brat denizens of Houston? Your bias is very clear, and subtracts from your logic.

      Capitalism isn't designed to cure all problems. It's merely that which exists without government intervention,
      Not so. Cooperation (the basis of communism) happens without government intervention -- capitalism is a system dependent upon a stable money supply, which does not exist without government interference. One could say that totalitarianism is what is most likely to happen without government intervention -- but then at what point is the totalitarian become the government?

      government intervention, which always creates more problems than it solves (and it never solves anything).
      Well, that's just wrong, as most absolutes are. It's a pithy saying based on faith that has few foundations in fact or in theory. Government intervention can solve the tragedy of the commons, for example. Sure, governments can (and often do!) intervene poorly, but that's a matter of execution, not of a theoretical impossibility of positive interference. If you reduce government to its most basic level (that of the family), would you still argue that interference by the decision-makers cannot solve problems?

      By the way, did Marx ever define what a "class" was?
      Yes, he did -- and the tendency for those not to have studied what he wrote is to not be able to make sense of his class distinctions, since they are not defined by wealth, as classes are defined under capitalism. Instead they are defined by their relationship to the means of production. Here's a primer for you, so you can get a basic view of how the "middle class" fits into Marxist theory.

      I'm not a communist, but I think it's important to understand the communist point of view if I want to have a meaningful discussion of capitalism. It's also important to understand basic theories of government, and the differences between economic systems from political systems, as well as how they interrelate.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    7. Re:Human Nature by AnyoneEB · · Score: 1

      I was just talking about capitalism vs. communism with a friend the other day and he pointed out an amusing point of view: in communism, the government controls everything, only the government has to get corrupt for everything to go bad; in capitalism, the power is shared among the government and various corporations, sometimes the work together, but sometimes they work against each other, so they are a bit less effective at making trouble for the populace.-

      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
    8. Re:Human Nature by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Are there any capitalist states in the developed world? It seems that they are all socialist.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    9. Re:Human Nature by cgenman · · Score: 1

      Capitalism doesn't come from "class struggle". Rather, "class struggle" (code for wealth envy) follows capitalism, in which people who work hard and make good choices are rewarded while the lazy and stupid are not.

      And how many businesses, exactly, has George Bush run that were profitable? I've seen studies quoted where less than 2% of people make it out of their class distinction within any given generation, which means that by far the best way to be rich is to be born rich. Of course, this should be obvious to anyone who realizes that a 10% interest rate on capital accrued will eventually outpace working hard by a pretty wide margin.

      That's why it's called capitalism, and not "work harderism." It's all about who controls the primary capital, and the value they can extract from that. Even Adam Smith acknowledged this wealth accrual positive feedback loop would eventually lead to monopolies which the market needed to be protected against.

      Granted, there are exceptions. Sometimes the lazy and stupid wind up rich (think about the rich liberal living-on-trust-fund brat denizens of the Hamptons), and sometimes those who work hard and make good choices are punished (victims of 9/11).

      I hope I'm not shattering your world here or anything, but New York is a pretty liberal heavy city. That means the majority of victims of 9/11 were probably liberals.

      Capitalism isn't designed to cure all problems. It's merely that which exists without government intervention, which always creates more problems than it solves (and it never solves anything).

      That sounds oddly dogmatic.

      You actually do need government intervention to support the rules of capitalism. For one, ultimately governments enforce contract laws. Governments also provide and stabilize the medium of exchange (barter isn't particularly good for capitalism). They provide rules and enforcement about raving mobs looting your business, and in exchange they put up certain protections against businesses looting their employee's retirement funds. Governments ensure that interstate commerce is possible over well lit, well-maintained roads. The EPA ensures that the mill up the river doesn't pollute it so much that it's useless to your mill, and in exchange that you adhere to the same rules for the mill south of you. It ensures that the products you are delivered meet the spirit of the agreement you entered into. It ensures that unfair non-competition practices, like Walmart saying to its suppliers not to work with small businesses like yours, don't happen. Or at least it happens less often than it otherwise would. It ensures that people don't run around selling cheap knock-off products under your name and trademark symbol, and that you can extract some value from your original ideas and work before someone else copies it.

      Some of these things are so essential for the functioning of capitalism that they are frequently taken for a given. But they're not: they're achieved via government.

      A truly free and open market isn't free, and it isn't simply a state of one powerful interest not getting its dirty hands all over it. There are lots of powerful interests that want to use their dirty hands to screw it all up, and sometimes you need a bigger set of hands to stop them. In this equation, the government is the ONLY entity that is at least theoretically responsible to the overall health of the system.

    10. Re:Human Nature by Jasin+Natael · · Score: 1

      True communism, for example, rewards those who work hard and make good choices as well. How?

      Communism does not reward the industrious and intelligent relative to their peers, which is not only how the human mind works anyway, it is the only thing that demonstrably produces industry. Otherwise, everyone is a freeloader, and nobody works. Period. It doesn't matter what you claim your ideology is, why would you put up with the disutility of labor to receive the same benefit in return, as those who did not undergo the unpleasantness of working hard?

      If you reduce government to its most basic level (that of the family), would you still argue that interference by the decision-makers cannot solve problems?

      This is a fallacious argument, because government did not develop from the family unit. Modern governments descended from various gangs of bandits, who settled in the areas they oppressed. Additionally, the use of an arbiter to settle disputes is not only not unique to government, it has historically been both a threat to government, and better provided by free markets under capitalism (aka, "What people decide for themselves").

      Not so. Cooperation (the basis of communism) happens without government intervention -- capitalism is a system dependent upon a stable money supply, which does not exist without government interference. One could say that totalitarianism is what is most likely to happen without government intervention -- but then at what point is the totalitarian become the government?

      What the hell are you smoking? Stable money supplies exist exclusively in the absence of government interference. To understand what government does to the money supply, picture yourself at an auction. You brought money, and you know what you intend to bid on, and what you can afford. Then, a counterfeiter arrives. Even if he doesn't bid on anything you personally wanted, now you have to bid against everyone else who has extra money (since they didn't win the items the counterfeiter got). Ad infinitum.

      Communism, by definition, is based on government intervention, to produce the conspicuous and unnatural absence of a money supply, or to cause it to function differently. Meaningful cooperation is the basis of a Capitalist economy, and derives directly from the notion of private property and the division of labor. If you would prefer to live in a state of abject poverty, owning nothing (including your own body/mind/thoughts), be my guest. Give communism a shot.

      In a primitive state, even solitarily, as a single individual with no society (read: other people) with which to live, man is still a capitalist. He produces capital, ie shelter and tools, and in doing so he saves his labor in expectation of a future return on his investment.

      I'd write more, but it's not worth my time. It just seems stupid to even be talking about this crap a hundred and fifty years later. If only yours were a logical position, this logic would be useful in debating you.

      --
      True science means that when you re-evaluate the evidence, you re-evaluate your faith.
    11. Re:Human Nature by Jasin+Natael · · Score: 1

      You actually do need government intervention to support the rules of capitalism. For one, ultimately governments enforce contract laws.

      Umm, actually violence, or threat thereof, in any form, encourage compliance.

      Governments also provide and stabilize the medium of exchange (barter isn't particularly good for capitalism).

      Shenanigans. History has provided us with countless independent evolutions of stable mediums of echange. None involve government.

      They provide rules and enforcement about raving mobs looting your business, and in exchange they put up certain protections against businesses looting their employee's retirement funds.

      Again, violence or threats of violence. If employee X will shoot you for robbing him like this, then ... well, you're not likely to raid the fund. How's that government regulation working in this regard, BTW?

      Governments ensure that interstate commerce is possible over well lit, well-maintained roads.

      Roads, which were largely built without government, and were lit in its absence. Look around you; Are cost-plus, no-bid, and lowest-price contracts really serving our needs for transportation?

      The EPA ensures that the mill up the river doesn't pollute it so much that it's useless to your mill, and in exchange that you adhere to the same rules for the mill south of you.

      Bullshit. The reason pollution is even a problem is because the first lawsuits against gross polluters were thrown out by big government, who wanted to promote industrialism. After this landmark in the US, it was illegal -- either as a citizen or a class -- to sue polluters. Allow the aggreived to file suits against polluters, and this will be fixed in extremely short order.

      It ensures that the products you are delivered meet the spirit of the agreement you entered into.

      Umm, I thought that was your own job as a consumer. Demand a damned refund, boycott, and badmouth. Don't waste billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of man-hours on inferior protections. The government actually doesn't do this as well as consumers in a free market.

      It ensures that unfair non-competition practices, like Walmart saying to its suppliers not to work with small businesses like yours, don't happen. Or at least it happens less often than it otherwise would.

      Back that up with some evidence, if you wouldn't mind.

      It ensures that people don't run around selling cheap knock-off products under your name and trademark symbol, and that you can extract some value from your original ideas and work before someone else copies it.

      Again, through exercising the threat of violence, which is rightfully yours, to its own benefit.

      Violence is the last resort in any system. No matter if it is Communist or Capitalist, the natural order of human beings is to be logical and live peaceably with other men. Your assertion is nothing more than an insistence that government, and only government, should be allowed to use violence to achieve its ends. That these ends are very seldom, if ever, beneficial to you, and are often harmful, follows easily and should be regarded as sufficient proof against.

      And always remember, somebody can make a business out of replacing any government agency. ANY agency. And, they will know that they have to serve their customer well to keep getting paid. Is your government serving you with respect and a smile?

      --
      True science means that when you re-evaluate the evidence, you re-evaluate your faith.
    12. Re:Human Nature by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      Yes, he did -- and the tendency for those not to have studied what he wrote is to not be able to make sense of his class distinctions, since they are not defined by wealth, as classes are defined under capitalism

      Balderdash. All anyone needs to understand is that in order to enforce communism, you have to stick a gun in someone's back. That is not true of capitalism.

      The one whose system requires the use of force loses. It really is that simple.

    13. Re:Human Nature by bit01 · · Score: 1

      in doing so he saves his labor in expectation of a future return on his investment.

      Until, in the absence of democratic government, it gets stolen from him by the local warlord with a gun. eg. Somalia

      Democratic government is nothing more than a group of like-minded people getting together to cooperate in getting rid of the parasites. The parasites disagree of course. And just to make things more interesting in a modern society different people can have very different ideas about what a parasite is.

      You can argue all you like about the fact that we don't need government but the reality is you have to have it in some form and the only thing worse than a tyranny of the majority is a tyranny of the minority.

      ---

      WGA. Guilty until proven innocent. For millions. Again and again.

    14. Re:Human Nature by bit01 · · Score: 1

      ... you have to stick a gun in someone's back. That is not true of capitalism.

      You're mistaken. Capitalism without government is warlordism, might makes right. Using a gun to steal is almost always going to be cheaper and more profitable than trading.

      People voluntarily cooperating to stop thieves? That's what democratic government actually is.

      Keep in mind that professional warlords will be better and more talented at fighting/stealing than the producers, simply because the producers are busy spending more time on producing than on fighting.

      Democratic government is imperfect but like Winston Churchill says:

      Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time.

      ---

      DRM. You don't control it means you don't own it.

    15. Re:Human Nature by cgenman · · Score: 1

      It seems like you're taking a lot of institutions as existing in a void... like saying that the government shouldn't get involved in environmental regulation because the threat of lawsuits will prevent that from happening. The government is how lawsuits happen. Or how trademark rulings should be backed up by individual companies. Trademarks don't have an existance outside of a legal construct. Or that contract law would be functional if simply backed up simply by the threat of violence. Why would you even need contracts at that point? Threaten violence, take stuff, disappear to rio.

      I'm trying to find a gentle way of phrasing this, but I'm not seeing one, so I'm just going to say it. Your viewpoint lacks a degree of subtlety. It's very black-and-white. You may have had good reasons for this originally, but somehow it seems to have morphed into firmly held dogma. For example, you've said "somebody can make a business out of replacing any government agency. ANY agency. And, they will know that they have to serve their customer well to keep getting paid." Examples that run counter to this run the gamut from the old private fire companies to the atrocity that was the privitization of the water system in argentina in 2004. Ever tried to have a private army to repell national invaders? Or a private police force? Unless you run a huge group bordering on a government anyway, it doesn't work so well.

      You made many points that you seem to hold to dearly, and so I hate to cut out and refer to how something is being thought about rather than directly addressing the substance of the discussion. And maybe I'm saying this because I see it in other posters, and have seen it in friends, and from time to time see it in myself. But you appear to hold to the "free market will solve everything" mantra with the same zeal that other people hold to the "the workers must control the means of production" mantra. Which is to say, it seems like you're automatically rejecting contrary evidence not because it is wrong, but because it is contrary.

      I'm probably coming off as a jerk here for saying all of this, but try seeing things from other viewpoints for a while. Try to understand in their own terms how the legislature of Switzerland was seeing the world when they passed laws providing for retirement homes for the elderly and drove taxes through the roof. Try putting yourself into Greenspan's position when he was weighing the economic ramifications of raising or lowering federal interest rates. Or put yourself in the shoes of a Londoner or Parisian of the 18th century watching helplessly as their house burned down even though they bought fire protection because the people in the burning houses around them hadn't. You don't necessarily have to agree with the conclusions they came to, but if you can understand their position without resorting to emotional shortcuts it will only serve to make your conclusions that much more grounded.

      And before you decry me as some liberal commie wanker who is trying to convert you, I'm not. I've started my own business once, and think the overall goal should be highly competitive markets. I also don't think most governments are particularly good at what they do, especially at the state and national level.

      Just my 2c. Remember I mean well. Feel free to ignore this if you choose.

    16. Re:Human Nature by jcr · · Score: 1

      True communism, for example, rewards those who work hard and make good choices as well.

      I'd send that quote to a Russian friend of mine, but I'm afraid he'd die of laughter.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    17. Re:Human Nature by rainofchaos · · Score: 1

      Lots of people misunderstand communist communism != planned economy The past experience proved that planned economy can't work well. So China and Viet Nam all adopted maket economy,which most people think is Capitalism.

    18. Re:Human Nature by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 1

      >> If you reduce government to its most basic level (that of the family), would you still argue that interference by the decision-makers cannot solve problems?

      >This is a fallacious argument, because government did not develop from the family unit.

      The origins of government notwithstanding, GP's point is that cooperative *governance -- as a concept -- is a perfectly legitimate way of solving problems. As human institutions, they have the potential for corruption and that's why civilization is an ongoing project.

      As for your contentions that e.g., "Communism, by definition, is based on government intervention" you're just incorrect. Communism by definition is based on public ownership of the means of production, and democratic processes about how to best utilize those.

      Picture yourself at an auction. You have no money, that's okay because at this auction it's not a *given that your only role is "consumer". You've got talent, and could create a great deal of value for yourself and others if you only had a paintbrush and canvas. Alas, these items have been monopolized through a cooperative pact between the wealthy and the auction house. They will allow you to use them but you have to give them a share (or the bulk) of the eventual sale price, forever.

      Modern communism is not about how terriblehorrible this situation is, but about the fact that it is long-term untenable and does not allocate the means of production in an efficient manner. I think this is true w/r/t some sectors of industry, though not all.

      --
      My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
    19. Re:Human Nature by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      This is a fallacious argument, because government did not develop from the family unit. Modern governments descended from various gangs of bandits, who settled in the areas they oppressed.
      And where did the group dynamics of those bandit gangs come from? The family and tribal unit. Coercion is not the only source of government.

      Stable money supplies exist exclusively in the absence of government interference.
      And I'd say what are you smoking? That's a load of bull -- without government, the money supply is extremely volatile, since it's dependent on the relative scarcity of whatever is being used as currency. It also fluctuates extremely based on market perceptions of the economy; look at the economic cycles of the late 1800s to the early 1930s.

      To understand what government does to the money supply, picture yourself at an auction. You brought money, and you know what you intend to bid on, and what you can afford. Then, a counterfeiter arrives. Even if he doesn't bid on anything you personally wanted, now you have to bid against everyone else who has extra money (since they didn't win the items the counterfeiter got). Ad infinitum.
      That's one possibility, but not what happens in reality. Take away government "interference" and any individual could do the same as your government bogeyman.

      Meaningful cooperation is the basis of a Capitalist economy, and derives directly from the notion of private property and the division of labor.
      Er, no. Cooperation has nothing to do a capitalist economy. Capitalist economies are built on exchange of capital for goods and labor.

      In a primitive state, even solitarily, as a single individual with no society (read: other people) with which to live, man is still a capitalist. He produces capital, ie shelter and tools, and in doing so he saves his labor in expectation of a future return on his investment.
      And two men will cooperate to build shelter -- that makes them communist, right? Even though they are producing capital -- how does that work? You're conflating production of capital with capitalist economic systems, and the two are not the same. It's a simple mistake to make for someone who doesn't have a foundation in economics, but I understand how you'd get a mistaken impression.

      You've read way too much hogwash that ignores fundamental principles of economics. Claiming that my logic is full of holes, and so it's not worth debating, tells me that you cannot defend what you're writing.

      I'd write more, but it's not worth my time. It just seems stupid to even be talking about this crap a hundred and fifty years later
      You're right, it is stupid to debate it now -- but when someone (such as yourself) promotes a false understanding, it's important to point out how what they wrote is incorrect. If you truly understood capitalism and communism, it wouldn't be necessary to point out the holes in your logic.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    20. Re:Human Nature by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Well, that's why I made the "true communism" distinction. I'm talking theory, not practice.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    21. Re:Human Nature by Jasin+Natael · · Score: 1

      Considering this as a resource-allocation problem, Communist resource allocation doesn't work -- it is like trying to do an optimization problem where, because of changing conditions and resources, you always reach a local maxima and have no way to "leap out" over time as other opportunities dwarf it. Capitalism is analogous in this sense to simulated annealing; The more homogeneous a group of people's economic activity becomes, the more likely the crazies and the crackpots are to take one-in-a-million chances that eventually pan out and change the paradigm, especially if nobody beleives they will be profitable for society as a whole (meaning that the resources they needed would have been denied them in the first place).

      Remember that in a Communist (or socialist, fascist, etc.) society, there is no reliable way to make economic calculations -- you're missing the only viable feedback mechanism about what the people want to do with their resources. In Soviet Russia, the economic planning board had to "cheat" by using Sears Catalogs from the US to determine what they should order produced. It would require nothing short of an omniscient deity to maximize resource allocation, but since technology changes and not all men are equal, you would still have inequality and job instability. Requiring people to express their preferences with money is not only much easier, it doesn't require a bureaucracy or a deity to enforce its preference on the masses.

      Your comment about the paintbrush and canvas is a straw man. Exactly to what are you alluding? I don't know of a legal position where licensing a tool gives the tool's vendor rights in perpetuity to the work produced therewith. Unless you refer to patent licensing agreements, which are a product of government, this is a pretty clearly unattainable situation -- Economic systems route around players like this all the time. Can you produce a concrete example of this happening without government interference in a capitalist system?

      --
      True science means that when you re-evaluate the evidence, you re-evaluate your faith.
    22. Re:Human Nature by Loundry · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      And how many businesses, exactly, has George Bush run that were profitable?

      That question is symptomatic of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

      That's why it's called capitalism, and not "work harderism." It's all about who controls the primary capital

      You and I have different definitions of "capitalism". The USA is *not* a capitalist country. It has a mixed economy, and it becomes less and less capitalist every day. Capitalism is that which exists when individual property rights are protected by government and individuals refrain from depriving any other individuals of property through force or fraud. Hence, individuals exist as traders, trading value for value as they see is mutually beneficial. It's a society of making win-wins, not a society which supports thieves, liars, moochers, and looters.

      I hope I'm not shattering your world here or anything, but New York is a pretty liberal heavy city. That means the majority of victims of 9/11 were probably liberals.

      (I'm quite aware that there are boatloads of pompous liberals in NYC, and I have to resist hating NYC for it.)

      Whether or not a person is "liberal" has nothing to do with whether or not they were able to work hard, make good choices, and reap the benefits from it. Think about Google and Apple. Those are both very "progressive" companies, but they function (mostly) as capitalists, trading value for value, working hard, making good choices, and being rewarded for it. (In other words, they're hypocrites.)

      You actually do need government intervention to support the rules of capitalism. For one, ultimately governments enforce contract laws.

      Please note that I didn't write anything about government enforcing laws. What I wrote was that government "never solves anything". The word I chose is "solve", not "enforce", and the word choice is very important because "progressives" think that "society" is filled with "problems" that require a government "solution". (Please forgive my egregious use of scare quotes, but Marxist ideology has infected those words and I don't want you to infer that I share that revolting ideology simply because I use those words.) I maintain: government solves nothing. The enforcement of contracts, which exist to protect individual property rights, is a legitimate and necessary role of government.

      The EPA ensures that the mill up the river doesn't pollute it so much

      Likewise the FDA ensures that beneficial drugs get to the market, and the DEA ensures that there are no drugs on the streets. Style over substance, form over function, right? It's no small wonder that so many artists and movie-makers, who deal solely in the imaginary, fanciful, and superficial, are "progressive".

      Some of these things are so essential for the functioning of capitalism that they are frequently taken for a given. But they're not: they're achieved via government.

      You have faith in government much like a Christian has faith in Jesus Christ. What's the point of showing you how broadly and deeply government fails? For you to accept it would require you to deny yourself, and that takes strength and peace of mind that few people will ever have. As an Ex-Evangelical Christian who has since become a Eudaimonist, I can honestly say that I do not suggest that others follow my path. Life is too short for that kind of pain.

      This is the point where you will write, "Likewise, you have faith in the free market." That accusation only makes sense if I see the world as a "society" that has "problems" that need to be "solved". I don't see it that way because you and I have drastically different values.

      A truly free and open market isn't free

      That is useless and self-contradictory rhetoric. We need to agree on what "freedom" means (I prefer "individual liberty", as you might imagine) before we can use it with each other and have it mean anything.

      In this equation, the government is the ONLY entity that is at least theo

      --
      I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
    23. Re:Human Nature by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      Some posts really deserve more than a +5. This is one of them.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    24. Re:Human Nature by Jasin+Natael · · Score: 1

      What is more subject to mankind's whims: A commodity money, or a fiat currency? There are rarely any noticable fluctuations in the supply of gold, and the business cycles you refer to resulted when governments printed paper money substitutes (since commodity-backed paper money is basically "warehouse receipts") that exceeded the actual quantity of gold in existence. People's perceptions changed, and investments that had seemed good on the assumed value of currency were now horrible ideas, considering the value that currency is now known to have.

      People cooperate because money, or some other quality of the real world, gives them a way to keep each other honest. Efficiency in cooperation, and comparative advantage in production -- because I can make this better, and you can make that better, why don't we cooperate to create a larger corpus of goods? -- forms the basis of all modes of exchange, communal or captial-based alike.

      What are the "fundamental principles of economics" that I am ignoring?

      Funadmental Principles of Economics
      • Man performs first, those functions which he values the most. Man obtains first, that from which he derives the greatest satisfaction.
      • People prefer idleness to labor, and the percieved benefit of work must outweigh the benefit of leisure to induce work.
      • People prefer consumption now to consumption in an uncertain future.
      • People, resources, and technology vary with geography and time.
      • People are willing to trade that which they value less for that which they value more.
      • Since the cost of production and benefit of consuming goods and services vary from person to person, mutually beneficial exchange is possible.
      • People engage voluntarily in what they perceive to be mutually beneficial exchanges of goods and services.
      • Over time, a currency (be it commodity money or some intangible such as 'respect') develops so that individuals can assess whether a certain economic exchange is beneficial to them.
      • Currencies which reduce the burden of economic calculation (ie, make it easy to decide whether to engage in some activity or exchange, and allow the development of stable heuristics to aid in the same) are generally preferred to others.

      Other economic principles of markets and interaction follow logically. Clearly refute a point above, to claim I have a false understanding. Or logically deduce from these axioms, a contrary position.

      --
      True science means that when you re-evaluate the evidence, you re-evaluate your faith.
    25. Re:Human Nature by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 1

      I'm neither a very capable nor very willing advocate for communism. I posit certain things as a corrective to the idyllic vision of capitalist that prevails in this thread -- and in America -- that says, in essence.

      Capitalism is where you get paid to work, and communism is where you get paid whether or not you work.

      In reality, the difference lies in the control of the means of production. Private ownserhip of these is very
      efficient, because the owners respond to market sigals to maximize their profit. But this isn't a perfect system.

      In a nutshell I think it's imperfect because established capitalistic powers *shape the market as well as respond to it. In certain cases -- two examples might be American mass media and automobile industries -- it is easier (read "more profitable") to tell people what they want rather than listen to them. Same old TV, same old inefficient cars. I could go into more detail, but you can probably infer what I'm implying about the public opportunity cost of letting private entities decide what kinds of cars are available and what is broadcast on the airwaves.

      The foregoing does *not mean I think communism is "the answer". It's quite imperfect, for reasons you suggest. It is very difficult to calculate "top-down" what the best way to allocate productive capacity is. So many factors are involved that the distributed intelligence of a freely-developing market system works much better in many cases.

      A single example, though: where the item in question is "information" the ability of a private "producer" to capture all the benefit in the form of compensation is severely hampered. Public goods are, briefly, just *not provided most efficiently by private production in response to market signals. This is why most economies are mixed.

      "I don't know of a legal position where licensing a tool gives the tool's vendor rights in perpetuity to the work produced therewith"
      My straw man was little more than a hasty synopsis of the theory of surplus labor, which I assume you're familiar with. If the employee gets paid an amount corresponding to the value heshe produces, there is no possibility of profit for the employer.

      --
      My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
    26. Re:Human Nature by Stephen+Ma · · Score: 1
      Since the cost of production and benefit of consuming goods and services vary from person to person, mutually beneficial exchange is possible.

      What if the marginal cost of production and distribution were nearly zero for almost everything and everybody? If that were so, what would be the point of exchanging goods? And if there were little or no exchange, what would be the point of capitalism?

      We already have that situation in the software world: the cost of making another copy of gcc and sending it through the Internet to anywhere in the world is nearly zero. People contribute because they feel like doing it, and everyone gets to enjoy the most humongous pool of software in history -- all for free. Welcome to the incredibly rich world of Open Source.

      In the coming decades, it is conceivable that nanotechnology will do for the material world what Open Source is already doing for the immaterial world of software. In other words, nanotechnology can make the marginal cost of producing something -- anything -- nearly zero. Yes: free food, free houses, free jet airplanes. The cost may not actually be zero, but it will be so low that it may as well be free. Maybe you'll work one day a year to help maintain the robotic infrastructure that allows you and everyone else to enjoy a lifestyle that medieval kings would envy. In such a world of overwhelming plenty, what is the use of capitalism?

      So you see, capitalism is not forever. It is not a law of nature; it is merely a tool which we can choose to throw away if it no longer serves us as well as something else.

    27. Re:Human Nature by Jasin+Natael · · Score: 1

      Right. I'm not being snarky in saying this, but completely forthright. When technology does change the game so dramatically, we'll revisit the subject. Grey goo would definitely be a rule-changer, provided we could supply ourselves with enough energy to use it without consideration for energy or raw materials.

      And BTW, I think *all* of us already enjoy a lifestyle that medieval kings would envy, and it's hard to argue that capitalism didn't have a hand in it. A monarch's life was no more leisure than a white-collar worker's is today. But air conditioning, clean food, reliable fast transportation that is comfortable, television, and healthcare put us head-and-shoulders above. The only things the kings of old had on us were polygamy and slaves, which most of us are morally opposed to anyway.

      --
      True science means that when you re-evaluate the evidence, you re-evaluate your faith.
    28. Re:Human Nature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Grey goo would definitely be a rule-changer, provided we could supply ourselves with enough energy to use it without consideration for energy or raw materials.

      Grey goo would need energy too. Because of that limitation on the goo, I am cautiously optimistic about nanotech.

      I am also cautiously optimistic about energy: fission will carry us for a century or two, and then fusion will supply us with all the energy we could want for as long as I can foresee (billions of years).

      And please, don't pretend that everybody enjoys a comfortable -- let alone regal -- lifestyle today. Or have you already forgotten the horrific images from New Orleans after Katrina? Capitalism has a very ugly side indeed.

      As I said, the software world of Open Source is already showing how a non-capitalistic system can work, and work very well indeed -- provided that the costs of production and distribution are nearly zero.

      We have at least three possible paths to that world of universal affluence: robotics, biotechnology, and nanotechnology. For all three to fail would be very unlikely, in my opinion. I do not know what system will replace capitalism, but that it will be replaced is nearly certain.

    29. Re:Human Nature by Stephen+Ma · · Score: 1

      The above post was mine. (I forgot to log in.)

  36. Chuck Norris! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    Yeah? We have Chuck Norris!

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  37. oh yea ? by unity100 · · Score: 1

    While we Europeans and decedents in the US were running around with stone knifes and bear skins, those people had a civilization.

    and now they have a repressive regime that stamps on anything that flowers within their people's minds.

    oh but thats allright !!! - they had a civilization when others had not, we can let the fact that current geezers running the country stamping on youth there. it is totally acceptable.

    if you know a LITTLE bit of history, and the "civilization" you are talking about, youd know that chinese are being MADE live approximately in the SAME condition that they were being made to live in 3000 years ago. only change there is now, more technology. Otherwise everything's the same.
    1. Re:oh yea ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...youd know that chinese are being MADE live approximately in the SAME condition that they were being made to live in 3000 years ago.

      Bullshit.

    2. Re:oh yea ? by unity100 · · Score: 1

      go dig some history. its the same overly-centralist, pressurized one-cut culture since the time of chi. that makes 2500 years. if you go 500 more, you will see that every petty king was ruling their territories the same.

  38. Re:Why should we care? by jcr · · Score: 1

    How about all of you mind your own business, let the Chinese handle their own affairs, and shut the Fuck up!

    Request denied.

    The Chinese would love to "handle their own affairs", as you put it, but they happen to be living under a dictatorship that murdered about 70 million of them in the 1950's and 60's, and still tosses dissidents into jail. If the Chinese were free to choose their leaders, you'd have a point, but they don't, so you're full of shit.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  39. Re:China is not a Socialist/Communist/Marxist Coun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Communism doesn't exist.

    Yet.

  40. P.J. O'Rourke said it best by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    US announced sweeping controls of radiowaves whereby an oligarchy of a dozen media companies will promptly fire anyone who contradicts the official culture by quoting a best selling rap singer.

    If you really can't see the difference, then I'm not sure what to say to you.

    P.J. O'Rourke is a bit harsh (I would choose a different last word for the quote) but he's pithy:

    "Life is full of ironies for the stupid".

    1. Re:P.J. O'Rourke said it best by iamacat · · Score: 1

      Sure. China government blocks content that the majority of people there find offensive. US businesses block content that the minority of people find offensive. Sure, Imus is not jailed. We have perfected a more sophisticated scheme for making people irrelevant and their voices unheard without restraining them physically. I guess in China people still talk to each other rather than just watching TV or surfing the web, so more radical measures are 'required'.

      I personally have no interest in listening to an ugly old guy swearing on radio. But, I would like for a D.J. to be able to "insult american soldiers" (speak out against Iraq war) or discuss health benefits of wine and pot without getting fired. I don't see how you can have one without the other.

  41. Re:Why should we care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should get your facts straight on what happened during the Great Leap Forward instead of portraying the Chinese government as a regime of mass murderers. First thing you should do is not clump the Cultural Revolution and the GLF into one single event. Second thing you should do is realize is that the Cultural Revolution wasn't entirely government led, and that without the support from the populace, it wouldn't have been nearly so bad. Third thing that you should realize is that the government didn't exactly kill most of these people because they wanted to, it was a result of a poorly managed beauracracy that didn't have the capability or the insight to handle the famine.

    It's fine if you want to criticize the government for their draconian laws and treatment of political dissidents. And it's fine if you want to criticize the government for it's poor execution. But please don't clump all the faults of a mismanaged government with the faults of a misguided government philosophy.

  42. Reason to care by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I mean, aside of the (probable) cutting off of non-pro-China webpages that we already have? I mean, do I care whether I get corporate or party spam?

    You can filter corporate spam.

    If you try and filter Party spam, you get a trip to the pokey where mean men with big blunt objects remind you why you love to read the Party emails so much.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Reason to care by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      Mean men with blunt objects?

      Sounds just like Guantanamo bay to me. The only difference is that America does it foreign citizens whereas China does it too its own people too.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
  43. One conglomerate to another by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suddenly Net Neutrality feels like small potatoes...

  44. While it sucks, it's pointless... by gmezero · · Score: 1

    I see lots of Chinese in Second Life these days and they're in world to talk, exchange ideas, and get information about the rest of the world because the SL grid is outside of censor controls. Short of blocking SL right out, or co-oping Linden Labs to parse every chat/IM/and image I don't see this changing anytime soon. This isn't just special to SL, I'm sure many of the international MMO's and Metaverses that Chinese access by pass censorship as well.

    I also think the common person there is about fed up with this crap. Did anyone see the news today about the huge wave of forced abortions in one of the provinces that they government mandated in order to preserve birth quotas? Pretty much anyone that was pregnant and had any kind of discrepancy in what's allowed with a pregnancy was hauled in and give shots that aborted the fetus (even in some cases 9 months along!). ref, NPR story the morning of April 23, 2007.

    Pretty screwed up if you ask me.

  45. Censoring Innovation by writerjosh · · Score: 1

    By censoring the internet, China is censoring innovation. The only reason the West has exploded with innovation in the last decade or so is solely because of the absolute freedom to exchange ideas on the internet: both on a cultural level and a technical level.

    Communist China will find out the hard way that stifling communication will only stifle their economic growth. They've bended over the past few decades to nascent capitalism because they couldn't deny its effectiveness. They will soon find out that they need to open up the internet too in order to let their society grow.

    China is moving forward, even though it seems like a snail's pace to the West. However, they're getting it, just very slowly.

    1. Re:Censoring Innovation by sjwest · · Score: 1

      Ok then why do american corp's then send there designs to China to get copied then ?

      We use chinese made networking gear - i suspect most of us do somewhere in x z and z, and where I refuse to buy american stuff made in china so it seems i get chinese stuff that is open about censorship.

      example - I can drop packets - or alert persons that myspace is being activatedby user at x time if i wanted too. While i do not like the chinese idea of 'clean' I use there stuff and i'm trying to buy another chinese router. Why ? it works and our west european supplier only supplies the netgear rubbish (theres been a purging of linux compatible stuff too i might add) so I asked in the suppliers forum and got a link, yes they would be very happy to sell me it direct.

      While this might 'censor innovation within china', the point of failure in your argument is that apple, intel, ms ,motorola and yada not forgetting yadaye corp all ship there latest and greatest designs to china where citizens 'doing the right thing' no doubt copy and pass on to there companies and government these latest designs / tech manuals and i end up using later in some adapted form or another.

      This is not flaimbait - I would argue too that Bush'es moral agenda and spying on isps might be deemed something along the lines of what chinese might desire to attain.

      Not everything is good. but as /. is a place where software patents and drm is bad why should i support an american corp who's chinese products support patent trolls, and not pay many a decent wage in bad conditions and fail to work with linux.

      Theres plenty of flaws in my argument i know. But at least chinese stuff is open unlike say netgear's usb wifi network adaptors.

  46. Re:Why should we care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, but when we Europeans got around to catching up, boy did we catch up.

    And stay there. Refer to the past 600 years of European history. Where was their great civilization then? In chronic decline.

    Past glory is no justification for present infamy.

  47. :0) beautiful by id3as · · Score: 1

    I would say, this is nice news, just don't distort this. Let's take a look and see what comes out of that. I think it is unprecedented attempt.

  48. What exactly do you love? by loqi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What are you even talking about? Is it something special about the land? Does the countryside get insta-worse when you cross the border into Canada? Did Hawaii get prettier when it was granted statehood? Or do you just love the political geography? The shape of the coastline?

    You say you love the people... you do realize that they're responsible for their government, right? So is that a general "I love all people", or is that more of a jingoistic and/or arbitrary "I love Americans"?

    --
    If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
    1. Re:What exactly do you love? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No, actually Canada is pretty similar to the US, country-wise. It's the ... dunno, feel. I mean, it IS different from Europe, that's for sure. You can't move a lot here without stumbling over some kind of settlement, it's actually quite a bit different there. Also the building style, the architecture... it's hard to describe, the many little things that make it so different and interesting. I don't wanna say it's "better" than Europe (actually, in many parts its worse), but it's different and thus intriguing.

      As for the people and the government, I tend to know the better half of the US population, it seems. Also, don't forget the way they elect their president. In other words, I don't touch the bible belt for a reason... I certainly don't love "all" Americans. Neither do I love all people here, by far not. I see our election results and can only hang my head and shake it in disbelieve. But I do love the people I know there, and the way they are.

      And yes, they are quite different from the people I know here. Not better, not worse, but different and yes, I love them for that. They offer me a completely different point of view. Much like the people here. It broadens my horizon.

      And, generally, this can never be a bad thing.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  49. jintao by passionfruit · · Score: 1

    hey wasnt jintao the name of the villian in that movie with jackie chan and the black dude...

    --
    Now here's one iPoddy site! iPod Range
  50. Mod Parent Up by Jasin+Natael · · Score: 1

    I wish I could put a <blink> tag in there.

    --
    True science means that when you re-evaluate the evidence, you re-evaluate your faith.
  51. Re:Why should we care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The Chinese would love to "handle their own affairs", as you put it, but they happen to be living under a dictatorship that murdered about 70 million of them in the 1950's and 60's, and still tosses dissidents into jail. If the Chinese were free to choose their leaders, you'd have a point, but they don't, so you're full of shit.

    That's NOT for you to say! Typical arrogant attitude - YOU know best and everyone else is too stupid - even if it's their own country!

  52. fuck china by hyperstation · · Score: 0

    really, fuck china. who cares what their new internet plan is? what, a better way to make sure no one in your country learns what a bunch of government fucktards are controlling your lives? what a bunch of slimy freaks. they *really* torture their people, not the pansy torture we do here in the US.

  53. and here comes jesse owens capitalist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the poor, oppressed minority from the embattled capitalist society....

    oh wait, china makes all the @#$ that capitalist societies sell...

    the paralells are only 'eerie' if you never studied history (too busy studying algorithms to bother with that 'fluff' right?)

  54. New Google ads for China by writerjosh · · Score: 2, Funny

    New Google ads for China:

    Cheap Car Insurance
    Remember our Communist Utopia
    And save 100's!

    20% off Nike Shoes
    Buy direct from the factory
    Uncle Mao is watching

    Chinese Singles
    See hundreds of photos
    No capitalists dogs

  55. Give up by Ogemaniac · · Score: 1

    Your quest to avoid Chinese-made goods is pointless, unless you plan on going off-grid and not buying any manufactured goods at all. Even if you try to buy stuff "Made in the USA" or anywhere else, it is likely to contain some material made in China. When it comes to electronics, your quest is completely quixodic - there are probably hundreds of parts and materials contained in your device that were made in China.

  56. Re:FP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I laughed, but please note - it's spelled "Turing", not "Touring"

  57. Hu Apparently Slept Through Deng Xiaopeng's Reign by coaxial · · Score: 1
    From the blurb:
    'Consolidate the guiding status of Marxism in the ideological sphere' online. The meeting notes also declared that 'Development and administration of Internet culture must stick to the direction of socialist advanced culture, adhere to correct propaganda guidance.'

    The guiding status of Marxism and Chairman Mao? The very same Chairman Mao who said:

    There is a serious tendency towards capitalism among the well-to-do peasants. This tendency will become rampant if we in the slightest way neglect political work among the peasants during the co-operative movement and for a very long period after.

    [...]

    The spontaneous forces of capitalism have been steadily growing in the countryside in recent years, with new rich peasants springing up everywhere and many well-to-do middle peasants striving to become rich peasants. On the other hand, many poor peasants are still living in poverty for lack of sufficient means of production, with some in debt and others selling or renting out their land. If this tendency goes unchecked, the polarization in the countryside will inevitably be aggravated day by day. Those peasants who lose their land and those who remain in poverty will complain that we are doing nothing to save them from ruin or to help them overcome their difficulties. Nor will the well-to-do middle peasants who are heading in the capitalist direction be pleased with us, for we shall never be able to satisfy their demands unless we intend to take the capitalist road. Can the worker-peasant alliance continue to stand him in these circumstances? Obviously not! There is no solution to this problem except on a new basis. And that means to bring about, step by step, the socialist transformation of the whole of agriculture simultaneously with the gradual realization of socialist industrialization and the socialist transformation of handicrafts and capitalist industry and commerce; in other words, it means to carry out co-operation and eliminate the rich-peasant economy and the individual economy in the countryside so that all the rural people will become increasingly well off together. We maintain that this is the only way to consolidate the worker-peasant alliance.


    Yeah. That's still a guiding a principle. Communism is dead in China. It died with Deng Xiaopeng, when he declared "To be rich is glorious." Mao is a t-shirt. Mao is an cigarette lighter. Mao is a brand. Chairman Mao's visage now competes with the visage of another old man with a title that was fond of red, Colonel Sanders. The Chinese Communisty Party's name is an anachornism. They're no longer communist. They're no longer socialist. They're just another the run of a mill totalitarian regime.

    I'm sure Hu's plans will meet with smashing success. The prolitariate will get right on it, right after they finish paying for their gucci bag.
  58. yes, pretty screwed-up by Thomas+the+Doubter · · Score: 1

    Which is why correct propaganda guidance is important, without correct propaganda guidance, it would be easy for the wrong facts to be reported and the wrong things to be said. Even worse than incorrect propaganda is marginally correct propaganda, where it is not clear who we should punish - or how much to punish. It is very hard here in the communications office...

  59. Capitalism wasn't designed... by leereyno · · Score: 1

    ....it evolved.

    Our understanding of capitalism is akin to our understanding of psychology or sociology, both of which are disciplines which study pre-existing facets of the human experience.

    This is why a Nobel prize is given for economics, because the process of discovery is every bit as real for it as it is for chemistry, medicine or physics.

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
  60. Same old talk by tixie · · Score: 1

    Seriously, there is nothing new with this talk. Those are just political talks. Such talks are regularly given in China.

  61. Re:This shows why I fear china by bar-agent · · Score: 1

    ...whoah...

    --
    i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  62. Re:Why should we care? by jcr · · Score: 1

    You should get your facts straight

    I've got my facts straight, sunshine. Mao killed tens of millions more Chinese than Tojo ever did.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  63. Re:Why should we care? by jcr · · Score: 1

    That's NOT for you to say!

    It's for ANYONE to say. The government of China is a corrupt, murderous kleptocracy, and the Chinese people deserve to bring the Red Dynasty to justice.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  64. Chinese leader Hu Jintao's internet policy stinks by mscsrrr.com · · Score: 1

    The present internet policy of Chinese leader Hu Jintao is anti-business, anti-progressive and will retard the gigantic technological progress which the Chinese have made during the past couple of decades because it will stifle creativity and innovation. Information, communication and networking are the engines which power creativity and innovation and Jintao's meddling in search engines and internet usage of its citizen will effectively run these engines to the ground and possibly cause the Chinese to fail like the Soviets did. Ikey http://www.ezymoneyinfo.com/fast

    --
    The creator of $100,000 monthly for life system. http://www.secret33.com/home-based-business-progra m
  65. I hope English isn't your first language! by Gizzmonic · · Score: 1

    "The internet in China is diverging rapidly from the state that the rest of the world enjoys it."

    How about: The Chinese "internet" becomes less and less like the rest of the world's internet every day.

    --
    (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
  66. bombard china with wireless AP's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What we need is some sort of method to bombard china with wireless access points. Or surround the country with wireless towers so the people can get around having to use China ISP's to access the internet. I just can't believe that the US and other govt's don't protest their restrictions on freedom more.

  67. Re:FP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    memes from http://dis.4chan.org/prog/
    yeah, it's full of shit.

  68. one-stop shopping to expose all cyberdissidents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First the "Gang of Four" now the "Gang of Crookes" http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?threshold=-1&m ode=thread&commentsort=0

    Maybe the characters in BC suing the whole Internet intend only to get some IP numbers out of google, yahoo, Wikipedia, to prove that they can do the same to Chinese dissidents. That would give them plenty of business. And make this plan a reality.