Ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba; in Chinese and Japanese , pinyin romanization: yín xìng, Hepburn romanization: ich or ginnan)
The Japanese word for Ginkgo is Ichou. The article is wrong (meh no big surprise for Wikipedia). The characters it's written with could potentially be read "Gin'an". It's just that they never are.
I choose not to spoil my ballot paper because that is an even greater waste than voting for a party which I believe to be the lesser of two evils.
I'm happy to put third parties at the top of my preference list. Last election I did just that as did many other Australians. But realistically in the elections for the house of representatives, which is what will determine who governs us, the decision is going to come down to either Labor or the Liberal/National coalition. Thus the real choose when voting for the house of representatives is who I put higher on my preferences - Liberal or Labor. Of course the Senate, where third parties hold the balance, and which will hopefully block this, is a completely different story. There voting for third parties really does count.
Anyway this entire discussion hasn't even touched on the fact that their are both desirable and undesirable aspects about each party and we have to balance between those. I'm pissed of at Conroy and would like to make my voice heard by not voting for Labor with the aim that both parties in the future will pay more attention to me as a voter (Obviously not as an individual but as part of a group of people who're horrified about this).
The Labor party (Current government) was meant to be liberal and reformist. The alternative is the Liberal party who despite there name are mostly socially conservative Christians. They just finished voting out Malcom Turnbull their former leader who was clearly too liberal and replacing him with Tony Abbot a Christian conservative who suffice to say holds a number of opinions that don't exactly resonate with the more liberally minded.
Anyway despite that I say fuck the Labor party. I'll vote for the Liberals next election. Maybe for 3 years it wouldn't be the perfect government. But it's better than voting for the status-quo of simply being ass-raped by greedy bastards.
As for young people the best way to make a real difference on this is to talk to your parents and grandparents (If they're still alive). Your vote alone isn't worth as much as the votes of both your parents and yours combined.
I did answer the right post although apparently I did forget to close an italic tag:/
What I mean is that if you are going to have censorship laws (and all western nations do) the fact that one AG can frustrate any attempt to change the laws isn't a bad thing in itself. It's a very important check and balance. We'd be very thankful for the system if for example the changes being proposed were limits on press freedom.
As was pointed out previously in discussions the Economist has a policy of not publishing by lines. So to dish the originally author for being anonymous is wrong. As for Willis Eschenbach's response I imagine there would be many interested but it gives a 404 error at the moment.
Piracy itself is basically opportunism. Western people do it as well. It doesn't require some Chinese conspiracy to see why it would happen in China as well.
Finally, I've seen VeryCD before. A large part of the content was Chinese. Doesn't seem they were particularly worried about that either.
The lay public has been mistrusting science for quite a while now.
I think you mean people have been mistrusting things that go against their established ideas forever. The bigger question is whether we're in an upwards or downwards trend of acceptance of the major ideas of science.
Personally I think for example if you were to compare the number of people who accept evolution (or whatever else) 100 years ago compared to now, then you'd find that an increasingly large proportion of the population accepts it. Which is probably why you see such back-lash from the religious types who feel under threat. They know they're on the loosing side and on the way out.
On a side note, the attitude of "lay person" vs "scientists" creates a false dichotomy. It's especially problematic because the word "lay-person" has all sorts of implications about the persons supposed intelligence. There are plenty of "lay-people" who probably know a lot more about, for example, astronomy than, for example, a microbiologist would. To put it differently, I'm guessing you're not an hubristic asshole looking down on those around you, but it sure as hell sounds like it when you use the term "lay person".
However, their cost to check has now gone up by at least 2x, maybe even 10x - they need to manually inspect every person (you can't just check the negatives because if the faker happens to have passed through successfully in the past their 'new' prints will already be in the database).
Where did you pull those numbers from? When you enter Japan you're already talking one on one with an immigration official (He checks your passport.etc.) It would be trivial for him to ask to check your fingers before scanning. Hell couldn't that be automated with updated technology?
Aside from the headline I don't think anyone is saying that this will be the next best thing.
Tab bars improve my productivity. When I browse tab bars are extremely handy for opening lots of links at the same time, and letting them load in the background while I continue to focus on the thing I was doing. I can also utilise tabs and windows together to group my browsing by what I'm browsing for. Allowing me to subdivide by the task I'm doing which is really useful, IMO.
Multiple work spaces also improve my productivity. I can shift windows out of my current workspace that aren't related to the task at hand. I can group windows into different work spaces based on the task I have them open for and so on.
Tabbed windows is the same concept. It will make it possible to break the task I'm currently doing down in new ways. You don't have to use it but I'm always thankful when developers provide me with new ways to further organise my workflow in ways that make sense to me. I.e. For what purpose do I have this open? When will I need to use this window again?.etc. Rather than having them jammed into the task bar, which (IMO at-least) you rightfully complain about.
As for the snide comment at the end of your post, if you have a revolutionary new way of handling windows (Which is better than grouping than providing new more powerful ways of grouping by task), then please share it with us! If you don't then maybe it would be better to not criticise the work of others for not being revolutionary.
I think when they setup the classification system they put in a lot of safeguards to stop it being easily subverted to a tool of political censorship. Which is a smart thing. Problem is when one of the safeguards is a douche and refuses to liberalise the system.
Okay you sound like a tape recorder for Fox news. So rather than sensational headlines how about some substantial criticism? Let's look at your points
-- Gun legislation: I'm not so familiar with this. So how about telling us what legislation has been passed under Obama attacking gun rights? If there has been, can you provide an article giving us the details so we can make a rational judgment about it?
-- Right to choose your Healthcare: I actually part agree with you here. Forcing people to get healthcare is somewhat questionable.
-- "Right to keep your hard earned income": Firstly, do you have the right to keep the entirety of your income? I'm pretty sure the government is allowed to tax. That's part of living in a society. Now what I assume you're saying is that debt increases are going to raise your taxes and that you disagree with that. Now as far as increased federal debt goes, it's worth noting that by far the worst culprits when it comes to increasing it have been Bush and Reagan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png - Note the huge increase under Reagn and Bush I, the decrease under Clinton and the rapid increase under Bush II. Although if you look at it as a fraction of GDP, it's apparent that Bush II was far better than his farther and Reagan. All were far worse than Clinton. Now, there's forecast increase under Obama but then given the economic conditions under which he came to power that isn't so surprising.
-- TARP: TARP was introduced during the Bush administration. Not sure how you can put the entire blame for that on Obama. I also must disagree that allowing companies to beg for government support is the equivalent of trampling on private enterprise rights. Although the economic wisdom of such a program is questionable.
-- As for the rights of _Alleged_ Terrorists, what exactly is your problem with giving them a fair trial to determine if they're actually guilty or not? It seems utterly hypocritical to say that giving people the right to a trial is somehow a trampling of your rights.
"Hell, I'd take Bill Clinton back before I'd let him have another term."
You say that as if Clinton was terrible. Looking at his record though he oversaw a period of economic boom and debt reduction. Bush II inherited a nation with a newly regained confidence, reduced debt and no major wars. Look what he left Obama.
And not all about a sense of a word mapping between different languages. Same words in different languages can be very different connotations. There are words and phrases in different languages, you have no clear counterpart in other languages. These are often the culture of certain items. A good translation must be a positive meaning and purpose, how to use the expression.
That's doing the same English -> Swedish -> Chinese -> Dutch -> English, as you did. For whatever reason my results are a lot less understandable.
Anyway idiom free technical writing (and simple expressions) are by far the easiest to translate. Although despite all the research we're still far from a 100% accurate translation. The complexities I mentioned above all account for that nicely.
Finally for a bit of a giggle, here is English->Chinese->English:
"And all 11 have a mapping between the meaning of the word in different languages. In a different language can have very different connotations. There are different words and language concepts, but there is no clear-cut the same as other languages. These are often the culture of specific articles. A good translation must be actively aware of the meaning and intent of the phrase to be used."
Accurate machine translation will never be achieved without the invention of human level AI. Translating from one language to another (Especially significantly different ones) requires full understanding of the contents of the text. It never could be and never will be achievable through word/phrase substitution.
Language itself is full of ambiguities. Firstly, different languages have different ambiguities, choosing to encode different bits of information. Secondly, there are different usages of different phrases depending on context and often the only way to disambiguate the different usages is knowing the context by knowing the meaning of what is being said.
In addition to this the grammatical forms of any two languages don't necessarily match up. Often translating them can mean not just rearranging the one sentence, but even rearranging the parts of multiple sentences to form a cohesive whole in a different language. This requires thinking about the meaning being conveyed.
As well as all that there's no one-to-one mapping between the meanings of words in different languages. The same word in different languages can have very different connotations. There are also words and concepts in different languages which just don't have a clear equivalent in other languages. These are generally culturally specific terms. A good translator has to be actively aware of the meaning and intention of the phrase being used.
Finally you have puns and jokes based on the connotations associated with a particular phrase which are more often than not completely untranslatable between different languages.
I'm guessing google is returning pages based on the language you search in. When you write tianmen in traditional characters it's ambiguous whether the language is Japanese or Chinese (Same characters, same code-points), so the results are a mix. Note the two particularly bloody pictures in the google.com.au search are from Japanese sites.
Anyway, I imagine the root of the problem is simply that there's not a lot of discussion about this amongst mainland Chinese (I.e. people who would write in simplified characters).
Finally, as for your question about Mainland Chinese being able to read both traditional and simplified characters well it depends on the character. However, educated Mainland Chinese people that I've meet have generally been able to read any Characters I could write (Me writing the Japanese versions of them, which are generally traditional characters). The inverse is also true I can recognise many characters written in their Mainland China simplified form. In the case of Tianmen, I would be amazed if they couldn't.
I don't speak (or read) Chinese but I do know Japanese and can recognise simplified vs traditional characters. I'm pretty sure that search is in simplified characters. I replaced the "men" with the Japanese "mon" which is identical to the traditional Chinese "men" and the results changed significantly. Link:
Are taboos on naming female organs really in anyway connected to civilization? The only reason swear words are considered bad in the first place is because of cultural baggage, and even within the English speaking world the level of disgust associated with their usage varies significantly. There's nothing inherently bad about the sound "c-u-n-t".
True civilization comes from treating other people with kindness, dignity and respect. Not from pretending sex doesn't exist.
Offer its industry leaders cheap labour, thus tempting them into moving their manufacturing capacity to your country, letting your enemy run up a debt it has no hope of ever repaying, use threats of not giving more credit to force it to devote more and more of its remaining manufacturing capacity to paying you while driving up taxes and weakening social services until the brightest young minds leave it. When it has been bled dry, cut the supply of goods, discard the hollow husk of your enemy, and keep the manufacturing plants they so graciously gave you.
Nice theory... now if only it was grounded in reality. The debt held by China is in US dollars. This gives them the following options:
1: Continue to save it
2: Sell it for other currencies (Same effect as saving in the eyes of the US, since the choice is just passed onto the next buyer).
3: Spend it in the US. This is the only way they can turn it into something of value. It also means that there is huge amounts of what basically amounts to economic stimulus flowing into the US. Increased demand = new jobs, new factories, new transportation facilities,.etc. I.e. economic boom.
Also on a side note you didn't give them manufacturing plants. They're building them and are staffing them with their own energy and in many cases the products that are the results of their labor are going directly to western consumers. China gets a pretty rough deal. They work hard to manufacture things cheaply to send to you and in exchange you pay them in your own currency (I.e. something whose entire value is determined by you). The only thing they really get out of it is investment and technological transfer.
What part of recent events represented free markets? BTW, freer markets are recovering and us Keynesians are still bleeding jobs.
I'm sorry but that assertion just seems completely wrong. For example recovery in Asia is being lead by China which launched a massive state run stimulus program in response to the crisis. Japan is slowly moving to the recovery... with a massive government stimulus package. Australia had a massive government stimulus package which probably helped avoid recession and now is being pulled out of the slump by China.
The point of the original poster was that for Chinese companies because of weak intellectual property protections they are forced to compete on price alone. By the time Japans companies were innovating in terms of quality and technology they were also enjoying strong protections.
The 1980's called it wants its stereotype back. Seriously TFS and TFA both talked about the media's role in reporting this and encouraging the authorities to do something about it. No mysterious disappearances or anything. All we have here is privately run camps running amok and the government stepping in to regulate after it becomes widely reported in the media.
They're not prisoners. These are not state run institutions. Parents send their kids to these institutions voluntarily. Now obviously there is a problem with violence in these 'camps' and the government has stepped in to regulate. How exactly is it that you manage to fault the government (I'm assuming when you say China you're not referring to the entire nation) for this?
Firstly, why does the content have to be M rated to be for a mature audience?
Secondly, why would they want to target that market? PS3 and xbox 360 are in tight competition for that market. It seems the cost and risk of competing in that market is high, while the potential pay off is low (How much money is MS making from the 360 again?). For Nintendo targeting children, families, casual gamers.etc. makes great sense and is proving very successful.
Slashdot Mirror
Ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba; in Chinese and Japanese , pinyin romanization: yín xìng, Hepburn romanization: ich or ginnan)
The Japanese word for Ginkgo is Ichou. The article is wrong (meh no big surprise for Wikipedia). The characters it's written with could potentially be read "Gin'an". It's just that they never are.
I choose not to spoil my ballot paper because that is an even greater waste than voting for a party which I believe to be the lesser of two evils.
I'm happy to put third parties at the top of my preference list. Last election I did just that as did many other Australians. But realistically in the elections for the house of representatives, which is what will determine who governs us, the decision is going to come down to either Labor or the Liberal/National coalition. Thus the real choose when voting for the house of representatives is who I put higher on my preferences - Liberal or Labor. Of course the Senate, where third parties hold the balance, and which will hopefully block this, is a completely different story. There voting for third parties really does count.
Anyway this entire discussion hasn't even touched on the fact that their are both desirable and undesirable aspects about each party and we have to balance between those. I'm pissed of at Conroy and would like to make my voice heard by not voting for Labor with the aim that both parties in the future will pay more attention to me as a voter (Obviously not as an individual but as part of a group of people who're horrified about this).
Who says we are?
The Labor party (Current government) was meant to be liberal and reformist. The alternative is the Liberal party who despite there name are mostly socially conservative Christians. They just finished voting out Malcom Turnbull their former leader who was clearly too liberal and replacing him with Tony Abbot a Christian conservative who suffice to say holds a number of opinions that don't exactly resonate with the more liberally minded.
Anyway despite that I say fuck the Labor party. I'll vote for the Liberals next election. Maybe for 3 years it wouldn't be the perfect government. But it's better than voting for the status-quo of simply being ass-raped by greedy bastards.
As for young people the best way to make a real difference on this is to talk to your parents and grandparents (If they're still alive). Your vote alone isn't worth as much as the votes of both your parents and yours combined.
I did answer the right post although apparently I did forget to close an italic tag :/
What I mean is that if you are going to have censorship laws (and all western nations do) the fact that one AG can frustrate any attempt to change the laws isn't a bad thing in itself. It's a very important check and balance. We'd be very thankful for the system if for example the changes being proposed were limits on press freedom.
It would be probably a lot less democratic to give the government the power to arbitrarily change the censorship laws without any checks and balances.
As was pointed out previously in discussions the Economist has a policy of not publishing by lines. So to dish the originally author for being anonymous is wrong. As for Willis Eschenbach's response I imagine there would be many interested but it gives a 404 error at the moment.
Oh great this again.
China is fucking huge. It's law enforcement problems are fucking huge. If you'd care to get a bit more informed before posting then here is a good starting point: http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/12/03/trial-at-chinas-soprano-city-and-campaign-style-justice/#more-8229 They've got more important things to worry about than piracy.
Piracy itself is basically opportunism. Western people do it as well. It doesn't require some Chinese conspiracy to see why it would happen in China as well.
Finally, I've seen VeryCD before. A large part of the content was Chinese. Doesn't seem they were particularly worried about that either.
The lay public has been mistrusting science for quite a while now.
I think you mean people have been mistrusting things that go against their established ideas forever. The bigger question is whether we're in an upwards or downwards trend of acceptance of the major ideas of science.
Personally I think for example if you were to compare the number of people who accept evolution (or whatever else) 100 years ago compared to now, then you'd find that an increasingly large proportion of the population accepts it. Which is probably why you see such back-lash from the religious types who feel under threat. They know they're on the loosing side and on the way out.
On a side note, the attitude of "lay person" vs "scientists" creates a false dichotomy. It's especially problematic because the word "lay-person" has all sorts of implications about the persons supposed intelligence. There are plenty of "lay-people" who probably know a lot more about, for example, astronomy than, for example, a microbiologist would. To put it differently, I'm guessing you're not an hubristic asshole looking down on those around you, but it sure as hell sounds like it when you use the term "lay person".
Replying to cancel moderation. Accidentally clicked redundant rather than informative. My apologies.
However, their cost to check has now gone up by at least 2x, maybe even 10x - they need to manually inspect every person (you can't just check the negatives because if the faker happens to have passed through successfully in the past their 'new' prints will already be in the database).
.etc.) It would be trivial for him to ask to check your fingers before scanning. Hell couldn't that be automated with updated technology?
Where did you pull those numbers from? When you enter Japan you're already talking one on one with an immigration official (He checks your passport
Aside from the headline I don't think anyone is saying that this will be the next best thing.
.etc. Rather than having them jammed into the task bar, which (IMO at-least) you rightfully complain about.
Tab bars improve my productivity. When I browse tab bars are extremely handy for opening lots of links at the same time, and letting them load in the background while I continue to focus on the thing I was doing. I can also utilise tabs and windows together to group my browsing by what I'm browsing for. Allowing me to subdivide by the task I'm doing which is really useful, IMO.
Multiple work spaces also improve my productivity. I can shift windows out of my current workspace that aren't related to the task at hand. I can group windows into different work spaces based on the task I have them open for and so on.
Tabbed windows is the same concept. It will make it possible to break the task I'm currently doing down in new ways. You don't have to use it but I'm always thankful when developers provide me with new ways to further organise my workflow in ways that make sense to me. I.e. For what purpose do I have this open? When will I need to use this window again?
As for the snide comment at the end of your post, if you have a revolutionary new way of handling windows (Which is better than grouping than providing new more powerful ways of grouping by task), then please share it with us! If you don't then maybe it would be better to not criticise the work of others for not being revolutionary.
I think when they setup the classification system they put in a lot of safeguards to stop it being easily subverted to a tool of political censorship. Which is a smart thing. Problem is when one of the safeguards is a douche and refuses to liberalise the system.
Okay you sound like a tape recorder for Fox news. So rather than sensational headlines how about some substantial criticism? Let's look at your points
-- Gun legislation: I'm not so familiar with this. So how about telling us what legislation has been passed under Obama attacking gun rights? If there has been, can you provide an article giving us the details so we can make a rational judgment about it?
-- Right to choose your Healthcare: I actually part agree with you here. Forcing people to get healthcare is somewhat questionable.
-- "Right to keep your hard earned income": Firstly, do you have the right to keep the entirety of your income? I'm pretty sure the government is allowed to tax. That's part of living in a society. Now what I assume you're saying is that debt increases are going to raise your taxes and that you disagree with that. Now as far as increased federal debt goes, it's worth noting that by far the worst culprits when it comes to increasing it have been Bush and Reagan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png - Note the huge increase under Reagn and Bush I, the decrease under Clinton and the rapid increase under Bush II. Although if you look at it as a fraction of GDP, it's apparent that Bush II was far better than his farther and Reagan. All were far worse than Clinton. Now, there's forecast increase under Obama but then given the economic conditions under which he came to power that isn't so surprising.
-- TARP: TARP was introduced during the Bush administration. Not sure how you can put the entire blame for that on Obama. I also must disagree that allowing companies to beg for government support is the equivalent of trampling on private enterprise rights. Although the economic wisdom of such a program is questionable.
-- As for the rights of _Alleged_ Terrorists, what exactly is your problem with giving them a fair trial to determine if they're actually guilty or not? It seems utterly hypocritical to say that giving people the right to a trial is somehow a trampling of your rights.
"Hell, I'd take Bill Clinton back before I'd let him have another term."
You say that as if Clinton was terrible. Looking at his record though he oversaw a period of economic boom and debt reduction. Bush II inherited a nation with a newly regained confidence, reduced debt and no major wars. Look what he left Obama.
And not all about a sense of a word mapping between different languages. Same words in different languages can be very different connotations. There are words and phrases in different languages, you have no clear counterpart in other languages. These are often the culture of certain items. A good translation must be a positive meaning and purpose, how to use the expression.
That's doing the same English -> Swedish -> Chinese -> Dutch -> English, as you did. For whatever reason my results are a lot less understandable.
Anyway idiom free technical writing (and simple expressions) are by far the easiest to translate. Although despite all the research we're still far from a 100% accurate translation. The complexities I mentioned above all account for that nicely.
Finally for a bit of a giggle, here is English->Chinese->English:
"And all 11 have a mapping between the meaning of the word in different languages. In a different language can have very different connotations. There are different words and language concepts, but there is no clear-cut the same as other languages. These are often the culture of specific articles. A good translation must be actively aware of the meaning and intent of the phrase to be used."
Accurate machine translation will never be achieved without the invention of human level AI. Translating from one language to another (Especially significantly different ones) requires full understanding of the contents of the text. It never could be and never will be achievable through word/phrase substitution.
Language itself is full of ambiguities. Firstly, different languages have different ambiguities, choosing to encode different bits of information. Secondly, there are different usages of different phrases depending on context and often the only way to disambiguate the different usages is knowing the context by knowing the meaning of what is being said.
In addition to this the grammatical forms of any two languages don't necessarily match up. Often translating them can mean not just rearranging the one sentence, but even rearranging the parts of multiple sentences to form a cohesive whole in a different language. This requires thinking about the meaning being conveyed.
As well as all that there's no one-to-one mapping between the meanings of words in different languages. The same word in different languages can have very different connotations. There are also words and concepts in different languages which just don't have a clear equivalent in other languages. These are generally culturally specific terms. A good translator has to be actively aware of the meaning and intention of the phrase being used.
Finally you have puns and jokes based on the connotations associated with a particular phrase which are more often than not completely untranslatable between different languages.
Here is the complete results for traditional vs simplified:
First traditional:
Google Australia:
http://images.google.com.au/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=%E5%A4%A9%E5%AE%89%E9%96%80&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
Google China:
http://images.google.cn/images?hl=zh-CN&source=hp&q=%E5%A4%A9%E5%AE%89%E9%96%80&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
Simplified:
Australia
http://images.google.com.au/images?hl=en&q=%E5%A4%A9%E5%AE%89%E9%97%A8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
China
http://images.google.cn/images?hl=zh-CN&um=1&sa=1&q=%E5%A4%A9%E5%AE%89%E9%97%A8&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2%E5%9B%BE%E7%89%87
I'm guessing google is returning pages based on the language you search in. When you write tianmen in traditional characters it's ambiguous whether the language is Japanese or Chinese (Same characters, same code-points), so the results are a mix. Note the two particularly bloody pictures in the google.com.au search are from Japanese sites.
Heres a Google Taiwan search in traditional characters:
http://images.google.com.tw/images?hl=zh-TW&q=%E5%A4%A9%E5%AE%89%E9%96%80&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi&gbv=1&ei=dv0IS9SvMoyVkAWF8IisAw
As you can see some bloody images come up.
Anyway, I imagine the root of the problem is simply that there's not a lot of discussion about this amongst mainland Chinese (I.e. people who would write in simplified characters).
Finally, as for your question about Mainland Chinese being able to read both traditional and simplified characters well it depends on the character. However, educated Mainland Chinese people that I've meet have generally been able to read any Characters I could write (Me writing the Japanese versions of them, which are generally traditional characters). The inverse is also true I can recognise many characters written in their Mainland China simplified form. In the case of Tianmen, I would be amazed if they couldn't.
Trying that again in traditional Chinese:
http://images.google.de/images?hl=en&safe=off&um=1&sa=1&q=%E5%A4%A9%E5%AE%89%E9%97%A8&btnG=Search+images&aq=f&oq=&start=0
http://images.google.cn/images?hl=en&safe=off&um=1&sa=1&q=%E5%A4%A9%E5%AE%89%E9%97%A8&btnG=Search+images&aq=f&oq=&start=0
I don't speak (or read) Chinese but I do know Japanese and can recognise simplified vs traditional characters. I'm pretty sure that search is in simplified characters. I replaced the "men" with the Japanese "mon" which is identical to the traditional Chinese "men" and the results changed significantly. Link:
http://images.google.de/images?hl=en&safe=off&um=1&sa=1&q=%E5%A4%A9%E5%AE%89%E9%96%80&btnG=Search+images
Are taboos on naming female organs really in anyway connected to civilization? The only reason swear words are considered bad in the first place is because of cultural baggage, and even within the English speaking world the level of disgust associated with their usage varies significantly. There's nothing inherently bad about the sound "c-u-n-t".
True civilization comes from treating other people with kindness, dignity and respect. Not from pretending sex doesn't exist.
Offer its industry leaders cheap labour, thus tempting them into moving their manufacturing capacity to your country, letting your enemy run up a debt it has no hope of ever repaying, use threats of not giving more credit to force it to devote more and more of its remaining manufacturing capacity to paying you while driving up taxes and weakening social services until the brightest young minds leave it. When it has been bled dry, cut the supply of goods, discard the hollow husk of your enemy, and keep the manufacturing plants they so graciously gave you.
.etc. I.e. economic boom.
Nice theory... now if only it was grounded in reality. The debt held by China is in US dollars. This gives them the following options:
1: Continue to save it
2: Sell it for other currencies (Same effect as saving in the eyes of the US, since the choice is just passed onto the next buyer).
3: Spend it in the US. This is the only way they can turn it into something of value. It also means that there is huge amounts of what basically amounts to economic stimulus flowing into the US. Increased demand = new jobs, new factories, new transportation facilities,
Also on a side note you didn't give them manufacturing plants. They're building them and are staffing them with their own energy and in many cases the products that are the results of their labor are going directly to western consumers. China gets a pretty rough deal. They work hard to manufacture things cheaply to send to you and in exchange you pay them in your own currency (I.e. something whose entire value is determined by you). The only thing they really get out of it is investment and technological transfer.
(even in many countries where insurance is still provided by private companies, like Japan and Germany
Insurance in Japan is provided by the government.
What part of recent events represented free markets? BTW, freer markets are recovering and us Keynesians are still bleeding jobs.
I'm sorry but that assertion just seems completely wrong. For example recovery in Asia is being lead by China which launched a massive state run stimulus program in response to the crisis. Japan is slowly moving to the recovery... with a massive government stimulus package. Australia had a massive government stimulus package which probably helped avoid recession and now is being pulled out of the slump by China.
The point of the original poster was that for Chinese companies because of weak intellectual property protections they are forced to compete on price alone. By the time Japans companies were innovating in terms of quality and technology they were also enjoying strong protections.
The 1980's called it wants its stereotype back. Seriously TFS and TFA both talked about the media's role in reporting this and encouraging the authorities to do something about it. No mysterious disappearances or anything. All we have here is privately run camps running amok and the government stepping in to regulate after it becomes widely reported in the media.
They're not prisoners. These are not state run institutions. Parents send their kids to these institutions voluntarily. Now obviously there is a problem with violence in these 'camps' and the government has stepped in to regulate. How exactly is it that you manage to fault the government (I'm assuming when you say China you're not referring to the entire nation) for this?
Firstly, why does the content have to be M rated to be for a mature audience?
.etc. makes great sense and is proving very successful.
Secondly, why would they want to target that market? PS3 and xbox 360 are in tight competition for that market. It seems the cost and risk of competing in that market is high, while the potential pay off is low (How much money is MS making from the 360 again?). For Nintendo targeting children, families, casual gamers