You best get back in therapy. Your entire complaint centers around IE6 which bares no resemblance to IE8 or IE9. I've used and developed sites and applications for IE, FireFox, Safari, and Opera and they all have their little quirks. I have just finished up a project that used 3 different groups of developers with various but equal levels of experience set to develop the identical application to a particular browser. In this case IE,Chrome, and FireFox were the targets. This was done so the company could make an informed decision on which browser to standardize against. Development time, development costs, performance, security, and distribution models were the metrics used to evaluate the browsers. In this particular case IE9 and Chrome were virtually even in all categories while leaving FireFox a distant 3rd. IE ultimately was selected because the system administrators where more familiar with the IE distribution procedures. Your opinion on what constitutes "real coding" makes you sound like one of those people who thinks they are the only ones capable of writing "real code" and everyone that doesn't adhere to your gospel is incompetent.
It was just a suggestion for fast tracking citizenship and no I don't expect this would or could apply to everyone. It would most likely only apply to a small minority due to age requirements and educational background. The military does have education requirements. And with the US drawing down the number of deployed soldiers now would be a good time to go the military route and not have to worry about being thrown into combat. There are also ways to smooth out the citizenship process for people with certain skills and aptitudes. This option usually helps those with tech or science related background and education. Companies are more than willing to sponsor and pay for someones citizenship process in return for gaining a good employee. For the people who don't fall into these categories the process is lengthy and can be expensive as well but that should not justify entering the country illegally. The whole discussion on this thread has been somewhat distorted by those supporting the anti and pro extremes. The whole ID thing is not out of line with the requirements in other countries. As a US citizen I am required to carry my passport whenever I am in a foreign country. This is not an unreasonable burden. In the US itself I am required to produce ID if I get pulled over driving or if I get detained by the police investigating a possible crime. Maybe there should be some type of fast track temporary visa for those coming into the country looking for work. The requirement would be they would need to prove they have a job and they would have to register at the border crossing. They would be required to provide immigration officials with updates to their status if they move or take another job. Maybe in the future this type of visa classifcation can be used to fast track the citizenship process because the person would have documented evidence the immigration officials could use to determine if the person is eleigible for citizenship. Say anyone who has been working for 3 years without any problems qualifies for an upgrade in status without a significant cost.
They are not POW's. To claim POW status requires participation in a act of war sponsored by a recognized nation state involved in the conflict. Declaring these guys POW's would bring them under the Geneva Convention which allows the states engaged in hostilities does allow summary execution of anyone captured on the battlefield with no identifying insignia. This rule was put into place to discourage spying. Of course it didn't actually stop spying it just added a penalty harsh enough to make people think twice about doing it. "Enemy Combatants" is not symantics. It is clearly defined classification that deals with situations not covered under any existing rules of war or criminal statues. "Speedy" is not explicitly defined in any rights declaration. It is a subjective term that can changed by the circumstances of the case. A defendant does have the ability to demand court review of the situation and there have been many cases where a person was released because the prosecuting authorities did not indict or present any evidence to support the charges.
"could have been easily convicted and executed or held in prison for life"
But he wasn't. You can not use anecdotal evidence to declare an entire system unjust.
"Civil rights are seriously threatened" And which civil rights are threatened? Most people making this claim are under the false impression that Anarchy is a civil right and it is not. Civil rights have always had to balance the good of the individual against the good of the society as a whole. Just because you can't do anything you like in all situations doesn't mean your rights are being violated.
Your comparison between the US and Mexico is absurd. If you are going to argue a position at least include a little reality in your statements. Besides if the US and Mexico are the same why don't we have 1000's of people rushing into Mexico since things can't get be any worse than they are here so they might want to try something new?
So you just assume that the entire police force is comprised of nothing but racists and law breakers? "Probable cause" is for the legal system to determine and it offers the accused a chance to challenge every impropriety they have suffered at the hands of the police. Unless of you also think every single judge is racists and law breakers? The US judicial system is adversarial in nature which allows the accused an opportunity to defend himself in a court of law and assert their rights if they feel they have been denied of their rights.
Read the damn law. They can not be stopped randomly and checked for immigration status. Only after they are detained for some other reason can they ask for immigration status. And yes this could be circumvented by individual police officers but that is true for a whole list of different types of charges. The people complaining about his law are automatically assuming the entire police force are racists and will ignore the law which is a rather insulting and unsupported accusation. Anyway how is this any different than anyone else getting stopped by the police and being asked for identification such as a drivers license?
"The folks in Gitmo weren't charged with crimes, held as POWs, or given access to legal assistance."
They are officially classified as an enemy combatants and specific charges have been filed and they do have access to legal assistance. Their treatment and the question of whether they have protection under the Constitution is still a much contested point that is getting handled on a case by case basis for the most part. They are not US citizens and their offenses were in a foreign country during an official military engagement. This is a rather unique set of facts that do not fit perfectly into the existing justice system. They aren't exactly criminals or POWs. Congress and the Supreme court has tried to define what changes need to be made to accommodate this area. The process takes time to work and a lot of the existing detainees would have been released by now if any country would accept them. Even the countries where they originate are not willing to repatriate them so this creates just one more problem needing to be resolved some how.
"the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial" The definition of a speedy trial is defined by each state. A Speedy trial, especially a jury trial, could be as long as 3 months to 6 months depending on the complexity of the sace. Just because you define a speedy trial as 15 minutes doesn't make it so or violate your rights.
"I didn't even break any laws at all."
You are not the first person arrested that was innocent. The police can hold you as a suspect long enough to determine if a mistake was made. If after investigating it appears you are blatantly innocent they can release you. Of course like I mentioned above the administrative process takes time.
"To the victor the spoils, and it ends there"
Now if the Palestinians and it's supporters would just recognize this truism we could ratchet down the animosity floating around in the middle-east.
The current generation jets like the F-22 and F-35 are already capable of supplying more performance than the human pilot can use by a wide margin. Unless inertial compensator's are invented the current generation will most likely be the last. What would be the point of re-designing for more performance when the current models already exceed the human ability to fly? UAVs might be vulnerable to jet attacks but the question is could a jet destroy 50 UAVs before being targeted and destroyed. The Constellation program is all about deploying 100''s UAVS at a time in an integrated tactical group in number large enough to overwhelm any target.
Extradition treaties are negotiated in depth between the countries involved. They are specific as humanly possible to avoid an extracted shit fight every time they are invoked. They also tend to be very conservative in scope and even when the treaty is invoked it gets reviewed in depth by the country asked to extradite someone. People are offered the chance to contest the extradition under their own countries justice system.
They hit the public facing websites which are little more than ebrochures and contact info. They did not penetrate any secure systems. I seriously doubt the CIA offers a public portal for thier spies to login and make reports.
No system is perfect but the US system does provide a mechanism to challenge, modify, and invalidate existing laws. Laws get changed all the time. The judicial segment of the government has the power to invalidate laws passed by the legislative branch. People are also free to argue the validity of a law when on trial. In certain situations a defense lawyer can put the law itself on trial. For extreme situations the justice system also provides a way for jury nullification even when there is a clear violation of the law as written.
You intimated in your post that people were being randomly rounded up without charge or recourse which is an exagerated claim used to mislead and and support your opinion that the US justice system is the same as the Chinese.
Gitmo detainees are foreign nationals classified as enemy combatants. The Supreme court has ruled that a US citizen detained as an enemy combatant must be allowed to challenge the accusations in a US civilian court. Getting arrested and held while the justice process runs it's course is not denying you your rights. Depending on the offense the police need time to file charges and process the paper work. The court representives need time to review the charges and request clarification if needed so a determination can be made on whether to proceed. In other words it is basically an administration and processing delay. However, there are hard limits and legal recourse available for anyone held without charges or indictment over a specified length of time. That time period can vary depending on nature of the offense. If you get detained for DUI they will not release you until you sober up and by that time the woill have probably towed your car away. If involved in a domestic dispute the police have the right to hold you until the threat of immediate continued violence is abated. They are not going to arrest a husband for beating the shit out of his wife and then release him 15 minutes later. The police have descrectionary powers in incidents such as this. However, you can not be held without charge indefinitely or denied access to legal support. If these rights are violated you have legal recourse to challenge the arrest and detainment and seek damages for your trouble.
OK moron let's drop every law on the books and decide everything by a freaking show of hands on a case by case basis. That will surely bring justice to all.
Laws are codified (in most countries) so justice can appear even handed and can be applied uniformly. And yes there are times when this system gets abused but there are remedies in most cases (again in most countries) where the accused can challenge the charges and the validity of the law itself in some cases. Robbery statutes don't explicityly define all the possible things that might get stolen it generalizes everything as generic property. Illegally accessing computer system statutes don't define exceptions based on why it was done. You would end up with a system based upon judging nothing but intent and that type of argument can lead to inconsistant outcomes based not upon law but upon someones opinion of right and wrong which can differ radically amongst the population.
"where you can be put without a lawyer, without a charge, without due process of any kind " Please elaborate on this shocking situation.
"Facist, communist, capitalist and just about any other type of governmental theory slowly will go from a great idea to a slave state eventually"
Well we might as well jump ahead to anarchy and institute a system based on survival of the fittest. The large and still growing world population could use some pruning.
Both of the scenarios involve groups who believe in their rightous cause and are willing to break the law and create harm to others to prove their point. One is certainly more extreme and damaging then the other however by condoning one you are implicitly condoning the other. Who gets to decide what constitutes a "good cause" that justifies breaking the law?
No matter how distributed the group is they do need to communicate with each other occasionally or how else would they all work to target the same system? Infiltrating someone into this communication loop could let the enforcement agencies know when new attacks are planned and who the target is. It would be foolish to underestimate the governments technical capabilities. Each new data point could provide information needed to back track the attacks.
"Microsoft invented very little of what it sold - often others introduced things, were ripped off by Microsoft, and then crushed by MS lawyers who had far greater funding than the smaller entities. Microsoft took few risks, was never first to market with anything innovative and useful."
I specifically said MS did not obtain their market share becuase their technology was better than anyone elses. I don't know if MS "ripping off" technology maybe they were just ahead of the curve in the open source arena. I do know they bought a hell of a lot technology from their smaller competitors who were more than willing to take the payday. They did no more than Apple is doing today when they incorporate functionality into their OS from apps submitted to their appStore with little or no compensation to the developers. As far as innovative or useful I think the GUI falls into the useful category.cAt least judging by the number of people using it over the years.
The government will most likely try to infiltrate the group using someone with the impressive tech skills. The person infiltrated would most likely participate in several successful attacks to prove their cred and from then on start collecting the information needed to roll up the entire group.
So you would prefer the state telling you what technology you can use as well as dictate how you can use that technology? MS became dominate because they got in on the ground floor of the personal computing technology explosion and was able to get a head start in dominating the sector. This was primarily because the larger exisitng IT companies at the time were slow in recognizing the potential of personal computing technology and were to set in their ways to respond effectively when they finally did recognize the potential. MS success was not because they offered better technology they were just able to manage their technology offerings in the market place better than others at the time. As a business they were no more ruthless than any other company in any other industry looking to maximize their performance and increase market share. That's part of what capitalism is all about and it is not always a bad thing when it drives competition and encourages risk taking from those trying to make a success of themselves. Giving away time, products, and accumalated knowledge in a communal environment for free is a noble endeavor but in the end you still need to eat. Apple did the same thing as MS although they took a slightly different path but that path was still driven by 100% capitalism. It's only taking 20 years for the market and the technology to change to a different paradigm where MS has lost most of it's previous advantages over the other players. And that is a good thing because new ideas grow faster in an environment free of restrictive layers of corporate management.
I believe we are trying to move away from polluting cars. Gas powered cars have become cleaner and more efficient . Electric and natural gas powered auto technology is gaining momentum. Even coal burning technologies are becoming cleaner. It just takes time to convert over to another primary source of energy. New manufacturing infrastructure and power distribution systems take time to put into place. The gas station network in the US has taken 100 years to get to where it is now and you can't expect to replace a system that large in just a couple of years.
The Chinese government is streamlined and they don't have to worry about what their citizens say or want. They don't have to take into account the same type of internal or external political consequences that countries with representitive type governments. Any differences in policy amongst the Party memebers are handled behind closed doors and are usually resolved with payoffs, imprisonment, or death. And you can't forget that they arrived where they are now by using naked brutality and fear. The Great Leap Forward resulted in +30 million deaths for those who didn't leap fast enough or far enough. Actions such as that followed up with almost total isolation from the rest of the world tends to have a lasting impression on it's citizens. However things are not all rosey with Government because they know thay are balanced on top of a society capable of over powering the government if giving enough reason to do so. Under communisism or extreme socialism the stability of a society is kept in check because almost everyone is equally poor. When segments of society start becoming more affluent the society can start to fracture and instablity rises.
China already props up the leadership in the Sudan to secure their oil interests. Of course you never really here any complaints sicne everyone knows only the US does things like that.
Slashdot Mirror
You best get back in therapy. Your entire complaint centers around IE6 which bares no resemblance to IE8 or IE9. I've used and developed sites and applications for IE, FireFox, Safari, and Opera and they all have their little quirks. I have just finished up a project that used 3 different groups of developers with various but equal levels of experience set to develop the identical application to a particular browser. In this case IE,Chrome, and FireFox were the targets. This was done so the company could make an informed decision on which browser to standardize against. Development time, development costs, performance, security, and distribution models were the metrics used to evaluate the browsers. In this particular case IE9 and Chrome were virtually even in all categories while leaving FireFox a distant 3rd. IE ultimately was selected because the system administrators where more familiar with the IE distribution procedures. Your opinion on what constitutes "real coding" makes you sound like one of those people who thinks they are the only ones capable of writing "real code" and everyone that doesn't adhere to your gospel is incompetent.
It was just a suggestion for fast tracking citizenship and no I don't expect this would or could apply to everyone. It would most likely only apply to a small minority due to age requirements and educational background. The military does have education requirements. And with the US drawing down the number of deployed soldiers now would be a good time to go the military route and not have to worry about being thrown into combat. There are also ways to smooth out the citizenship process for people with certain skills and aptitudes. This option usually helps those with tech or science related background and education. Companies are more than willing to sponsor and pay for someones citizenship process in return for gaining a good employee. For the people who don't fall into these categories the process is lengthy and can be expensive as well but that should not justify entering the country illegally. The whole discussion on this thread has been somewhat distorted by those supporting the anti and pro extremes. The whole ID thing is not out of line with the requirements in other countries. As a US citizen I am required to carry my passport whenever I am in a foreign country. This is not an unreasonable burden. In the US itself I am required to produce ID if I get pulled over driving or if I get detained by the police investigating a possible crime. Maybe there should be some type of fast track temporary visa for those coming into the country looking for work. The requirement would be they would need to prove they have a job and they would have to register at the border crossing. They would be required to provide immigration officials with updates to their status if they move or take another job. Maybe in the future this type of visa classifcation can be used to fast track the citizenship process because the person would have documented evidence the immigration officials could use to determine if the person is eleigible for citizenship. Say anyone who has been working for 3 years without any problems qualifies for an upgrade in status without a significant cost.
They are not POW's. To claim POW status requires participation in a act of war sponsored by a recognized nation state involved in the conflict. Declaring these guys POW's would bring them under the Geneva Convention which allows the states engaged in hostilities does allow summary execution of anyone captured on the battlefield with no identifying insignia. This rule was put into place to discourage spying. Of course it didn't actually stop spying it just added a penalty harsh enough to make people think twice about doing it. "Enemy Combatants" is not symantics. It is clearly defined classification that deals with situations not covered under any existing rules of war or criminal statues. "Speedy" is not explicitly defined in any rights declaration. It is a subjective term that can changed by the circumstances of the case. A defendant does have the ability to demand court review of the situation and there have been many cases where a person was released because the prosecuting authorities did not indict or present any evidence to support the charges. "could have been easily convicted and executed or held in prison for life" But he wasn't. You can not use anecdotal evidence to declare an entire system unjust.
"Civil rights are seriously threatened" And which civil rights are threatened? Most people making this claim are under the false impression that Anarchy is a civil right and it is not. Civil rights have always had to balance the good of the individual against the good of the society as a whole. Just because you can't do anything you like in all situations doesn't mean your rights are being violated. Your comparison between the US and Mexico is absurd. If you are going to argue a position at least include a little reality in your statements. Besides if the US and Mexico are the same why don't we have 1000's of people rushing into Mexico since things can't get be any worse than they are here so they might want to try something new?
If you want to fast track your citizenship just join the US armed forces.
So you just assume that the entire police force is comprised of nothing but racists and law breakers? "Probable cause" is for the legal system to determine and it offers the accused a chance to challenge every impropriety they have suffered at the hands of the police. Unless of you also think every single judge is racists and law breakers? The US judicial system is adversarial in nature which allows the accused an opportunity to defend himself in a court of law and assert their rights if they feel they have been denied of their rights.
Read the damn law. They can not be stopped randomly and checked for immigration status. Only after they are detained for some other reason can they ask for immigration status. And yes this could be circumvented by individual police officers but that is true for a whole list of different types of charges. The people complaining about his law are automatically assuming the entire police force are racists and will ignore the law which is a rather insulting and unsupported accusation. Anyway how is this any different than anyone else getting stopped by the police and being asked for identification such as a drivers license?
"The folks in Gitmo weren't charged with crimes, held as POWs, or given access to legal assistance." They are officially classified as an enemy combatants and specific charges have been filed and they do have access to legal assistance. Their treatment and the question of whether they have protection under the Constitution is still a much contested point that is getting handled on a case by case basis for the most part. They are not US citizens and their offenses were in a foreign country during an official military engagement. This is a rather unique set of facts that do not fit perfectly into the existing justice system. They aren't exactly criminals or POWs. Congress and the Supreme court has tried to define what changes need to be made to accommodate this area. The process takes time to work and a lot of the existing detainees would have been released by now if any country would accept them. Even the countries where they originate are not willing to repatriate them so this creates just one more problem needing to be resolved some how. "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial" The definition of a speedy trial is defined by each state. A Speedy trial, especially a jury trial, could be as long as 3 months to 6 months depending on the complexity of the sace. Just because you define a speedy trial as 15 minutes doesn't make it so or violate your rights. "I didn't even break any laws at all." You are not the first person arrested that was innocent. The police can hold you as a suspect long enough to determine if a mistake was made. If after investigating it appears you are blatantly innocent they can release you. Of course like I mentioned above the administrative process takes time.
"To the victor the spoils, and it ends there" Now if the Palestinians and it's supporters would just recognize this truism we could ratchet down the animosity floating around in the middle-east.
The current generation jets like the F-22 and F-35 are already capable of supplying more performance than the human pilot can use by a wide margin. Unless inertial compensator's are invented the current generation will most likely be the last. What would be the point of re-designing for more performance when the current models already exceed the human ability to fly? UAVs might be vulnerable to jet attacks but the question is could a jet destroy 50 UAVs before being targeted and destroyed. The Constellation program is all about deploying 100''s UAVS at a time in an integrated tactical group in number large enough to overwhelm any target.
Extradition treaties are negotiated in depth between the countries involved. They are specific as humanly possible to avoid an extracted shit fight every time they are invoked. They also tend to be very conservative in scope and even when the treaty is invoked it gets reviewed in depth by the country asked to extradite someone. People are offered the chance to contest the extradition under their own countries justice system.
They hit the public facing websites which are little more than ebrochures and contact info. They did not penetrate any secure systems. I seriously doubt the CIA offers a public portal for thier spies to login and make reports.
No system is perfect but the US system does provide a mechanism to challenge, modify, and invalidate existing laws. Laws get changed all the time. The judicial segment of the government has the power to invalidate laws passed by the legislative branch. People are also free to argue the validity of a law when on trial. In certain situations a defense lawyer can put the law itself on trial. For extreme situations the justice system also provides a way for jury nullification even when there is a clear violation of the law as written.
You intimated in your post that people were being randomly rounded up without charge or recourse which is an exagerated claim used to mislead and and support your opinion that the US justice system is the same as the Chinese. Gitmo detainees are foreign nationals classified as enemy combatants. The Supreme court has ruled that a US citizen detained as an enemy combatant must be allowed to challenge the accusations in a US civilian court. Getting arrested and held while the justice process runs it's course is not denying you your rights. Depending on the offense the police need time to file charges and process the paper work. The court representives need time to review the charges and request clarification if needed so a determination can be made on whether to proceed. In other words it is basically an administration and processing delay. However, there are hard limits and legal recourse available for anyone held without charges or indictment over a specified length of time. That time period can vary depending on nature of the offense. If you get detained for DUI they will not release you until you sober up and by that time the woill have probably towed your car away. If involved in a domestic dispute the police have the right to hold you until the threat of immediate continued violence is abated. They are not going to arrest a husband for beating the shit out of his wife and then release him 15 minutes later. The police have descrectionary powers in incidents such as this. However, you can not be held without charge indefinitely or denied access to legal support. If these rights are violated you have legal recourse to challenge the arrest and detainment and seek damages for your trouble.
OK moron let's drop every law on the books and decide everything by a freaking show of hands on a case by case basis. That will surely bring justice to all.
Laws are codified (in most countries) so justice can appear even handed and can be applied uniformly. And yes there are times when this system gets abused but there are remedies in most cases (again in most countries) where the accused can challenge the charges and the validity of the law itself in some cases. Robbery statutes don't explicityly define all the possible things that might get stolen it generalizes everything as generic property. Illegally accessing computer system statutes don't define exceptions based on why it was done. You would end up with a system based upon judging nothing but intent and that type of argument can lead to inconsistant outcomes based not upon law but upon someones opinion of right and wrong which can differ radically amongst the population.
"where you can be put without a lawyer, without a charge, without due process of any kind " Please elaborate on this shocking situation. "Facist, communist, capitalist and just about any other type of governmental theory slowly will go from a great idea to a slave state eventually" Well we might as well jump ahead to anarchy and institute a system based on survival of the fittest. The large and still growing world population could use some pruning.
Both of the scenarios involve groups who believe in their rightous cause and are willing to break the law and create harm to others to prove their point. One is certainly more extreme and damaging then the other however by condoning one you are implicitly condoning the other. Who gets to decide what constitutes a "good cause" that justifies breaking the law?
No matter how distributed the group is they do need to communicate with each other occasionally or how else would they all work to target the same system? Infiltrating someone into this communication loop could let the enforcement agencies know when new attacks are planned and who the target is. It would be foolish to underestimate the governments technical capabilities. Each new data point could provide information needed to back track the attacks.
"Microsoft invented very little of what it sold - often others introduced things, were ripped off by Microsoft, and then crushed by MS lawyers who had far greater funding than the smaller entities. Microsoft took few risks, was never first to market with anything innovative and useful." I specifically said MS did not obtain their market share becuase their technology was better than anyone elses. I don't know if MS "ripping off" technology maybe they were just ahead of the curve in the open source arena. I do know they bought a hell of a lot technology from their smaller competitors who were more than willing to take the payday. They did no more than Apple is doing today when they incorporate functionality into their OS from apps submitted to their appStore with little or no compensation to the developers. As far as innovative or useful I think the GUI falls into the useful category.cAt least judging by the number of people using it over the years.
The government will most likely try to infiltrate the group using someone with the impressive tech skills. The person infiltrated would most likely participate in several successful attacks to prove their cred and from then on start collecting the information needed to roll up the entire group.
So you would prefer the state telling you what technology you can use as well as dictate how you can use that technology? MS became dominate because they got in on the ground floor of the personal computing technology explosion and was able to get a head start in dominating the sector. This was primarily because the larger exisitng IT companies at the time were slow in recognizing the potential of personal computing technology and were to set in their ways to respond effectively when they finally did recognize the potential. MS success was not because they offered better technology they were just able to manage their technology offerings in the market place better than others at the time. As a business they were no more ruthless than any other company in any other industry looking to maximize their performance and increase market share. That's part of what capitalism is all about and it is not always a bad thing when it drives competition and encourages risk taking from those trying to make a success of themselves. Giving away time, products, and accumalated knowledge in a communal environment for free is a noble endeavor but in the end you still need to eat. Apple did the same thing as MS although they took a slightly different path but that path was still driven by 100% capitalism. It's only taking 20 years for the market and the technology to change to a different paradigm where MS has lost most of it's previous advantages over the other players. And that is a good thing because new ideas grow faster in an environment free of restrictive layers of corporate management.
I believe we are trying to move away from polluting cars. Gas powered cars have become cleaner and more efficient . Electric and natural gas powered auto technology is gaining momentum. Even coal burning technologies are becoming cleaner. It just takes time to convert over to another primary source of energy. New manufacturing infrastructure and power distribution systems take time to put into place. The gas station network in the US has taken 100 years to get to where it is now and you can't expect to replace a system that large in just a couple of years.
The Chinese government is streamlined and they don't have to worry about what their citizens say or want. They don't have to take into account the same type of internal or external political consequences that countries with representitive type governments. Any differences in policy amongst the Party memebers are handled behind closed doors and are usually resolved with payoffs, imprisonment, or death. And you can't forget that they arrived where they are now by using naked brutality and fear. The Great Leap Forward resulted in +30 million deaths for those who didn't leap fast enough or far enough. Actions such as that followed up with almost total isolation from the rest of the world tends to have a lasting impression on it's citizens. However things are not all rosey with Government because they know thay are balanced on top of a society capable of over powering the government if giving enough reason to do so. Under communisism or extreme socialism the stability of a society is kept in check because almost everyone is equally poor. When segments of society start becoming more affluent the society can start to fracture and instablity rises.
China already props up the leadership in the Sudan to secure their oil interests. Of course you never really here any complaints sicne everyone knows only the US does things like that.