I'm in Chicago as well. Imagine my surprise when I noticed that Google Jobs has postings for a new office to be opening in Chicago! Don't believe me? Look here. I just hope you have a PHD in triplet if you want to apply.:-/
(Actually, I think Google probably hires 99% of their people through reference or because they worked at other big tech companies. I did some research to see if they have ever hired anyone from the Job postings on their website and came up empty. It may be just because these things are not publicized, but my gut says that emailing to jobs@google.com is a pointless exercise.)
The constitution doesn't say they get that stuff, just that they enjoy it.
Keep in mind that it's just a translation. I seriously hope that the original (Mandarin?) is not quite so loosely worded. And even translated, it can be interpreted as granting a right.
Also keep in mind that Article 51 doesn't apply in this case because no law exists to prevent the discussion of democracy. (See the law professor's blog I linked to.) If this were America, one would simply file a court case and take it as far as the Supreme Court if necessary. Why someone over there hasn't done that yet is beyond me, but it may have something to do with article 128: The courts report to congress. Not good.:-/
There are no rights violations. It is Chinese law that is, in our opinions, flawed, but what gives you or I the right to say so?
I thought the same thing, but several very intelligent posters pointed out that there *are* rights being violated. Article 35 of the Chinese Constitution states:
Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.
Now I realize that the Chinese Constitution may not be worth the paper its printed on (I know of many violations of the constitution, including friends who fled China due to religious persecution - read: arrest/jail - directly in contradiction to article 36), but that shouldn't stop the Chinese from fighting for rights they've been explicitly granted.
A good writeup on the situation from a Chinese Law Professor is here, with a well reasoned rebuttal here.
Let's hope the Chinese people are able to fight for their constitution. If only it was as easy as taking the case before the Chinese Supreme Court.:-/
If you are stationary in space, then you are "moving" at the speed of light through time. Any motion through space reduces your velocity through time - but it always adds up to the speed of light.
That's more or less what relativity says. It's not so much that your velocity always adds up to the speed of light, however, as it is that we are travelling on a four dimensional vector. i.e. Just as a car traveling in a diagonal path has a slower southward velocity than a car travelling at the same speed but heading due south, so is our apparent velocity through time affected as we "turn" more into the three dimensions that we know.
I must admit, that idea made me stop and re-read that section of the book a couple of times, as I'd never heard relativity expressed that way before.
One important thing to remember is that there are two theories: The General Theory of Relativity (i.e. Gravity) and The Special Theory of Relativity (i.e. Space-Time Warps). Most people are referring to the former when they speak of relativity, thus causing no end of confusion.:-)
If I may jump in here for a moment, I'm not certain what you're getting at. I merely said that most of the VCs I found were targetted at groups other than white males. There's nothing wrong with that (since they are attempting to improve conditions for the targetted groups as a whole), but those are not categories I fall into. Note that those groups can be far more general than race. For example, I found several angel investors targetted at female entrepreneurs. Since I'm not female, I'm not likely to be accepted by those investors.
In other words, the only one who dragged out the issue of race was you. Everyone else here is perfectly content to accept that I'm trying to carve a niche, but I'm running across mostly specialized investors. Kapesh?
Instead of a petition, what we really need is the ability to give the Presidential Office back line-item veto power. With that power, the President could happily strike out stupid attachments like these without being accused of holding back "important legislation".
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court decided that line-item veto power required an amendment (probably correct), so Clinton's strikeout were reversed.:-(
I've gone from conception to grand opening in three months. ..of a brick and mortar. If you think there's a lot of work that goes on behind the scenes in a virtual business, you should try it in a real world business.
It can be done, but not always. I used to work for a business where we spent 6 months on our provider network (because the big name brands were painfully slow to deal with), and we still had very little on launch. My point was that his statement of three months oversimplifies the issue. Writing code is maybe only 10% of the real business. The other 90% is the hard part.;-)
Hmm... this seems to be misplaced. But, a response is a response.:-)
Call or write them and ask for a meeting.
Mmm... call who? That's the key issue. As I said, all the VCs and angels in the public eye are targetted toward minority groups of some sort.
Oh, if you want them to sign an NDA, forget it. Almost never happens.
Indeed. If anyone wants to get into business, the first thing they need to learn is that their idea is the least important of your concerns. It's all in the execution of the business model, and that is what investors will be looking at. Now if I could just find said investors...;-)
While I agree with him in general, one thing you need to be aware of is: Be careful that advertising before your product is ready doesn't tarnish your company's reputation. While such a thing can be turned around later, it can easily kill your company early on.
One other interesting thing he did say, though:
My rule of thumb is that it should take no more than 3 months to go from conception to launch of a new web service. And that's being generous. I'm speaking from experience here. I developed the first version of ONElist over a period of 3 months, and that was while working a full-time job. I developed the first version of Bloglines in 3 months. By myself. It can be done. And I suck at it! Just ask all the engineers who have had to deal with my code.
This somewhat ignores the amount of business development that has to go on behind the scenes. It takes time to get funding for one, and much more time to build a network of providers. In fact, building that network can still be going on years after the service has launched! You may not even be able to launch the service if you don't manage to find an existing provider base that's willing to go with your idea. Most of them will want to sit on the fence and see how it goes first.
Of course, this strengthens his original point in that you can't gain a provider base until you get the word out to your customer base.:-)
On another topic, this talk of investors has me curious. How does one connect with a VC or angel investment firm? Most of the more public ones don't seem to want to do business with you unless you're something other than a caucasian male. It seems that it can pay off to be considered ethnic.;-)
What about other kinds of software startups?
You do need a product before you can release 1.0. Also, you need to have an advertising campaign in place with a one-two punch. First, release the product with much fanfare. This will generate interest and some sales. Then follow up with an army of salepeople and catchy advertising to prevent those initial sales from waning.
What about hardware startups?
Surprisingly similar to software products, only it can be much harder to release a patch. In fact, if the hardware fails to live up, it may be the death of your company. i.e. You may not be able to do another manufacturing run until you generate sufficient sales of the initial run.
While you were screwing around a big, yellow bulldozer came crashing through your house and killed you.
Play Again? (Y/N)
#$@$#$@ing Game! I hate these command line things!
Re:Interesting Concept, but needs moderation
on
Command Line for the Web
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
What I mean by this is that the social concept of letting people add their own commands is the biggest draw, but the biggest flaw. Doing a quick ls on the site reveals such choice commands on the first page:
The solution to this should be obvious: namespaces.
i.e. Have a basic set of commands. These are available to all users. Then allow users to register accounts on the system. Each account comes with its own namespace. New commands can be created and shared with the world under your namespace, then can be promoted to the basic set when they become popular enough.
For example, if I created a command that searched the web for the best pepperjack cheese, I could share it as:
batman:pepperjack
When it gets promoted to the basic set, then I can type:
pepperjack
See? Easy.:-)
Now I just have to figure out what someone would do with this tool.:-/
I'm the first one to understand this, but $149/hr means that they're considering the "highly trained technician" salary (who's services are what you're paying that much money for) to be only 6.7% of the gross profits. Also consider that gasoline is usually a charge on top of base hourly costs if the distance is substantial. (Which only works out to about $7.50 for a 60 mile round trip, 30 each way, w/ 20mpg and $2.50/gallon.) The car is also considered a tax deductable expense, so it ends up being fairly cheap for the company. (For the 60 mile round trip at $.32/mile, the value of the car is considered to have deprecated by $19.20 and is recouped through tax savings.)
It's not always big mean corporate big-wigs that suck away all the money from the people doing the actual work.
They don't have to be a mean corporation to make a lot of money at the employee's expense. That's why it tends to make fiscal sense to go into business for yourself. The only down side to this tack is that you lose the marketing muscle of a large corporate entity. This can make it harder to get your name out, but can still pay off if you can carve a customer base.
IIRC it has been proven that no time machine could take you back before the time when the machine was created, so unless someone has already created on and kept it secret we shouldn't be seeing tamper effects or visitors from the future anyway.
1. Never use the word "proven" around scientists. They'll kick your butt for it.
2. The theory of which you refer to is only applicable to using stable wormholes for time travel.
3. Stable wormholes are a thought experiment and have not been shown to exist. (In fact, it now seems unlikely. Which may add credence to this theory. i.e. Time travel is too unpredictable to provide a mechanism through which history may be damaged.)
4. Never use the word "proven" around scientists. They'll kick your butt for it.
Between killing people in other countries (e.g. Kuwait) and the leadership of Iraq gassing thei own people, pushing kids out of helicopters, raping then killing women, and many other atrocities? I'd say: yes.
Censoring speech is illegal in China. Read the chinese constitution. The 35th amendment guarantees a freedom of speech and assembly.
Interesting. I looked it up and it seems you're correct:
Article 35. Freedom of speech, press, assembly
Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.
Article 36. Religious freedom
Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief.
No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion.
The state protects normal religious activities. No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state.
Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination
Both of those articles are articles I *know* the Chinese government has violated. Seems they treat their constitution with very little respect.:-(
And if you think that this kind of thing would be okay if it were legal, why? Are laws worth more than basic human rights?
I didn't say it was okay. I said that the Chinese nation has a right to make the laws inside its own borders. i.e. What do you expect everyone else to do about it? The fact that they don't pay attention to their own constitution though? That's sickening.:-/
China may have the legal right to do whatever it wants with its citizens, no matter what that is, but it doesn't mean that it's morally OK for them to do it.
Morally, the PRC should have been overthrown decades ago. Sadly, the citizens of China continue to allow it to exist.
Let me make one thing clear to everyone here (since a lot of people on Slashdot are quite simple and need things spelled out), I am all for Freedom of Speech. I love my country for the freedoms it provides me, and I wish that everyone in the world had those freedoms. Unfortunately, the world doesn't always agree with me and others like me. The people of China allow their government to exist despite the immorality of its actions. As long as the people of China allow the government to take these actions, there is little the rest of the world can do to help. China is within their rights as a country, and has the national defense to back up their decisions.
If you want something to happen, stop looking at the companies attempting to do business in China, and start looking to the Chinese people to take steps toward liberty. It is their right, and it is their duty to overcome the bondage under which they hold themselves. But don't take my word for it:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Claiming China (or rather those in power in China) can do whatever it wants because it' a sovereign nation (so what?) is really taking the easy way out and choosing not to care about your fellow human beings.
While I agree with your sentiments, I don't think you follow the complexity of the situation. The government of China is allowed to be the government by its people. Unless the people there are willing to rise up against their own government, there's little we can do about it over here. It's simply not in our hands to change. And businesses that wish to do business in China must either follow their laws or get out.
Question: What would you have the US or UN do about the situation? Allocate money to start a war over people's right to free speech being taken away? Would you die to protect the speech in China? Would you be willing to put the lives of your family and friends on the line? What lengths would you go to in order to make certain that China has free speech?
Now here's a really vexing question for you: Would the Chinese people support the US if we were to attempt to overthrow their government, or would they fight against us for their sovergnty?
You have to be very careful about these situations. Believe it or not, your attempts to impose your goals on others may actually turn them against you.:-/
I don't seem to remember THAT little detail stopping US in the past 15 years while being the world's bull^H^H^H^H "policeman" and "taking charge" in Panama, Haiti, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq... I think a little honesty is needed here.
Ok, here it is honestly: In all the cases you listed, people were dying in declared, undeclared, and terrorist wars. The current issue is one of free speech, a "right" that the US founders guaranteed to its citizens. No other country is required to uphold our law, though, so they don't. It sucks, because you think the world would be beyonc such nonsense. But unless we're willing to stake our nation on bringing free speech to China, there's not much we can do about it.
That being said, China didn't exactly get good press for Tiananmen Square, either. The amount of Western backlash against them hurt the Chinese economic situation a great deal. As a result, they are very careful not to have a repeat of the situation, least the UN decide to meddle in Chinese affairs.
If I made a cartoon of Snow White, Beauty and the Beast, or any of dozens of other fairy tales that are in the public domain, do you really think I'd get them released with Disney fighting me?
I don't know where you've been, but every time Disney releases a new movie to the theaters or video, there are a large number of knockoff movies that hit the streets around the same time.
It's the same thing with Barbie dolls. Hugh numbers of companies make a fortune off of selling cheap knockoff products that parents purchase because they don't know any better (or are cheap bastards).
Slashdot Mirror
They need to open an office in Chicago
:-/
I'm in Chicago as well. Imagine my surprise when I noticed that Google Jobs has postings for a new office to be opening in Chicago! Don't believe me? Look here. I just hope you have a PHD in triplet if you want to apply.
(Actually, I think Google probably hires 99% of their people through reference or because they worked at other big tech companies. I did some research to see if they have ever hired anyone from the Job postings on their website and came up empty. It may be just because these things are not publicized, but my gut says that emailing to jobs@google.com is a pointless exercise.)
The constitution doesn't say they get that stuff, just that they enjoy it.
:-/
Keep in mind that it's just a translation. I seriously hope that the original (Mandarin?) is not quite so loosely worded. And even translated, it can be interpreted as granting a right.
Also keep in mind that Article 51 doesn't apply in this case because no law exists to prevent the discussion of democracy. (See the law professor's blog I linked to.) If this were America, one would simply file a court case and take it as far as the Supreme Court if necessary. Why someone over there hasn't done that yet is beyond me, but it may have something to do with article 128: The courts report to congress. Not good.
I thought the same thing, but several very intelligent posters pointed out that there *are* rights being violated. Article 35 of the Chinese Constitution states:
Now I realize that the Chinese Constitution may not be worth the paper its printed on (I know of many violations of the constitution, including friends who fled China due to religious persecution - read: arrest/jail - directly in contradiction to article 36), but that shouldn't stop the Chinese from fighting for rights they've been explicitly granted.
A good writeup on the situation from a Chinese Law Professor is here, with a well reasoned rebuttal here.
Let's hope the Chinese people are able to fight for their constitution. If only it was as easy as taking the case before the Chinese Supreme Court.
If you are stationary in space, then you are "moving" at the speed of light through time. Any motion through space reduces your velocity through time - but it always adds up to the speed of light.
:-)
That's more or less what relativity says. It's not so much that your velocity always adds up to the speed of light, however, as it is that we are travelling on a four dimensional vector. i.e. Just as a car traveling in a diagonal path has a slower southward velocity than a car travelling at the same speed but heading due south, so is our apparent velocity through time affected as we "turn" more into the three dimensions that we know.
I must admit, that idea made me stop and re-read that section of the book a couple of times, as I'd never heard relativity expressed that way before.
One important thing to remember is that there are two theories: The General Theory of Relativity (i.e. Gravity) and The Special Theory of Relativity (i.e. Space-Time Warps). Most people are referring to the former when they speak of relativity, thus causing no end of confusion.
If I may jump in here for a moment, I'm not certain what you're getting at. I merely said that most of the VCs I found were targetted at groups other than white males. There's nothing wrong with that (since they are attempting to improve conditions for the targetted groups as a whole), but those are not categories I fall into. Note that those groups can be far more general than race. For example, I found several angel investors targetted at female entrepreneurs. Since I'm not female, I'm not likely to be accepted by those investors.
In other words, the only one who dragged out the issue of race was you. Everyone else here is perfectly content to accept that I'm trying to carve a niche, but I'm running across mostly specialized investors. Kapesh?
BTW, link with more info.
Instead of a petition, what we really need is the ability to give the Presidential Office back line-item veto power. With that power, the President could happily strike out stupid attachments like these without being accused of holding back "important legislation".
:-(
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court decided that line-item veto power required an amendment (probably correct), so Clinton's strikeout were reversed.
I've gone from conception to grand opening in three months. . .of a brick and mortar. If you think there's a lot of work that goes on behind the scenes in a virtual business, you should try it in a real world business.
;-)
It can be done, but not always. I used to work for a business where we spent 6 months on our provider network (because the big name brands were painfully slow to deal with), and we still had very little on launch. My point was that his statement of three months oversimplifies the issue. Writing code is maybe only 10% of the real business. The other 90% is the hard part.
Excellent links! Thank you! :-)
Hmm... this seems to be misplaced. But, a response is a response. :-)
;-)
Call or write them and ask for a meeting.
Mmm... call who? That's the key issue. As I said, all the VCs and angels in the public eye are targetted toward minority groups of some sort.
Oh, if you want them to sign an NDA, forget it. Almost never happens.
Indeed. If anyone wants to get into business, the first thing they need to learn is that their idea is the least important of your concerns. It's all in the execution of the business model, and that is what investors will be looking at. Now if I could just find said investors...
While I agree with him in general, one thing you need to be aware of is: Be careful that advertising before your product is ready doesn't tarnish your company's reputation. While such a thing can be turned around later, it can easily kill your company early on.
:-)
;-)
One other interesting thing he did say, though:
My rule of thumb is that it should take no more than 3 months to go from conception to launch of a new web service. And that's being generous. I'm speaking from experience here. I developed the first version of ONElist over a period of 3 months, and that was while working a full-time job. I developed the first version of Bloglines in 3 months. By myself. It can be done. And I suck at it! Just ask all the engineers who have had to deal with my code.
This somewhat ignores the amount of business development that has to go on behind the scenes. It takes time to get funding for one, and much more time to build a network of providers. In fact, building that network can still be going on years after the service has launched! You may not even be able to launch the service if you don't manage to find an existing provider base that's willing to go with your idea. Most of them will want to sit on the fence and see how it goes first.
Of course, this strengthens his original point in that you can't gain a provider base until you get the word out to your customer base.
On another topic, this talk of investors has me curious. How does one connect with a VC or angel investment firm? Most of the more public ones don't seem to want to do business with you unless you're something other than a caucasian male. It seems that it can pay off to be considered ethnic.
What about other kinds of software startups?
You do need a product before you can release 1.0. Also, you need to have an advertising campaign in place with a one-two punch. First, release the product with much fanfare. This will generate interest and some sales. Then follow up with an army of salepeople and catchy advertising to prevent those initial sales from waning.
What about hardware startups?
Surprisingly similar to software products, only it can be much harder to release a patch. In fact, if the hardware fails to live up, it may be the death of your company. i.e. You may not be able to do another manufacturing run until you generate sufficient sales of the initial run.
The solution to this should be obvious: namespaces.
i.e. Have a basic set of commands. These are available to all users. Then allow users to register accounts on the system. Each account comes with its own namespace. New commands can be created and shared with the world under your namespace, then can be promoted to the basic set when they become popular enough.
For example, if I created a command that searched the web for the best pepperjack cheese, I could share it as:When it gets promoted to the basic set, then I can type:See? Easy.
Now I just have to figure out what someone would do with this tool.
Running a business is expensive.
I'm the first one to understand this, but $149/hr means that they're considering the "highly trained technician" salary (who's services are what you're paying that much money for) to be only 6.7% of the gross profits. Also consider that gasoline is usually a charge on top of base hourly costs if the distance is substantial. (Which only works out to about $7.50 for a 60 mile round trip, 30 each way, w/ 20mpg and $2.50/gallon.) The car is also considered a tax deductable expense, so it ends up being fairly cheap for the company. (For the 60 mile round trip at $.32/mile, the value of the car is considered to have deprecated by $19.20 and is recouped through tax savings.)
It's not always big mean corporate big-wigs that suck away all the money from the people doing the actual work.
They don't have to be a mean corporation to make a lot of money at the employee's expense. That's why it tends to make fiscal sense to go into business for yourself. The only down side to this tack is that you lose the marketing muscle of a large corporate entity. This can make it harder to get your name out, but can still pay off if you can carve a customer base.
Not to mention that the tech who does the work is probably only seeing about $10.00/hr out of it.
A. Make an unplanned excusrion
B. Develop a sense of self awareness and express itself
C. Suffer a minor mechanical or software problem?
D. Reprogram the retrieval robots to act like the three stooges.
IIRC it has been proven that no time machine could take you back before the time when the machine was created, so unless someone has already created on and kept it secret we shouldn't be seeing tamper effects or visitors from the future anyway.
1. Never use the word "proven" around scientists. They'll kick your butt for it.
2. The theory of which you refer to is only applicable to using stable wormholes for time travel.
3. Stable wormholes are a thought experiment and have not been shown to exist. (In fact, it now seems unlikely. Which may add credence to this theory. i.e. Time travel is too unpredictable to provide a mechanism through which history may be damaged.)
4. Never use the word "proven" around scientists. They'll kick your butt for it.
The gag is from the movie "My Fellow Americans". IF you haven't seen it, put down whatever you're doing and go get the DVD! ;-)
People were dying in Iraq?
Between killing people in other countries (e.g. Kuwait) and the leadership of Iraq gassing thei own people, pushing kids out of helicopters, raping then killing women, and many other atrocities? I'd say: yes.
Censoring speech is illegal in China. Read the chinese constitution. The 35th amendment guarantees a freedom of speech and assembly.
:-(
:-/
Interesting. I looked it up and it seems you're correct:
Article 35. Freedom of speech, press, assembly
Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.
Article 36. Religious freedom
Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief.
No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion.
The state protects normal religious activities. No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state.
Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination
Both of those articles are articles I *know* the Chinese government has violated. Seems they treat their constitution with very little respect.
And if you think that this kind of thing would be okay if it were legal, why? Are laws worth more than basic human rights?
I didn't say it was okay. I said that the Chinese nation has a right to make the laws inside its own borders. i.e. What do you expect everyone else to do about it? The fact that they don't pay attention to their own constitution though? That's sickening.
China may have the legal right to do whatever it wants with its citizens, no matter what that is, but it doesn't mean that it's morally OK for them to do it.
Morally, the PRC should have been overthrown decades ago. Sadly, the citizens of China continue to allow it to exist.
Let me make one thing clear to everyone here (since a lot of people on Slashdot are quite simple and need things spelled out), I am all for Freedom of Speech. I love my country for the freedoms it provides me, and I wish that everyone in the world had those freedoms. Unfortunately, the world doesn't always agree with me and others like me. The people of China allow their government to exist despite the immorality of its actions. As long as the people of China allow the government to take these actions, there is little the rest of the world can do to help. China is within their rights as a country, and has the national defense to back up their decisions.
If you want something to happen, stop looking at the companies attempting to do business in China, and start looking to the Chinese people to take steps toward liberty. It is their right, and it is their duty to overcome the bondage under which they hold themselves. But don't take my word for it:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Claiming China (or rather those in power in China) can do whatever it wants because it' a sovereign nation (so what?) is really taking the easy way out and choosing not to care about your fellow human beings.
:-/
While I agree with your sentiments, I don't think you follow the complexity of the situation. The government of China is allowed to be the government by its people. Unless the people there are willing to rise up against their own government, there's little we can do about it over here. It's simply not in our hands to change. And businesses that wish to do business in China must either follow their laws or get out.
Question: What would you have the US or UN do about the situation? Allocate money to start a war over people's right to free speech being taken away? Would you die to protect the speech in China? Would you be willing to put the lives of your family and friends on the line? What lengths would you go to in order to make certain that China has free speech?
Now here's a really vexing question for you: Would the Chinese people support the US if we were to attempt to overthrow their government, or would they fight against us for their sovergnty?
You have to be very careful about these situations. Believe it or not, your attempts to impose your goals on others may actually turn them against you.
I don't seem to remember THAT little detail stopping US in the past 15 years while being the world's bull^H^H^H^H "policeman" and "taking charge" in Panama, Haiti, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq... I think a little honesty is needed here.
Ok, here it is honestly: In all the cases you listed, people were dying in declared, undeclared, and terrorist wars. The current issue is one of free speech, a "right" that the US founders guaranteed to its citizens. No other country is required to uphold our law, though, so they don't. It sucks, because you think the world would be beyonc such nonsense. But unless we're willing to stake our nation on bringing free speech to China, there's not much we can do about it.
That being said, China didn't exactly get good press for Tiananmen Square, either. The amount of Western backlash against them hurt the Chinese economic situation a great deal. As a result, they are very careful not to have a repeat of the situation, least the UN decide to meddle in Chinese affairs.
If I made a cartoon of Snow White, Beauty and the Beast, or any of dozens of other fairy tales that are in the public domain, do you really think I'd get them released with Disney fighting me?
Um, yes, yes, and yes?
I don't know where you've been, but every time Disney releases a new movie to the theaters or video, there are a large number of knockoff movies that hit the streets around the same time.
It's the same thing with Barbie dolls. Hugh numbers of companies make a fortune off of selling cheap knockoff products that parents purchase because they don't know any better (or are cheap bastards).
What about those kids who got in trouble with the SS (secret service) when the sang a parody of a song, containing words "kill" and "clinton", etc?
:-P
President Douglas: "In all the time that the Secret Service has been protecting ex-Presidents, how many attempts on their lives have there been?"
Agent: "Uhhhh.... none, sir?"
President Douglas: "I find that sad."
Sorry, couldn't resist.