Anybody have a link to the ACTUAL article in the People's Daily? I want to see how badly those snippets were taken out of context, or if they are the result of glorified translation from the original Chinese.
Having read the People's Daily plenty of times, I have to say it's one of the few publications I know from which it's pretty hard to take snippets out of context and make them actually sound worse.
Also, the People's Daily publishes its own English edition so it's very likely the quotes were from that, rather than the Chinese.
Aren't iPads made at Foxconn? Maybe China should stop making these locked down products. Just sayin'.
What's good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander. It could even be part of their plot to take over the world. Just like how monarchs who bankrolled the original encyclopedia banned it within their own countries.
Since they block social networking sites and blogs, they offer things like RenRen Wang ("People-People-Net"; formerly known as XiaoNei, or "Within Campus")
I like to think of it as "everybody-net". Given the way noun reduplication works in Chinese, I think that's closer to what they meant when they named it "RenRen", although "People-People" could also be considered literally correct.
China isn't bowing to the current Imaginary Property system because it only hurts them, just as they resisted Britain's attempts to get them all hooked on Opium in the 19th century.
I think I know the solution: we invade them and force them to abide by a new set of Unequal Treaties. What could possibly go wrong?
I think I've noticed an accompanying trend: people who know jack-shit about China tend to be the most vociferous about it. Not only are they, as you observe, fashionably hating on China, they also have suddenly all become experts.
I think the same trend applies to Islam as well. I can't count the number of times I've had people lecture me that "Muslims believe this, Muslims believe that..." who've never met a Muslim. If I go "Oh really? That hasn't been my experience," I'm told that it's in the Qur'an so it must be true. These are people who have definitely never picked up a Qur'an in their lives. Invariably it's people who want to convince me Muslims are a threat. Invariably it doesn't work because I know history and can think critically, but that doesn't stop them from trying.
It was especially funny when a tea-partier was recently trying to convince me that I would have no rights in China where all my property and my wife would be stolen, and that Muslims all want to murder infidels because the Qur'an says so. It didn't help to point out that I'd been to China twice and none of those bad things had happened to me, or that the Christian Bible also has passages instructing believers to kill infidels which, taken out of context, would be just as scary as the ones he'd taken out of context from the Qur'an. He just insisted that he's Catholic and Catholics don't kill people for their beliefs. The great irony is that I'm a Unitarian, and historically far more Unitarians have been killed for being infidels by Catholics than by any other faith. But apparently I'm supposed to believe I have more to fear from Muslims than from Catholics, because this expert told me so.
Not really, the reason why China is less than enthusiastic about cracking down on piracy comes down to cost.
No.
Plus it's generally software that's produce overseas rather than domestically.
Yes.
Once Chinese music becomes big worldwide and the Chinese software industry starts to take off, expect the PRC line on piracy to make a complete 180. Cost to the typical Chinese man-on-the-street won't even be taken into account.
Anyway, I'm not about to move to China--there are a lot of disadvantages to living there, particularly if you aren't Chinese.
I would say there are a lot of disadvantages, particularly if you ARE Chinese. Foreign nationals don't typically have to deal with arbitrary arrest, torture, the one-child policy, live organ harvesting, the household registration system, attempts by the central government to erase their culture, et cetera. If you or I go to China and speak out about religion or politics, the worst that's likely to happen to us is we get a little roughed up and then deported. The government will also look the other way when we circumvent the Great Firewall, which is technically illegal but only enforced for Chinese nationals. Sure, as foreigners we can't open a business without a Chinese partner, but that's easy enough to solve. Also, we will have friends everywhere we go because many Chinese are so excited to meet foreigners; I've been repeatedly invited to dinner by complete strangers I met on the streets of Chinese cities and villages. Overall I'd much rather be an American citizen living in China than a Chinese citizen.
Fair and accurate voting doesn't help the political parties or the candidates, it only help the voters!
Yes, and tautological statements are redundant.
Which would be apropos if there were an actual tautology in the above. "Benefiting A benefits A" is a tautology. "Benefiting A does NOT benefit anyone except A" is not. If politicians were basically altruistic while in office (the way the founders of this country intended) then fair and accurate voting would help both the voters and the politicians.
We'll see how you like Net Neutrality when your VOIP call is stuttering because some asshole next door is watching porn at 5Mbit/s.
Which won't happen, because throttling based on level of bandwidth usage doesn't violate net neutrality. Investing in enough infrastructure to provide the amounts of bandwidth you've contractually agreed to provide your customers is another option. I already have de facto net neutrality in my neighborhood (university-provided network, not corporate ISP) and my VOIP has never once stuttered in over 2 years that I've been using it.
If NN passes, I hope the ISP's make people choke on it. "You want Net Neutrality? OK, asshole, here you go. Have fun."
They might, but it won't be because of the natural characteristics of net neutrality. It will be because the ISPs are purposely trying to manipulate us into thinking net neutrality caused us to choke, rather than realizing they were just being dickheads and intentionally throttling us for no reason.
Easy. For starters, you have no fucking clue what net neutrality is. Second, you're pulling absolutely absurd numbers out of your ass like "$500/month per user" with no basis for them whatsoever. You present absolutely no evidence that "the balance will end up around $100/month for a 5GB" other than you "believe" that's what it will cost. You claim to base this on an exponential increase in demand for service but take no account for the exponential increase of technological cost-efficiency that every moderately aware person who's lived in the first world in the last twenty years knows to expect. You don't even present the "other side of the coin", rather you present incoherent nonsense and pretend it's an argument. I think that pretty much sums it up.
The radicals realize NN can guarantee them an audience by law - not by earning it.
Ummm...wait what? Do you even know what NN is? It's about preventing ISPs from blocking your existing audience from reaching your site, not about forcing people to point their browsers at it.
People assume just because it's the ACLU, and the ACLU usually fights First Amendment cases, that it's about the First Amendment. Silly reasoning. Of course the ACLU uses the phrase "First Amendment rights" here but that doesn't mean that it's a First Amendment issue, only that it's about the same set of rights. The ACLU fights for free speech anywhere and everywhere, sometimes using the courts (usually when government is restricting freedom of speech) and sometimes using PR campaigns (usually when private parties are restricting freedom of speech). This is the latter case, which is explained in the PDF, and the summary was pretty ignorant to say they're trying to argue it as a First Amendment issue in any legal sense.
I often find it ironic how conservative talking heads bash the ACLU as defending "commies and left wing nuts", but when *they* want free expression they're happy to get the ACLU involved to help.
You forgot "atheist" which is, somehow, an insult.
I love how conservapedia makes sure to label most atheists as such, even when mentioning them in passing, just to make sure we know how evil they are.
From Linux:
"The GNU project was started by atheist programmer Richard Stallman..."
From Ubuntu Christian Edition:
"This edition may also serve as an alternative who don't want an atheistic Linux distribution, which might leave out Bible software, parental controls, and other moral features. (Richard Stallman, one of the major Linux programmers, is an atheist and suspected communist.)"
Heaven forbid your computer should have an atheist operating system!
"Mao Zedong, (1893-1976) was the leader of Chinese Communism and a ruthless atheist dictator..."
From Theory of Evolution: "A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent materials to promote the theory of evolution was the work of German scientist and atheist Ernst Haeckel."
If my purchased use infringes on others' purchased use, it seems like a clear-cut case for the company who oversold capacity to increase said capacity.
Sure, but the second school of thought is stupid, because it completely ignores the real issue in order to focus on file-sharing/streaming. Practice has shown that ISPs can and do censor their customers' traffic, so that should be the focus of the discussion, not the fairness of file-sharers hurting casual browsers' connection speeds.
Basically without net neutrality ISPs and backbone providers will over time become a privatized version of the Great Firewall of China. Is it fair to the older folks uploading grandkids' pictures to force them to live in a corporate police state, just in the name of sticking it to file-sharers?
"Eat at Joes! And visit our website at: 2001:db8:1f70::999:de8:7648:6e80/index.html!" (IP address stolen from example in Wikipedia entry on IPv6. I have no idea where, if anywhere it goes)
You know, it would have literally taken you about 1 second to check...
Slashdot Mirror
Anybody have a link to the ACTUAL article in the People's Daily? I want to see how badly those snippets were taken out of context, or if they are the result of glorified translation from the original Chinese.
Having read the People's Daily plenty of times, I have to say it's one of the few publications I know from which it's pretty hard to take snippets out of context and make them actually sound worse.
Also, the People's Daily publishes its own English edition so it's very likely the quotes were from that, rather than the Chinese.
Aren't iPads made at Foxconn? Maybe China should stop making these locked down products. Just sayin'.
What's good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander. It could even be part of their plot to take over the world. Just like how monarchs who bankrolled the original encyclopedia banned it within their own countries.
Since they block social networking sites and blogs, they offer things like RenRen Wang ("People-People-Net"; formerly known as XiaoNei, or "Within Campus")
I like to think of it as "everybody-net". Given the way noun reduplication works in Chinese, I think that's closer to what they meant when they named it "RenRen", although "People-People" could also be considered literally correct.
China isn't bowing to the current Imaginary Property system because it only hurts them, just as they resisted Britain's attempts to get them all hooked on Opium in the 19th century.
I think I know the solution: we invade them and force them to abide by a new set of Unequal Treaties. What could possibly go wrong?
I think I've noticed an accompanying trend: people who know jack-shit about China tend to be the most vociferous about it. Not only are they, as you observe, fashionably hating on China, they also have suddenly all become experts.
I think the same trend applies to Islam as well. I can't count the number of times I've had people lecture me that "Muslims believe this, Muslims believe that..." who've never met a Muslim. If I go "Oh really? That hasn't been my experience," I'm told that it's in the Qur'an so it must be true. These are people who have definitely never picked up a Qur'an in their lives. Invariably it's people who want to convince me Muslims are a threat. Invariably it doesn't work because I know history and can think critically, but that doesn't stop them from trying.
It was especially funny when a tea-partier was recently trying to convince me that I would have no rights in China where all my property and my wife would be stolen, and that Muslims all want to murder infidels because the Qur'an says so. It didn't help to point out that I'd been to China twice and none of those bad things had happened to me, or that the Christian Bible also has passages instructing believers to kill infidels which, taken out of context, would be just as scary as the ones he'd taken out of context from the Qur'an. He just insisted that he's Catholic and Catholics don't kill people for their beliefs. The great irony is that I'm a Unitarian, and historically far more Unitarians have been killed for being infidels by Catholics than by any other faith. But apparently I'm supposed to believe I have more to fear from Muslims than from Catholics, because this expert told me so.
Not really, the reason why China is less than enthusiastic about cracking down on piracy comes down to cost.
No.
Plus it's generally software that's produce overseas rather than domestically.
Yes.
Once Chinese music becomes big worldwide and the Chinese software industry starts to take off, expect the PRC line on piracy to make a complete 180. Cost to the typical Chinese man-on-the-street won't even be taken into account.
Anyway, I'm not about to move to China--there are a lot of disadvantages to living there, particularly if you aren't Chinese.
I would say there are a lot of disadvantages, particularly if you ARE Chinese. Foreign nationals don't typically have to deal with arbitrary arrest, torture, the one-child policy, live organ harvesting, the household registration system, attempts by the central government to erase their culture, et cetera. If you or I go to China and speak out about religion or politics, the worst that's likely to happen to us is we get a little roughed up and then deported. The government will also look the other way when we circumvent the Great Firewall, which is technically illegal but only enforced for Chinese nationals. Sure, as foreigners we can't open a business without a Chinese partner, but that's easy enough to solve. Also, we will have friends everywhere we go because many Chinese are so excited to meet foreigners; I've been repeatedly invited to dinner by complete strangers I met on the streets of Chinese cities and villages. Overall I'd much rather be an American citizen living in China than a Chinese citizen.
Shortly there after Steve died of blood loss caused by trying to tape a cat to a piece of bread.
If taping a cat to a piece of bread causes wounds, you're not doing it right.
Associated Press non-biased enough for you?
How about criminal convictions for workers caught rigging the recount?
Fair and accurate voting doesn't help the political parties or the candidates, it only help the voters!
Yes, and tautological statements are redundant.
Which would be apropos if there were an actual tautology in the above. "Benefiting A benefits A" is a tautology. "Benefiting A does NOT benefit anyone except A" is not. If politicians were basically altruistic while in office (the way the founders of this country intended) then fair and accurate voting would help both the voters and the politicians.
Citation needed, from a reliable, non-biased source.
It would be moot, you'll just call whatever source "biased" no matter how reliable.
That would be like equating the KKK voter intimidation with Republicans.
As opposed to just giving the Republicans credit for actual Republican voter intimidation.
We'll see how you like Net Neutrality when your VOIP call is stuttering because some asshole next door is watching porn at 5Mbit/s.
Which won't happen, because throttling based on level of bandwidth usage doesn't violate net neutrality. Investing in enough infrastructure to provide the amounts of bandwidth you've contractually agreed to provide your customers is another option. I already have de facto net neutrality in my neighborhood (university-provided network, not corporate ISP) and my VOIP has never once stuttered in over 2 years that I've been using it.
If NN passes, I hope the ISP's make people choke on it. "You want Net Neutrality? OK, asshole, here you go. Have fun."
They might, but it won't be because of the natural characteristics of net neutrality. It will be because the ISPs are purposely trying to manipulate us into thinking net neutrality caused us to choke, rather than realizing they were just being dickheads and intentionally throttling us for no reason.
Slashdotters, tell my why I'm wrong.
Easy. For starters, you have no fucking clue what net neutrality is. Second, you're pulling absolutely absurd numbers out of your ass like "$500/month per user" with no basis for them whatsoever. You present absolutely no evidence that "the balance will end up around $100/month for a 5GB" other than you "believe" that's what it will cost. You claim to base this on an exponential increase in demand for service but take no account for the exponential increase of technological cost-efficiency that every moderately aware person who's lived in the first world in the last twenty years knows to expect. You don't even present the "other side of the coin", rather you present incoherent nonsense and pretend it's an argument. I think that pretty much sums it up.
The radicals realize NN can guarantee them an audience by law - not by earning it.
Ummm...wait what? Do you even know what NN is? It's about preventing ISPs from blocking your existing audience from reaching your site, not about forcing people to point their browsers at it.
People assume just because it's the ACLU, and the ACLU usually fights First Amendment cases, that it's about the First Amendment. Silly reasoning. Of course the ACLU uses the phrase "First Amendment rights" here but that doesn't mean that it's a First Amendment issue, only that it's about the same set of rights. The ACLU fights for free speech anywhere and everywhere, sometimes using the courts (usually when government is restricting freedom of speech) and sometimes using PR campaigns (usually when private parties are restricting freedom of speech). This is the latter case, which is explained in the PDF, and the summary was pretty ignorant to say they're trying to argue it as a First Amendment issue in any legal sense.
I often find it ironic how conservative talking heads bash the ACLU as defending "commies and left wing nuts", but when *they* want free expression they're happy to get the ACLU involved to help.
You forgot "atheist" which is, somehow, an insult.
I love how conservapedia makes sure to label most atheists as such, even when mentioning them in passing, just to make sure we know how evil they are.
From Linux:
"The GNU project was started by atheist programmer Richard Stallman..."
From Ubuntu Christian Edition:
"This edition may also serve as an alternative who don't want an atheistic Linux distribution, which might leave out Bible software, parental controls, and other moral features. (Richard Stallman, one of the major Linux programmers, is an atheist and suspected communist.)"
Heaven forbid your computer should have an atheist operating system!
"Mao Zedong, (1893-1976) was the leader of Chinese Communism and a ruthless atheist dictator..."
From Theory of Evolution:
"A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent materials to promote the theory of evolution was the work of German scientist and atheist Ernst Haeckel."
You've been told that they only defend lunatic left wing causes, but so far as I've ever seen it's simply not true.
One of many reasons Fox News is hazardous to people's perceptions of reality.
If my purchased use infringes on others' purchased use, it seems like a clear-cut case for the company who oversold capacity to increase said capacity.
Ha! Good one. Try telling that to the airlines.
Sure, but the second school of thought is stupid, because it completely ignores the real issue in order to focus on file-sharing/streaming. Practice has shown that ISPs can and do censor their customers' traffic, so that should be the focus of the discussion, not the fairness of file-sharers hurting casual browsers' connection speeds.
Basically without net neutrality ISPs and backbone providers will over time become a privatized version of the Great Firewall of China. Is it fair to the older folks uploading grandkids' pictures to force them to live in a corporate police state, just in the name of sticking it to file-sharers?
...and if you have to pay for speech, it isn't free speech.
Wait...did you just claim that free as in speech is equivalentto free as in beer? *head explodes*
"Eat at Joes! And visit our website at: 2001:db8:1f70::999:de8:7648:6e80/index.html!" (IP address stolen from example in Wikipedia entry on IPv6. I have no idea where, if anywhere it goes)
You know, it would have literally taken you about 1 second to check...
They've done Everest, but didn't stay there for long.
On the contrary, many are still there.
I am very sorry for someone who confuses nitrogen gas and nitroglycerine.
Johnny was a chemist. Johnny is no more. What he thought was N2 was C3H5N3O9...shit, that doesn't end in 4!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_law I think I will go to school to become a space lawyer.
I hear the pay is good, but the relocation is a pain.