I think we're finding a place of agreement. I don't agree with some of China's actions. I disagree with how the world paints them with unfair strokes.
I do disagree with your final statement -- that they could just stop doing it. Stability matters. It sucks that that's true, but it sucking doesn't make it any less true. What would you rather have, a steady road, with transgressions, to something that benefits everyone or a violent road that might never end? It might seem too black and white, but that's the risk. China needs to figure out how to transition as peacefully as possible from its past government to its future government. If it gave up all control, it's as likely as everything would turn to chaos as not. Chaos could take many forms. I imagine that it would be the type where corporations run the country, America-in-the-1920s style. And it could lead to an America-in-the-1930s type depression.
Development is a very delicate thing. If you give too much power to the wrong people at the wrong time, or try to take away too much power from the wrong people, you can make the situation very hostile.
You're a perfect example of what infuriates the Chinese. Why are you so antagonistic? So us vs. them?
We torture prisoners. We have crime syndicates. We censored speech/ authors in the not too distant past. We have crippled states like Cuba, and many others, for decades for totally political reasons.
China is not perfect. They certainly have issues with corruption and with the government fearing freedom of speech, etc. But it just keeps getting better and better and better. How is that such a terrible thing?
A note -- China's relationship with Taiwan has continued to improve, by the way. The guomingdang, who is now in power in Taiwan, has a policy of being very friendly with China because they realize that friendship with China is much more beneficial than antagonism. Why don't we follow their model and work past our old relationship?
That's the point -- China is not acting like a victim. And we hate that. China is doing what is necessary to be effective in the modern world.
re: our indebtedness it was an example of how China can't catch a break, not a commentary on economic policy. My point was that no matter what China does it's painted as something dark, when all China did was out compete us. In America, we say "let the better man win." We don't hate google because it out shined yahoo. But we hate China because is is able to out compete us, at least in terms of their ability to grant loans.
re: Iraq and Kyoto I don't quite get your janjuweed comment. I assume it's an argument about why we shouldn't pull out. My only point was that we have shown support for similarly "questionable" actions as the Chinese. As for Kyoto, you raise a good point. China is going to have to deal with environmentalism very quickly. It's becoming disgustingly polluted. Fortunately, the government isn't totally unaware of this problem. And some of the reason it is is because of the Olympics (more on that later)
re: apologizing/barbarians This wasn't about playing the victim. It's about being sick of American arrogance. We in America believe that we're on the forefront of development and that everyone in the world is at some lesser stage. That development is linear. But people in the world don't like being treated as lessers, no matter how much you think you deserve to be considered the greater of the two. That's why China, and India, and Brazil, and Turkey, are able to find so many partners in the world: they are willing to "meet people where they are", to treat them as equals. That can be dangerous, because it can support people who, in my opinion, don't deserve support. But it's a political reality we can either choose to deal with or blissfully ensure our own increased obsolescence.
I said this in another post: we are making the wrong statements when we talk about China. We look to see what they're doing wrong. The question we should be asking is, "how do we best ensure that human rights/ environment/ whatever are given proper consideration while China modernizes?" Otherwise all China sees is jealousy, hypocrisy, and arrogance. And that won't make China, or their place in the world, any better.
There's nothing wrong with criticism. But we need to be similarly critical of ourselves. If we aren't willing to acknowledge our own faults, then all we're building is resentment. If the goal is really to help people of the world live better lives, then the question shouldn't be "what is the Chinese government doing that is causing this?" It should be, "what is the most effective way for me to ensure that China's modernization includes a concern for human welfare?"
And we need to be fair. There are growing pains. No country can go from Cultural Revolution China into Perfect Modern China overnight.
Re:If you think that's the only difference...
on
Earthquake In China
·
· Score: 1
Societies are complex beasts. But the distinction I was making was when detailing the difference between ignorant people in the China and in the United States, which was the scope I had defined just before detailed the difference.
You want to know some more differences, with different scopes? China doesn't have the legal system that has matured in the United States. That's why groups like the ACLU still exist even though we've had president that would have, had they not been legally required not to, shut them down. China does not have the same mature forums for civil discourse, like the free press, though some of those in America are pretty pathetic too.
China has serious problems. Most have to do with the lack of discussion on where China is going. But I don't mean in terms of Chinese militarism, etc. I mean things like sustainable growth. China has been convinced, by their government and by ours, that capitalism will allow them to all live hollywood lives. But China has 4x the number of people as the US with 1/3 the arable land. They can't all live the sweet suburban life with 2 SUVs.
But a lot of that discussion is missing the U.S. as well, for the reason I detailed in the last post. We assume that, since our system is the best and is democratic, wherever we go is the best place to be. But if everyone thinks that, then no one spends enough time actually thinking about where we should be going.
The Chinese are lucky to have reasonably good leadership. Eventually their governmental system is going to have to change to make sure they get new generations of good leaders. But the government is tackling corruption, promoting education (something you're not allowed to do in the U.S. or else you're called elitist), and reforming its laws. Is it a pretty process? No. But neither was ours. (And, btw, there are some people in the world who would consider our government similarly derelict on some issues, like universal health care, education, and the environment. Most dismiss those as the price of living in a free, free market, society. Some of what China does isn't excusable. Some of it is the price of super accelerated modernization. The government can't switch over to being perfect overnight. And if you don't think it's headed in the right direction, you need to learn to better compare the China of 1978, 1988, 1998, and 2008.)
What is up with the anti-China stint? It's like a comment in a Burma thread saying, "I'm surprised America sent any aid to Burma. Usually they just go in, take over the country, and have hundreds of thousands of people killed and torture anyone who disagrees with them."
I already said it in this story, but the greatest trick every played on the American people is convincing them that they government is the way it is because they want it to be that way. And I understand that it isn't easy to see America as simplistically since a lot of the people here are American. But the Chinese are insulted, rightfully so, when they are characterized the way they are. It's like they can't catch a break. They adopt economic reforms? America cheers. They become enough of an economic power that they're now lending money to the United States? They're described as some manipulative power we shouldn't let ourselves be dependent on. They bring literacy up past the levels in the U.S. and they're criticized for stealing our jobs. You think the Chinese people live in fear? Hell no. The American people live in fear, a totally irrational fear, constructed by our government and made possible by our ignorance.
Go to China. You will be amazed. It's not backwards. It's not closed. It's a modern(izing) country. And every time we refuse to treat it as an equal, it will become more antagonistic. In part, because it will see us as hypocrites. Want China to stop working with the Sudanese? Get out of Iraq. Stop funding Saudi Arabia. Apologize for your past transgressions. Until you do that, China's not going to consider itself the lesser of the two. You want to see China become better? Treat it as a partner. Otherwise, you will make it your enemy.
China today and the Soviet Union are two totally different things. I used to live in former soviet states, like turkmenistan. That was a dictatorship. That was a place where you couldn't speak ill of the government. It also had no free market and terrible education. The government did whatever it could to make sure the people weren't capable of managing themselves. That is more like the soviet model (though Turkmenistan was probably worse than Russia was.)
China is nothing like that. People talk about all sorts of things. You are right -- they are not able to publish things as freely as in the united states. But it doesn't mean they're "do(ing) nothing but laud(ing) their system." Between the two, the Americans spend a LOT more time lauding our system.
Go to China. Get some real experience there. I was there from 1992 to 1999. Even in 1992, the country was nothing like what people expected. But it was changing rapidly as well. China in 1999 was not dissimilar to America. China in 2008 is even more similar. Is China perfect? Absolutely not. But America has only had (somewhat full) civil rights for 40 years. Think of the social realm of China as being where America was a couple of generations ago. The social structures that mediate community discussion were largely destroyed by the cultural revolution, etc, and haven't yet matured to accommodate the modern, digital, age. But they are not absent. They are just not mature.
(Remember, also, that America did not have anything resembling full freedom of speech until the end of the McCarthy age. The events of today show that our social structures aren't that mature, either. There are plenty of people, possibly a majority, who would just as soon ban the ACLU, etc. We're just lucky that some of our legal structures make that more difficult than in China.)
What is up with the anti-China stint? It's like a comment in a Burma thread saying, "I'm surprised America sent any aid to Burma. Usually they just go in, take over the country, and have hundreds of thousands of people killed and torture anyone who disagrees with them."
I already said it in this story, but the greatest trick every played on the American people is convincing them that they government is the way it is because they want it to be that way. And I understand that it isn't easy to see America as simplistically since a lot of the people here are American. But the Chinese are insulted, rightfully so, when they are characterized the way they are. It's like they can't catch a break. They adopt economic reforms? America cheers. They become enough of an economic power that they're now lending money to the United States? They're described as some manipulative power we shouldn't let ourselves be dependent on. They bring literacy up past the levels in the U.S. and they're criticized for stealing our jobs. You think the Chinese people live in fear? Hell no. The American people live in fear, a totally irrational fear, constructed by our government and made possible by our ignorance.
Go to China. You will be amazed. It's not backwards. It's not closed. It's a modern(izing) country. And every time we refuse to treat it as an equal, it will become more antagonistic. In part, because it will see us as hypocrites. Want China to stop working with the Sudanese? Get out of Iraq. Stop funding Saudi Arabia. Apologize for your past transgressions. Until you do that, China's not going to consider itself the lesser of the two. You want to see China become better? Treat it as a partner. Otherwise, you will make it your enemy.
I grew up in China and am insulted by how people have such simplistic concepts of China and of the Chinese people. There are ignorant people everywhere. The only difference is that in China there are more people who are willing to see their government as something distinct from themselves; as something that doesn't necessarily have legitimacy. The greatest trick ever played on the American people is convincing them that the U.S. government is the way it is because they want it to be that way. (Read Democracy in America -- it's been true for 200 years.)
Is America the country where I'd rather be a citizen? Yes. Does America have flaws galore? Absolutely. But understand that the Chinese people are smart. They understand the flaws of their government. But they also understand that they have had unbelievable growth over the past 30 years, and that this ascendancy is going to cause some problems.
The problems that China faces are the same as those in America: people care more about whether they can buy the next cool thing. So long as they can, and the government keeps the economy growing so they can, they don't care what the government does. The same way we don't care what abuses our government commits so long as we get our cheap oil, food, clothes, etc. The only difference is that we have a different government system, so the abuses are done with (slightly) more caution.
I already responded to a comment of yours below, but I have to say that academics is _more_ about fairness than athletics. That's why there are ethics committees at many universities.
And I think they do help people do research who didn't already have a problem. A drug can help you concentrate, even if you are considered to have a perfectly adequate ability to concentrate. Like I said in an earlier post, these drugs were developed to help people with "disabilities" perform at "normal" levels, and that is how they are prescribed, not so that people who want to concentrate in a drug-induced zone of concentration can out perform their colleagues.
Different fields set different standards for competition and fairness. Major league baseball seems to have said it is okay to take human growth hormone. Some could argue that it isn't fair to require that everyone do it in order to compete. Those people would probably say the same thing about the Olympics, that they should be able people's naturally-trained capacity and not about their drug-enhanced capacity.
"You work within your means and what you are willing to do." This isn't an argument that people shouldn't be allowed to work long hours. This is an argument saying that it is within a field's or institution's right to say that, because they feel their mission includes ensuring people can compete without having to submit themselves to drugs, that they will bad such substances.
It's the same logic that has been used in things like organized labor. The idea, at least for many, isn't that people shouldn't be allowed to work long hours. The idea is that people shouldn't be forced to work such hours. So it isn't that an academic isn't allowed to put 100% of him or herself into their work. It's that it has to be 100% of him or herself, and not 100% of a drug-enhanced self.
It's the same reason that guy without legs wasn't allowed to compete in the Olympics -- he could race faster than others because his prosthetic limbs gave him more bounce/acceleration than unmodified legs did.
I think the idea is more that it would be unfair to the academics who don't use the drugs. These drugs were developed, as far as I am aware, to help those who otherwise couldn't perform at their normal level. If I live in the "publish or perish" world of academics, must I now take these drugs to be competitive?
It's the same problem as in sports -- some people start taking HGH in baseball and everyone feels they have to in order to keep up. It's not about messing with people's personal lives.
Um... winning New York and California in the democratic primary has little to do with who should be president when considering electability. The only question is, did McCain's success indicate that he could beat Obama but not Hillary? I suspect both of those states are going to Democrats no matter what, so it doesn't matter if Hillary won them. I think it is much more notable how well Obama did in the not-necessarily-blue states. He had some states with ~50% difference between the two. That, I think, indicates that those states might be ones that would elect Obama but not Hillary. (You'd have to do more analysis of whether those were independents, etc, since the democrats would, at least in large part, probably stick to party.)
I know. I did. Unfortunately, though it was in front of a school, it was also near a bend in the road. People who didn't know about the school would speed around the corner. The posted speed limit was 25mph, the guy was going 45. I'd tell you more, but I have no memory of the incident. I just have witnesses who have recounted the details to me. I am now a very risk-adverse street-crosser.
I can relate to what you're saying. I was hit by a jeep while crossing the street (at a pedestrian crosswalk, thank you) when I was in high school. I had memory problems after that, and slowed cognition, though I seemed to recover fully after a few months. Oddly, I lost my memory two years after that. I still have a terrible memory -- 6 months after I went to India (after my memory loss) I exclaimed "I've been to India?" after being told about the trip. I could go on forever, but it would be a long story. If you ever see a book called "Some Observations - What you can learn by losing your memory" you can read all about it. (Not yet written/published, btw.)
Back to the point. I've very cautious with what I attempt. I'd rather be who I am than try everything to be a "normal" someone else. I've found ways to get a lot out of having no memory, and I think I've gotten more out of life because of it. I'm not saying that no one would pursue these treatments, I'm just agreeing with the parent that sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. And for such odd situations, it's hard to get enough of a sample of people who can tell you what it is like (since it can affect who you are, which affects you ability to declare what it was like.)
I don't feel I'm part of any generation, but for a different reason. I think I got the best of both worlds, I got into computers young enough to be able to consider them a tool, but a lot of my information accessing and processing habits were developed pre-Internet (in part because I grew up in a country without much Internet access.) My understanding of computers was very much like the "old" academic pursuit: step by step learning. I installed my first color graphics card to play an Indiana Jones game in 1991/1992. I remember switching the IRQs manually. This allowed me, after 5 or 6 years, to _understand_ computers, just like reading a collection of books on a topic allows you to understand the topic.
I don't know what "this generation" is going to do. I do think that we've become too used to instant gratification. That is due to google and all electronic consumer goods (television, ipods, and computer games) that provide is with constant stimulation so that we don't have to learn how to anticipate, or to have the measure of time for an event be more than 30 minutes (like "an afternoon with a book"). I do think that technology has made this generation different than the last, and I think that society will have to figure out how to deal with this all-to-accessible human-experience-saturater called the modern computing experience.
Statements like that always bother me. They use simple math, something like "if 1,000,000 copies were sold, worth $100 each if bought legitimately, then that's $100 million dollars in lost revenue!" No it's not. The real question is how many would have bought it at all if they had to pay the full price? With China's average incomes, I imagine this would have been a tiny fraction. So it's really 30% (or whatever percent would have actually bought it) of that $100 million.
His logic is absurd. Assuming these web apps are standards compliant, they are the death knell of Windows hegemony. The only question is whether Microsoft can somehow manage to make their apps only work (or at least only work fully) on IE/Windows.
You talk about the open source value of meritocracy. I agree that it is an important value. But it is a value for "consumers" to consider, not Novell (the parent company of SuSE and Ximian.) If people were supposed to only support the development of the better software, then there would only be one choice out there. So I don't think it undermines the value of having a meritocracy to have companies fund alternative environments.
Just as an aside, you say that the "Big Distros" rally behind GNOME. That's just false. Until relatively recently, Red Hat was the only Big Distro to come with GNOME as default. They have to consider their interests in doing such: they have been using GNOME for a long time and probably care more about familiarity and consistency than about which environment is better.
You also mention the Ubuntu forums. Ubuntu uses GNOME as a default and is the most popular linux distribution out there. Couldn't that be evidence that people like GNOME? Or are the statistics only worthwhile when they support your desktop environment?
I started using GNOME way back when there was still a substantive debate regarding which was truly free software. Miguel de Icaza was, at least in my young eyes at the time, one of Free Software's champions. I remember Antitrust's scene where you can see GNOME on the computer. All of those associations, basic familiarity, and the fact that my concept of the desktop matured while using GNOME have caused me to stick with it.
I won't disparage KDE; I simply don't know enough to do so. I just don't see the value in arguing that GNOME shouldn't be supported.
Look up Geekcorps, or similar programs. Geekcorps is a "Non-profit organization working to expand internet use in emerging nations." But, really, all fields need IT people. I am a field tech guy for an international development group. We have operations in 30+ countries and I get to hop around maintaining our offices and proposing and implementing tech-related programs (like "last mile" connectivity projects, etc.)
So there's hope. If you're interested in something really specific, like programming, then the options narrow. But I have friends who are project managers who go from country to country as contractors working at software development units around the world, so there is something.
Yeah... I know what you mean. I'm still using Ubuntu Warty Warthog (4.10) because I never know when to upgrade! Every time they make a release they talk about how there will be another one in 6 months!
Slashdot Mirror
I think we're finding a place of agreement. I don't agree with some of China's actions. I disagree with how the world paints them with unfair strokes.
I do disagree with your final statement -- that they could just stop doing it. Stability matters. It sucks that that's true, but it sucking doesn't make it any less true. What would you rather have, a steady road, with transgressions, to something that benefits everyone or a violent road that might never end? It might seem too black and white, but that's the risk. China needs to figure out how to transition as peacefully as possible from its past government to its future government. If it gave up all control, it's as likely as everything would turn to chaos as not. Chaos could take many forms. I imagine that it would be the type where corporations run the country, America-in-the-1920s style. And it could lead to an America-in-the-1930s type depression.
Development is a very delicate thing. If you give too much power to the wrong people at the wrong time, or try to take away too much power from the wrong people, you can make the situation very hostile.
Is it really that hard to understand? Yes.
You're a perfect example of what infuriates the Chinese. Why are you so antagonistic? So us vs. them?
We torture prisoners.
We have crime syndicates.
We censored speech/ authors in the not too distant past.
We have crippled states like Cuba, and many others, for decades for totally political reasons.
China is not perfect. They certainly have issues with corruption and with the government fearing freedom of speech, etc. But it just keeps getting better and better and better. How is that such a terrible thing?
A note -- China's relationship with Taiwan has continued to improve, by the way. The guomingdang, who is now in power in Taiwan, has a policy of being very friendly with China because they realize that friendship with China is much more beneficial than antagonism. Why don't we follow their model and work past our old relationship?
That's the point -- China is not acting like a victim. And we hate that. China is doing what is necessary to be effective in the modern world.
re: our indebtedness
it was an example of how China can't catch a break, not a commentary on economic policy. My point was that no matter what China does it's painted as something dark, when all China did was out compete us. In America, we say "let the better man win." We don't hate google because it out shined yahoo. But we hate China because is is able to out compete us, at least in terms of their ability to grant loans.
re: Iraq and Kyoto
I don't quite get your janjuweed comment. I assume it's an argument about why we shouldn't pull out. My only point was that we have shown support for similarly "questionable" actions as the Chinese. As for Kyoto, you raise a good point. China is going to have to deal with environmentalism very quickly. It's becoming disgustingly polluted. Fortunately, the government isn't totally unaware of this problem. And some of the reason it is is because of the Olympics (more on that later)
re: apologizing/barbarians
This wasn't about playing the victim. It's about being sick of American arrogance. We in America believe that we're on the forefront of development and that everyone in the world is at some lesser stage. That development is linear. But people in the world don't like being treated as lessers, no matter how much you think you deserve to be considered the greater of the two. That's why China, and India, and Brazil, and Turkey, are able to find so many partners in the world: they are willing to "meet people where they are", to treat them as equals. That can be dangerous, because it can support people who, in my opinion, don't deserve support. But it's a political reality we can either choose to deal with or blissfully ensure our own increased obsolescence.
I said this in another post: we are making the wrong statements when we talk about China. We look to see what they're doing wrong. The question we should be asking is, "how do we best ensure that human rights/ environment/ whatever are given proper consideration while China modernizes?" Otherwise all China sees is jealousy, hypocrisy, and arrogance. And that won't make China, or their place in the world, any better.
There's nothing wrong with criticism. But we need to be similarly critical of ourselves. If we aren't willing to acknowledge our own faults, then all we're building is resentment. If the goal is really to help people of the world live better lives, then the question shouldn't be "what is the Chinese government doing that is causing this?" It should be, "what is the most effective way for me to ensure that China's modernization includes a concern for human welfare?"
And we need to be fair. There are growing pains. No country can go from Cultural Revolution China into Perfect Modern China overnight.
Societies are complex beasts. But the distinction I was making was when detailing the difference between ignorant people in the China and in the United States, which was the scope I had defined just before detailed the difference.
You want to know some more differences, with different scopes? China doesn't have the legal system that has matured in the United States. That's why groups like the ACLU still exist even though we've had president that would have, had they not been legally required not to, shut them down. China does not have the same mature forums for civil discourse, like the free press, though some of those in America are pretty pathetic too.
China has serious problems. Most have to do with the lack of discussion on where China is going. But I don't mean in terms of Chinese militarism, etc. I mean things like sustainable growth. China has been convinced, by their government and by ours, that capitalism will allow them to all live hollywood lives. But China has 4x the number of people as the US with 1/3 the arable land. They can't all live the sweet suburban life with 2 SUVs.
But a lot of that discussion is missing the U.S. as well, for the reason I detailed in the last post. We assume that, since our system is the best and is democratic, wherever we go is the best place to be. But if everyone thinks that, then no one spends enough time actually thinking about where we should be going.
The Chinese are lucky to have reasonably good leadership. Eventually their governmental system is going to have to change to make sure they get new generations of good leaders. But the government is tackling corruption, promoting education (something you're not allowed to do in the U.S. or else you're called elitist), and reforming its laws. Is it a pretty process? No. But neither was ours. (And, btw, there are some people in the world who would consider our government similarly derelict on some issues, like universal health care, education, and the environment. Most dismiss those as the price of living in a free, free market, society. Some of what China does isn't excusable. Some of it is the price of super accelerated modernization. The government can't switch over to being perfect overnight. And if you don't think it's headed in the right direction, you need to learn to better compare the China of 1978, 1988, 1998, and 2008.)
another post of mine:
What is up with the anti-China stint? It's like a comment in a Burma thread saying, "I'm surprised America sent any aid to Burma. Usually they just go in, take over the country, and have hundreds of thousands of people killed and torture anyone who disagrees with them."
I already said it in this story, but the greatest trick every played on the American people is convincing them that they government is the way it is because they want it to be that way. And I understand that it isn't easy to see America as simplistically since a lot of the people here are American. But the Chinese are insulted, rightfully so, when they are characterized the way they are. It's like they can't catch a break. They adopt economic reforms? America cheers. They become enough of an economic power that they're now lending money to the United States? They're described as some manipulative power we shouldn't let ourselves be dependent on. They bring literacy up past the levels in the U.S. and they're criticized for stealing our jobs. You think the Chinese people live in fear? Hell no. The American people live in fear, a totally irrational fear, constructed by our government and made possible by our ignorance.
Go to China. You will be amazed. It's not backwards. It's not closed. It's a modern(izing) country. And every time we refuse to treat it as an equal, it will become more antagonistic. In part, because it will see us as hypocrites. Want China to stop working with the Sudanese? Get out of Iraq. Stop funding Saudi Arabia. Apologize for your past transgressions. Until you do that, China's not going to consider itself the lesser of the two. You want to see China become better? Treat it as a partner. Otherwise, you will make it your enemy.
China today and the Soviet Union are two totally different things. I used to live in former soviet states, like turkmenistan. That was a dictatorship. That was a place where you couldn't speak ill of the government. It also had no free market and terrible education. The government did whatever it could to make sure the people weren't capable of managing themselves. That is more like the soviet model (though Turkmenistan was probably worse than Russia was.)
China is nothing like that. People talk about all sorts of things. You are right -- they are not able to publish things as freely as in the united states. But it doesn't mean they're "do(ing) nothing but laud(ing) their system." Between the two, the Americans spend a LOT more time lauding our system.
Go to China. Get some real experience there. I was there from 1992 to 1999. Even in 1992, the country was nothing like what people expected. But it was changing rapidly as well. China in 1999 was not dissimilar to America. China in 2008 is even more similar. Is China perfect? Absolutely not. But America has only had (somewhat full) civil rights for 40 years. Think of the social realm of China as being where America was a couple of generations ago. The social structures that mediate community discussion were largely destroyed by the cultural revolution, etc, and haven't yet matured to accommodate the modern, digital, age. But they are not absent. They are just not mature.
(Remember, also, that America did not have anything resembling full freedom of speech until the end of the McCarthy age. The events of today show that our social structures aren't that mature, either. There are plenty of people, possibly a majority, who would just as soon ban the ACLU, etc. We're just lucky that some of our legal structures make that more difficult than in China.)
Very good summary.
What is up with the anti-China stint? It's like a comment in a Burma thread saying, "I'm surprised America sent any aid to Burma. Usually they just go in, take over the country, and have hundreds of thousands of people killed and torture anyone who disagrees with them."
I already said it in this story, but the greatest trick every played on the American people is convincing them that they government is the way it is because they want it to be that way. And I understand that it isn't easy to see America as simplistically since a lot of the people here are American. But the Chinese are insulted, rightfully so, when they are characterized the way they are. It's like they can't catch a break. They adopt economic reforms? America cheers. They become enough of an economic power that they're now lending money to the United States? They're described as some manipulative power we shouldn't let ourselves be dependent on. They bring literacy up past the levels in the U.S. and they're criticized for stealing our jobs. You think the Chinese people live in fear? Hell no. The American people live in fear, a totally irrational fear, constructed by our government and made possible by our ignorance.
Go to China. You will be amazed. It's not backwards. It's not closed. It's a modern(izing) country. And every time we refuse to treat it as an equal, it will become more antagonistic. In part, because it will see us as hypocrites. Want China to stop working with the Sudanese? Get out of Iraq. Stop funding Saudi Arabia. Apologize for your past transgressions. Until you do that, China's not going to consider itself the lesser of the two. You want to see China become better? Treat it as a partner. Otherwise, you will make it your enemy.
I grew up in China and am insulted by how people have such simplistic concepts of China and of the Chinese people. There are ignorant people everywhere. The only difference is that in China there are more people who are willing to see their government as something distinct from themselves; as something that doesn't necessarily have legitimacy. The greatest trick ever played on the American people is convincing them that the U.S. government is the way it is because they want it to be that way. (Read Democracy in America -- it's been true for 200 years.)
Is America the country where I'd rather be a citizen? Yes. Does America have flaws galore? Absolutely. But understand that the Chinese people are smart. They understand the flaws of their government. But they also understand that they have had unbelievable growth over the past 30 years, and that this ascendancy is going to cause some problems.
The problems that China faces are the same as those in America: people care more about whether they can buy the next cool thing. So long as they can, and the government keeps the economy growing so they can, they don't care what the government does. The same way we don't care what abuses our government commits so long as we get our cheap oil, food, clothes, etc. The only difference is that we have a different government system, so the abuses are done with (slightly) more caution.
I already responded to a comment of yours below, but I have to say that academics is _more_ about fairness than athletics. That's why there are ethics committees at many universities.
And I think they do help people do research who didn't already have a problem. A drug can help you concentrate, even if you are considered to have a perfectly adequate ability to concentrate. Like I said in an earlier post, these drugs were developed to help people with "disabilities" perform at "normal" levels, and that is how they are prescribed, not so that people who want to concentrate in a drug-induced zone of concentration can out perform their colleagues.
Sorry this is so late -- was busy at work.
Different fields set different standards for competition and fairness. Major league baseball seems to have said it is okay to take human growth hormone. Some could argue that it isn't fair to require that everyone do it in order to compete. Those people would probably say the same thing about the Olympics, that they should be able people's naturally-trained capacity and not about their drug-enhanced capacity.
"You work within your means and what you are willing to do." This isn't an argument that people shouldn't be allowed to work long hours. This is an argument saying that it is within a field's or institution's right to say that, because they feel their mission includes ensuring people can compete without having to submit themselves to drugs, that they will bad such substances.
It's the same logic that has been used in things like organized labor. The idea, at least for many, isn't that people shouldn't be allowed to work long hours. The idea is that people shouldn't be forced to work such hours. So it isn't that an academic isn't allowed to put 100% of him or herself into their work. It's that it has to be 100% of him or herself, and not 100% of a drug-enhanced self.
It's the same reason that guy without legs wasn't allowed to compete in the Olympics -- he could race faster than others because his prosthetic limbs gave him more bounce/acceleration than unmodified legs did.
I think the idea is more that it would be unfair to the academics who don't use the drugs. These drugs were developed, as far as I am aware, to help those who otherwise couldn't perform at their normal level. If I live in the "publish or perish" world of academics, must I now take these drugs to be competitive?
It's the same problem as in sports -- some people start taking HGH in baseball and everyone feels they have to in order to keep up. It's not about messing with people's personal lives.
Um... winning New York and California in the democratic primary has little to do with who should be president when considering electability. The only question is, did McCain's success indicate that he could beat Obama but not Hillary? I suspect both of those states are going to Democrats no matter what, so it doesn't matter if Hillary won them. I think it is much more notable how well Obama did in the not-necessarily-blue states. He had some states with ~50% difference between the two. That, I think, indicates that those states might be ones that would elect Obama but not Hillary. (You'd have to do more analysis of whether those were independents, etc, since the democrats would, at least in large part, probably stick to party.)
I know. I did. Unfortunately, though it was in front of a school, it was also near a bend in the road. People who didn't know about the school would speed around the corner. The posted speed limit was 25mph, the guy was going 45. I'd tell you more, but I have no memory of the incident. I just have witnesses who have recounted the details to me. I am now a very risk-adverse street-crosser.
I can relate to what you're saying. I was hit by a jeep while crossing the street (at a pedestrian crosswalk, thank you) when I was in high school. I had memory problems after that, and slowed cognition, though I seemed to recover fully after a few months. Oddly, I lost my memory two years after that. I still have a terrible memory -- 6 months after I went to India (after my memory loss) I exclaimed "I've been to India?" after being told about the trip. I could go on forever, but it would be a long story. If you ever see a book called "Some Observations - What you can learn by losing your memory" you can read all about it. (Not yet written/published, btw.)
Back to the point. I've very cautious with what I attempt. I'd rather be who I am than try everything to be a "normal" someone else. I've found ways to get a lot out of having no memory, and I think I've gotten more out of life because of it. I'm not saying that no one would pursue these treatments, I'm just agreeing with the parent that sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. And for such odd situations, it's hard to get enough of a sample of people who can tell you what it is like (since it can affect who you are, which affects you ability to declare what it was like.)
I don't feel I'm part of any generation, but for a different reason. I think I got the best of both worlds, I got into computers young enough to be able to consider them a tool, but a lot of my information accessing and processing habits were developed pre-Internet (in part because I grew up in a country without much Internet access.) My understanding of computers was very much like the "old" academic pursuit: step by step learning. I installed my first color graphics card to play an Indiana Jones game in 1991/1992. I remember switching the IRQs manually. This allowed me, after 5 or 6 years, to _understand_ computers, just like reading a collection of books on a topic allows you to understand the topic.
I don't know what "this generation" is going to do. I do think that we've become too used to instant gratification. That is due to google and all electronic consumer goods (television, ipods, and computer games) that provide is with constant stimulation so that we don't have to learn how to anticipate, or to have the measure of time for an event be more than 30 minutes (like "an afternoon with a book"). I do think that technology has made this generation different than the last, and I think that society will have to figure out how to deal with this all-to-accessible human-experience-saturater called the modern computing experience.
Statements like that always bother me. They use simple math, something like "if 1,000,000 copies were sold, worth $100 each if bought legitimately, then that's $100 million dollars in lost revenue!" No it's not. The real question is how many would have bought it at all if they had to pay the full price? With China's average incomes, I imagine this would have been a tiny fraction. So it's really 30% (or whatever percent would have actually bought it) of that $100 million.
His logic is absurd. Assuming these web apps are standards compliant, they are the death knell of Windows hegemony. The only question is whether Microsoft can somehow manage to make their apps only work (or at least only work fully) on IE/Windows.
Oh yeah -- and of course KDE is getting more commits, etc, than GNOME. They are between major version numbers; GNOME isn't.
You talk about the open source value of meritocracy. I agree that it is an important value. But it is a value for "consumers" to consider, not Novell (the parent company of SuSE and Ximian.) If people were supposed to only support the development of the better software, then there would only be one choice out there. So I don't think it undermines the value of having a meritocracy to have companies fund alternative environments.
Just as an aside, you say that the "Big Distros" rally behind GNOME. That's just false. Until relatively recently, Red Hat was the only Big Distro to come with GNOME as default. They have to consider their interests in doing such: they have been using GNOME for a long time and probably care more about familiarity and consistency than about which environment is better.
You also mention the Ubuntu forums. Ubuntu uses GNOME as a default and is the most popular linux distribution out there. Couldn't that be evidence that people like GNOME? Or are the statistics only worthwhile when they support your desktop environment?
I started using GNOME way back when there was still a substantive debate regarding which was truly free software. Miguel de Icaza was, at least in my young eyes at the time, one of Free Software's champions. I remember Antitrust's scene where you can see GNOME on the computer. All of those associations, basic familiarity, and the fact that my concept of the desktop matured while using GNOME have caused me to stick with it.
I won't disparage KDE; I simply don't know enough to do so. I just don't see the value in arguing that GNOME shouldn't be supported.
I don't know if universe can handle it either. I just hope they let the repos propagate before they make the announcement.
Look up Geekcorps, or similar programs. Geekcorps is a "Non-profit organization working to expand internet use in emerging nations." But, really, all fields need IT people. I am a field tech guy for an international development group. We have operations in 30+ countries and I get to hop around maintaining our offices and proposing and implementing tech-related programs (like "last mile" connectivity projects, etc.)
So there's hope. If you're interested in something really specific, like programming, then the options narrow. But I have friends who are project managers who go from country to country as contractors working at software development units around the world, so there is something.
Yeah... I know what you mean. I'm still using Ubuntu Warty Warthog (4.10) because I never know when to upgrade! Every time they make a release they talk about how there will be another one in 6 months!
All I can say is don't use Helpstar. We are moving to Altiris now, though I don't actually think it will be any better.
I will be monitoring this discussion closely. I want to know what other people like.