- The speed issue is largely due to the crappy implementations of Javascript, which are improving due to competition among browsers. Javascript can be JIT-ed. What you probably can't do is compile it to native code and expect it to have the speed of C/C++. But then would *you* run arbitrary native binary code off the web? Sandboxing makes things slow again.
- I'll give you the lack of threading.
- 2D/3D libraries - C doesn't have one in its standard, C++ doesn't have one, in fact most don't. But you're free to implement one. It just doesn't make too much sense having a full fledged 2D/3D library in the browser, since that's where most javascript code are used in.
- experimental language, as in first appearing in 1995, used extensively for almost 15 years. Of course most people never really utilize its full power, but it's not the fault of the language
- And you use a "mission-critical application" written in Javascript running inside a web browser?
Don't ditch the language due to poor implementation and crappy users.
RIghts to choose health care option under attack. RIght to keep our hard earned money under attack for increased federal debt. Private Enterprise under attack from TARP and limits on pay.
Uh. You might as well claim a "right to being rich" under attack. I mean, there's no universal accepted notion of economic rights, and the very nature of these rights is that if you gain any of these so called "rights", somebody else has to pay for it.
Take your health care example. Right to choose health care option, or right to health care? I think only in the USA would anybody think the former is a God given right, while the latter is an evil communist idea.
Note that I'm obviously not an American, and I don't have a stake how the health care in your country is implemented. But I think I speak for many people when I say I'm really perplexed on how some of you guys approach the idea of state run health care.
I always had the feeling that the argument against the health care reform is like... "the poor people should just die if they get sick" or something like that.
Here is a quote from the final deciding law lord Viscount Sankey on the page you mention:
SNIP
This seems to imply that English Common Law has recognised the principle of presumption of innocence since long before this case.
In fact, no. In fact, this actually implies that the principle, if it even existed, was not universally recognized at that time. If it were, then you wouldn't find the judge saying "golden thread blah blah blah" but rather, a long list of boring precedents and authorities that supports his proposition. I just went to read the full case, and all he does is to debunk authorities that seem to support the contrary.
In landmark cases, judges (at least in UK, particularly those sitting in the House of Lords) have a tendency of stretching reality a bit to arrive at their desired conclusion.
Sorry, but that is utter rubbish. By the time this case was tried in 1935, the American and English legal systems had completely devolved so this case has no bearing on US Law.
You misunderstood me. What I meant was, the 18th century authority (which I quoted, and which I referred to as *this*) is the common law that the US inherited. And of course by that I implied that the case decided in 1935 had nothing to do with US law.
All that says is that one judge went against the principle, and it was overturned on appeal.
The appeal was heard by the the House of Lords (functionally similar to the US Supreme Court). The best it could do is to argue that there is a "golden thread" in common law embracing the presumption of innocence. That is, in stark contrast to the usual business of judges analyzing precedents and decided cases or at least actual jurisprudence on the matter.
The judgement was based on rhetoric. At least the judge below cited something (see my quote in my original post). It might not be authoritative enough, but still it is better than simply saying: "no we don't do things that way" without much further elaboration. What this suggests is that there wasn't such a principle in the first place until this case was decided.
Note also that (re the 1762 quotation) this only applied to murder, and it only applied if it was proven that the defendant did kill the victim. Not that different to if you claim self-defence - you can't just say it or every killer would walk; you have to come up with some evidence that you were under serious threat.
True. Yet in modern times we think that if circumstances raise a possible issue of self-defence, then it is not for the defendant to prove he was acting in self-defense, but for the prosecution to prove it was not.
This difference may not be that obvious to the average person, but for defendants and criminal defense lawyers things like this is difference between life and death (literally, for those place which still practice the death penalty).
As an aside, loaded weapons aren't toys. If you fool around with them you should be facing a minimum of a manslaughter charge.
I'm pretty sure the defense was hoping to get the conviction down to manslaughter instead of acquitting completely.
The presumption of innocence does not really go that far back in the history of common law. If you bothered to read a bit further into the link you provided, you'll see that in the quoted case of Woolmington v DPP (decided in 1935) that the case was about overturning a principle of the "presumption of guilt" specifically:
On appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, Woolmington argued that the Trial judge misdirected the jury. The appeal judge discounted the argument using the common law precedent as stated in Foster's Crown Law (1762).... In every charge of murder, the fact of killing being first proved, all the circumstances of accident, necessity, or infirmity are to be satisfactorily proved by the prisoner, unless they arise out of the evidence produced against him; for the law presumeth the fact to have been founded in malice, unless the contrary appeareth...
*This* is the traditional common law, the one that the USA inherited.
I'll argue that this Woolmington v DPP case changed the law significantly. At the very least, before this case was decided, the principle of presumption of innocence was not as entrenched as it were after the case. Arguably, this case established the doctrine of the presumption of innocence as we know it today.
It's fundamentally some academic quirk on common law jurisprudence - under traditional common law principles, the law is "discovered", not "made" by judges. And thus, judges do have a tendency sometimes to "pretend" that all they're doing is applying existing legal principles, instead of changing the laws by setting a precedent. And then after the decision we'll have to accept that "common law was like that all along!", which is not really that accurate.
Take note, I'm not intending to glamorize the US system (which I don't harbor complements), but just to set things straight. I do study the laws of your jurisdiction extensively, as a law student in Hong Kong.
So true. And I rather see these "glitches" coming out of them than cookie cutter "enterprise" products mutated by "upper management", the sales and marketing dept and the legal dept...
I mean, essentially what's happening is that Google's hiring these brilliant guys to write a nice language for all of us to use. And some people could find way to twist it like it's Google bullying everybody around.
And I've been hearing people saying things like "If google is not eating their own dog food internally I'm not going to use it" -- like if they're closing off this stuff for internal use only probably the same people would be crying that they're not open sourcing stuff...
Depending on the size of controversy conjured out of this thing, it might make the old "Go" language notable just for this thing.
I mean, if I remember right one of the critera for wiki inclusion is coverage by major publications and press. The controversy alone probably does the trick.
Not that I think there's anything wrong with reusing the name of a dead project...
The general atmosphere here on slashdot is to assume the worst that can happen, even if it goes against available evidence.
I've always been amused by their presumption that *somebody* is interested in your data. Among the millions of people who has typed in that google search box, *somebody* wants to know the kinky porn stuff you're into. Never occurs to them that in fact nobody gives a damn.
It's all down to egoism really. The I AM SO FUCKING IMPORTANT THAT THE WHOLE WORLD WANTS TO KNOW ABOUT ME.
I don't know about other unix-alikes, but on Linux, one can use ptrace(2) to trap and block (and modify the results of) system calls that an executable makes.
This way we could, for example, block any attempt to open files for writing, block attempts to access the network, and selectively allow file writes etc. This can be done via a white-listing mechanism.
I stumbled upon this relatively less known kernel API a few years ago while trying to figure out how to... essentially run arbitrary code submitted by anonymous users while keeping the machine safe. Most slashdotters would call me crazy but this was what I was trying to do at the time.
I'm no security expert, but from what I gather this scheme is pretty safe if you trust the kernel to be free of exploits (particularly in the whitelisted syscalls).
I'm pretty sure a "sandbox" command could be done using ptrace. In fact if you google for "ptrace" you'll find some sites going into a bit of detail how this could be implemented.
In fact I suspect that a patch to strace (which uses ptrace as its underlying syscall tracking mechanism) could deal with the problem if only in a hackish manner.
The EU does not have any power to stop US companies from merging. But they do have the power to forbid you to do business in Europe if a US company does not comply with its regulations.
Since the EU is a major economic player in the world and Oracle and Sun both have large stakes there, this becomes an issue.
It's not a matter of the EU taking over US companies, but rather the fact that US companies need to play their game when doing business outside the US.
> How exactly is spending buckets of money we don't have an 'accomplishment'?
Well, we got another Nobel prize for these kind of things... But the USA has to try harder!
Ig Nobel 2009:
MATHEMATICS PRIZE: Gideon Gono, governor of Zimbabwe's Reserve Bank, for giving people a simple, everyday way to cope with a wide range of numbers -- from very small to very big -- by having his bank print bank notes with denominations ranging from one cent ($.01) to one hundred trillion dollars ($100,000,000,000,000).
Last I heard (I hear things have been changing for quite a while and I haven't been keeping myself up to date), the UK follows the doctrine of supremacy of parliament.
That is, the parliament can contradict itself and repeal laws it has made in the past, because it is supreme.
So there's no hierarchy in this sense (although lesser bodies that sets rules and regulations obviously need to follow the Acts of parliament).
I believe the participation of the UK into the EU, and the legal implications to the doctrine attracted a bit of academic discussion, ranging from discussion of whether this doctrine needs revision to insisting that this doctrine is still valid because parliament can decide to back out at any time.
On a closer look I think there are two misunderstandings here:
#1 the "misunderstanding" that the Chinese government is pushing for censorship through GreenDam
and
#2 the "misunderstanding" that manufacturers are required to preinstall the software on computers they ship
I really didn't think much of #1 when I wrote the above post because (this must be a gross oversight here on slashdot;-p), As I've said, I never considered it much of a censorship issue. So as a faithful slashdot reader I simply skimmed through their comment and started typing. A valid point I missed was that users are supposed to be able to uninstall the software.
What I was mocking was the second "misunderstanding" -- it is obvious that Green Dam was supposed to be required to be preinstalled -- until they suddenly announced in June 30 that the plans will be on hold, the day before the new rules were to be in effect.
Of course the more I read it the more I am confused:)
"China's computer users would not face a compulsory mass installation of Green Dam Internet filtering software, China's Minister of Industry and Information Technology Li Yizhong said Thursday."
Emphasis mine. So, now we have a mandatory installation of Green Dam for *manufacturers*, but the plans are on hold (IIRC there is no specified date for resumption). And *users* are not required to install it.
So I might actually have "misunderstood" this most recent announcement -- it seems that it is still possible that manufacturers will still have to ship their computers with Green Dam preloaded in some way, *IF* the stay announced on 30 June is lifted.
Will the stay be lifted? Looks like it's still up for bets! Issues preventing the Chinese government to resume its plans is, as I mentioned, legal issues, technical issues, and additionally the issue of alleged backroom politics in choosing the filtering software developer. But then the idea of "protecting the children" must have originated from some higher up policy, or at least approved by higher authorities, and I doubt they will "give up" so easily, particularly that they have lost so much "face" after this incident.
I hope this clears things up a bit. Took me a bit of mental work to really figure this whole mess out.
They just realized that the plan is not going to work. It's not going to work because of LEGAL problems, because the "GreenDam" software was basically a pirated copy of some already available commercial filtering software with some custom modifications.
Imagine state sponsored mass copyright infringement -- do you think they can pull it off?
And the software was so full of bugs that some local security professionals here in Hong Kong had the thing reverse engineered and found a few vulnerabilities within a few nights of hacking (in their personal time). I attended a seminar where they presented their results, and the quality of the software was pathetic to the point of disbelief. Imagine the botnet size when the vulnerabilities get exploited....
Any sane person would have vetoed the project, at least in its current incarnation, even if he is hell bent on censoring everything available under the sun. It's just not feasible.
So, it is not a change of policy, just that they finally got somebody actually with brains to pull back the project.
Regarding "misunderstanding" mentioned in sibling posts -- I assure you, although sometimes people flame the Chinese government out of genuine misunderstandings, this one is definitely not one of those instances.
I've read the original notice by the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (the ministry which started the whole thing). It's here for those who can read Chinese, or have a good translator (human or otherwise) http://www.miit.gov.cn/n11293472/n11293832/n11293952/12398220.html
It clearly, unambiguously, states that pre-installation by manufacturers is required. I'll translate the last sentence:
" Tor those who do not preinstall after the deadline, those who are late in reporting (their progress) to authorities, those who falsify their reports or those who do not report, the Ministry will decree that they reissue the report or rectify their actions. "
There is no misunderstanding. And those who don't believe me, find a translator.
The GreenDam thing didn't really scream of censorship but rather incompetence. If you go past their kneejerk reactions and look at the whole thing closely, it was handled extremely incompetently. Rushed deadlines, crappy pirated software, uncoordinated plans, last minute changes, etc.
And now the excuse is as lame as everything involved in this fiasco. "Misunderstanding" my ass.
It's not international media that does it. International media has no vested interests in portraying China and the Chinese government in a sympathetic view.
The state and local media, however, tends to do this. But then, if you allow sensationalism in news reporting, then you have it.
The average person, and particularly poor people are constantly getting screwed, both by companies and the government and no one lifts a finger to do anything about it. Action is only taken when something happens to someone wealthy, as was the case here.
This happens everywhere. Or perhaps in places with more civil and political rights for their citizens, action is only taken when something happens to someone who knows how to stir up media response. But less privileged people are screwed almost universally everywhere.
Most people in China would probably be lucky to earn $1000 a month
Here in Hong Kong, where income per capita is a few times higher than that in China, has a median income a bit higher than $1000 a month. I guess for your statement to be accurate the number is probably around $500 (in some poorer parts of the country, $300? $200?). But then the costs of living in China is much lower than that in the US, so it evens out a bit.
As for show trials, yes this is a Chinese specialty.
if 2 million people in the west wanted to do something about china, they can do NOTHING that matters? that's your position? you really believe that?
Yes. China has a population of 1.3 billion people, and believe me when I say as a Chinese citizen that we will fight tooth and nail against ideological imperialism to make "the world one place" just to make your lives easier.
if a group of people is dead set on doing something, they are going to do it. you realize that, right? motivation is everything. tactics are easy.
Good luck. Tell me when you're set on to change the world, it would be amusing and interesting to see what tactics you've come up with.
Dude, Chinese history is a series of bloody revolutions.
There is no other civilization in the world that has as many revolutions as China.
A rough estimation is that we've had a major one every 100-200 years. Chinese history spans for at least 3000 years. Inefficient kings and emperors usually led to civil unrest, and small scale revolutions (which may turn big). That translates to about 20+ major revolutions, and numerous minor ones. A lot of them were organized from groups of peasants too. Heck even in the past century we've seen two revolutions in China, one by the KMT against the Qing government, and one by the Communists against the KMT government. 1989 Tienanmen incident almost resulted in one. That's just within 100 years.
And all Americans know is the "American Revolution"? Just one? Honestly, you guys don't know crap how this thing works.
Let me give you an example. In the old days in China, treason was not *merely* penalized with death. It was penalized with slow, excruiciating death, a common way was to cut down all the flesh and non-vital organs before delivering the final blow. And that's not only for the one committing treason -- all members of his/her extended family would be executed. This creates a huge incentive for family members to report any illegal activities of other family members to authorities.
And yes, revolutions started in China in these environments.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you just described paranoia.
I think the problems you've described are (among other things) what the article proposes to fix.
- The speed issue is largely due to the crappy implementations of Javascript, which are improving due to competition among browsers. Javascript can be JIT-ed. What you probably can't do is compile it to native code and expect it to have the speed of C/C++. But then would *you* run arbitrary native binary code off the web? Sandboxing makes things slow again.
- I'll give you the lack of threading.
- 2D/3D libraries - C doesn't have one in its standard, C++ doesn't have one, in fact most don't. But you're free to implement one. It just doesn't make too much sense having a full fledged 2D/3D library in the browser, since that's where most javascript code are used in.
- experimental language, as in first appearing in 1995, used extensively for almost 15 years. Of course most people never really utilize its full power, but it's not the fault of the language
- And you use a "mission-critical application" written in Javascript running inside a web browser?
Don't ditch the language due to poor implementation and crappy users.
Forget about everything.
3 words:
"Make it work."
Or if you're polite, you might want to add "please".
RIghts to choose health care option under attack. RIght to keep our hard earned money under attack for increased federal debt. Private Enterprise under attack from TARP and limits on pay.
Uh. You might as well claim a "right to being rich" under attack. I mean, there's no universal accepted notion of economic rights, and the very nature of these rights is that if you gain any of these so called "rights", somebody else has to pay for it.
Take your health care example. Right to choose health care option, or right to health care? I think only in the USA would anybody think the former is a God given right, while the latter is an evil communist idea.
Note that I'm obviously not an American, and I don't have a stake how the health care in your country is implemented. But I think I speak for many people when I say I'm really perplexed on how some of you guys approach the idea of state run health care.
I always had the feeling that the argument against the health care reform is like... "the poor people should just die if they get sick" or something like that.
Here is a quote from the final deciding law lord Viscount Sankey on the page you mention:
SNIP
This seems to imply that English Common Law has recognised the principle of presumption of innocence since long before this case.
In fact, no. In fact, this actually implies that the principle, if it even existed, was not universally recognized at that time. If it were, then you wouldn't find the judge saying "golden thread blah blah blah" but rather, a long list of boring precedents and authorities that supports his proposition. I just went to read the full case, and all he does is to debunk authorities that seem to support the contrary.
In landmark cases, judges (at least in UK, particularly those sitting in the House of Lords) have a tendency of stretching reality a bit to arrive at their desired conclusion.
Sorry, but that is utter rubbish. By the time this case was tried in 1935, the American and English legal systems had completely devolved so this case has no bearing on US Law.
You misunderstood me. What I meant was, the 18th century authority (which I quoted, and which I referred to as *this*) is the common law that the US inherited. And of course by that I implied that the case decided in 1935 had nothing to do with US law.
All that says is that one judge went against the principle, and it was overturned on appeal.
The appeal was heard by the the House of Lords (functionally similar to the US Supreme Court). The best it could do is to argue that there is a "golden thread" in common law embracing the presumption of innocence. That is, in stark contrast to the usual business of judges analyzing precedents and decided cases or at least actual jurisprudence on the matter.
The judgement was based on rhetoric. At least the judge below cited something (see my quote in my original post). It might not be authoritative enough, but still it is better than simply saying: "no we don't do things that way" without much further elaboration. What this suggests is that there wasn't such a principle in the first place until this case was decided.
Note also that (re the 1762 quotation) this only applied to murder, and it only applied if it was proven that the defendant did kill the victim. Not that different to if you claim self-defence - you can't just say it or every killer would walk; you have to come up with some evidence that you were under serious threat.
True. Yet in modern times we think that if circumstances raise a possible issue of self-defence, then it is not for the defendant to prove he was acting in self-defense, but for the prosecution to prove it was not.
This difference may not be that obvious to the average person, but for defendants and criminal defense lawyers things like this is difference between life and death (literally, for those place which still practice the death penalty).
As an aside, loaded weapons aren't toys. If you fool around with them you should be facing a minimum of a manslaughter charge.
I'm pretty sure the defense was hoping to get the conviction down to manslaughter instead of acquitting completely.
I'll nitpick.
The presumption of innocence does not really go that far back in the history of common law. If you bothered to read a bit further into the link you provided, you'll see that in the quoted case of Woolmington v DPP (decided in 1935) that the case was about overturning a principle of the "presumption of guilt" specifically:
On appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, Woolmington argued that the Trial judge misdirected the jury. The appeal judge discounted the argument using the common law precedent as stated in Foster's Crown Law (1762). ... In every charge of murder, the fact of killing being first proved, all the circumstances of accident, necessity, or infirmity are to be satisfactorily proved by the prisoner, unless they arise out of the evidence produced against him; for the law presumeth the fact to have been founded in malice, unless the contrary appeareth...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolmington_v_DPP
*This* is the traditional common law, the one that the USA inherited.
I'll argue that this Woolmington v DPP case changed the law significantly. At the very least, before this case was decided, the principle of presumption of innocence was not as entrenched as it were after the case. Arguably, this case established the doctrine of the presumption of innocence as we know it today.
It's fundamentally some academic quirk on common law jurisprudence - under traditional common law principles, the law is "discovered", not "made" by judges. And thus, judges do have a tendency sometimes to "pretend" that all they're doing is applying existing legal principles, instead of changing the laws by setting a precedent. And then after the decision we'll have to accept that "common law was like that all along!", which is not really that accurate.
Take note, I'm not intending to glamorize the US system (which I don't harbor complements), but just to set things straight. I do study the laws of your jurisdiction extensively, as a law student in Hong Kong.
What is your take on nuclear weapons?
I don't know whether living thousands of years away is like living thousands of *light-years* away, but I damn sure didn't eat that magical fruit.
Some people still think I need salvation though.
Where are my mod points? :(
So true. And I rather see these "glitches" coming out of them than cookie cutter "enterprise" products mutated by "upper management", the sales and marketing dept and the legal dept...
I mean, essentially what's happening is that Google's hiring these brilliant guys to write a nice language for all of us to use. And some people could find way to twist it like it's Google bullying everybody around.
And I've been hearing people saying things like "If google is not eating their own dog food internally I'm not going to use it" -- like if they're closing off this stuff for internal use only probably the same people would be crying that they're not open sourcing stuff...
Depending on the size of controversy conjured out of this thing, it might make the old "Go" language notable just for this thing.
I mean, if I remember right one of the critera for wiki inclusion is coverage by major publications and press. The controversy alone probably does the trick.
Not that I think there's anything wrong with reusing the name of a dead project...
Obviously "Go" is the English/Western name for the game. The Japanese name is in some character that I won't try to type on slashdot.
And Go (the game) is played in China too. You're saying as if it originated in China and nobody there plays it any more...
Duh.
The general atmosphere here on slashdot is to assume the worst that can happen, even if it goes against available evidence.
I've always been amused by their presumption that *somebody* is interested in your data. Among the millions of people who has typed in that google search box, *somebody* wants to know the kinky porn stuff you're into. Never occurs to them that in fact nobody gives a damn.
It's all down to egoism really. The I AM SO FUCKING IMPORTANT THAT THE WHOLE WORLD WANTS TO KNOW ABOUT ME.
I don't know about other unix-alikes, but on Linux, one can use ptrace(2) to trap and block (and modify the results of) system calls that an executable makes.
This way we could, for example, block any attempt to open files for writing, block attempts to access the network, and selectively allow file writes etc. This can be done via a white-listing mechanism.
I stumbled upon this relatively less known kernel API a few years ago while trying to figure out how to ... essentially run arbitrary code submitted by anonymous users while keeping the machine safe. Most slashdotters would call me crazy but this was what I was trying to do at the time.
I'm no security expert, but from what I gather this scheme is pretty safe if you trust the kernel to be free of exploits (particularly in the whitelisted syscalls).
I'm pretty sure a "sandbox" command could be done using ptrace. In fact if you google for "ptrace" you'll find some sites going into a bit of detail how this could be implemented.
In fact I suspect that a patch to strace (which uses ptrace as its underlying syscall tracking mechanism) could deal with the problem if only in a hackish manner.
Props up again.
The EU does not have any power to stop US companies from merging. But they do have the power to forbid you to do business in Europe if a US company does not comply with its regulations.
Since the EU is a major economic player in the world and Oracle and Sun both have large stakes there, this becomes an issue.
It's not a matter of the EU taking over US companies, but rather the fact that US companies need to play their game when doing business outside the US.
> How exactly is spending buckets of money we don't have an 'accomplishment'?
Well, we got another Nobel prize for these kind of things... But the USA has to try harder!
Ig Nobel 2009:
MATHEMATICS PRIZE: Gideon Gono, governor of Zimbabwe's Reserve Bank, for giving people a simple, everyday way to cope with a wide range of numbers -- from very small to very big -- by having his bank print bank notes with denominations ranging from one cent ($.01) to one hundred trillion dollars ($100,000,000,000,000).
I do have servers under my wing that runs on stable, or sometimes old-stable.
Why is it not feasible to do so?
For the one or two packages you absolutely need a more up-to-date version, there's always backports.
I wonder whether you know what you're talking about, really.
Last I heard (I hear things have been changing for quite a while and I haven't been keeping myself up to date), the UK follows the doctrine of supremacy of parliament.
That is, the parliament can contradict itself and repeal laws it has made in the past, because it is supreme.
So there's no hierarchy in this sense (although lesser bodies that sets rules and regulations obviously need to follow the Acts of parliament).
I believe the participation of the UK into the EU, and the legal implications to the doctrine attracted a bit of academic discussion, ranging from discussion of whether this doctrine needs revision to insisting that this doctrine is still valid because parliament can decide to back out at any time.
Sorry to reply to my own post.
On a closer look I think there are two misunderstandings here:
#1 the "misunderstanding" that the Chinese government is pushing for censorship through GreenDam
and
#2 the "misunderstanding" that manufacturers are required to preinstall the software on computers they ship
I really didn't think much of #1 when I wrote the above post because (this must be a gross oversight here on slashdot ;-p), As I've said, I never considered it much of a censorship issue. So as a faithful slashdot reader I simply skimmed through their comment and started typing. A valid point I missed was that users are supposed to be able to uninstall the software.
What I was mocking was the second "misunderstanding" -- it is obvious that Green Dam was supposed to be required to be preinstalled -- until they suddenly announced in June 30 that the plans will be on hold, the day before the new rules were to be in effect.
Of course the more I read it the more I am confused :)
The official news source is at http://english.gov.cn/2009-08/13/content_1391004.htm
"China's computer users would not face a compulsory mass installation of Green Dam Internet filtering software, China's Minister of Industry and Information Technology Li Yizhong said Thursday."
Emphasis mine. So, now we have a mandatory installation of Green Dam for *manufacturers*, but the plans are on hold (IIRC there is no specified date for resumption). And *users* are not required to install it.
So I might actually have "misunderstood" this most recent announcement -- it seems that it is still possible that manufacturers will still have to ship their computers with Green Dam preloaded in some way, *IF* the stay announced on 30 June is lifted.
Will the stay be lifted? Looks like it's still up for bets! Issues preventing the Chinese government to resume its plans is, as I mentioned, legal issues, technical issues, and additionally the issue of alleged backroom politics in choosing the filtering software developer. But then the idea of "protecting the children" must have originated from some higher up policy, or at least approved by higher authorities, and I doubt they will "give up" so easily, particularly that they have lost so much "face" after this incident.
I hope this clears things up a bit. Took me a bit of mental work to really figure this whole mess out.
It's not a change of policy.
They just realized that the plan is not going to work. It's not going to work because of LEGAL problems, because the "GreenDam" software was basically a pirated copy of some already available commercial filtering software with some custom modifications.
Imagine state sponsored mass copyright infringement -- do you think they can pull it off?
And the software was so full of bugs that some local security professionals here in Hong Kong had the thing reverse engineered and found a few vulnerabilities within a few nights of hacking (in their personal time). I attended a seminar where they presented their results, and the quality of the software was pathetic to the point of disbelief. Imagine the botnet size when the vulnerabilities get exploited....
Any sane person would have vetoed the project, at least in its current incarnation, even if he is hell bent on censoring everything available under the sun. It's just not feasible.
So, it is not a change of policy, just that they finally got somebody actually with brains to pull back the project.
Regarding "misunderstanding" mentioned in sibling posts -- I assure you, although sometimes people flame the Chinese government out of genuine misunderstandings, this one is definitely not one of those instances.
I've read the original notice by the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (the ministry which started the whole thing). It's here for those who can read Chinese, or have a good translator (human or otherwise) http://www.miit.gov.cn/n11293472/n11293832/n11293952/12398220.html
It clearly, unambiguously, states that pre-installation by manufacturers is required. I'll translate the last sentence:
" Tor those who do not preinstall after the deadline, those who are late in reporting (their progress) to authorities, those who falsify their reports or those who do not report, the Ministry will decree that they reissue the report or rectify their actions. "
There is no misunderstanding. And those who don't believe me, find a translator.
The GreenDam thing didn't really scream of censorship but rather incompetence. If you go past their kneejerk reactions and look at the whole thing closely, it was handled extremely incompetently. Rushed deadlines, crappy pirated software, uncoordinated plans, last minute changes, etc.
And now the excuse is as lame as everything involved in this fiasco. "Misunderstanding" my ass.
China is the most worthy heir to the title of Evil Empire
Please, grow up. You can criticize China all you want, but using a term like "Evil Empire" just gives away your mental age.
And more importantly, who the fuck modded this up? Any informed person with common sense can see that not a single sentence or phrase is true....
It's not international media that does it. International media has no vested interests in portraying China and the Chinese government in a sympathetic view.
The state and local media, however, tends to do this. But then, if you allow sensationalism in news reporting, then you have it.
The average person, and particularly poor people are constantly getting screwed, both by companies and the government and no one lifts a finger to do anything about it. Action is only taken when something happens to someone wealthy, as was the case here.
This happens everywhere. Or perhaps in places with more civil and political rights for their citizens, action is only taken when something happens to someone who knows how to stir up media response. But less privileged people are screwed almost universally everywhere.
Most people in China would probably be lucky to earn $1000 a month
Here in Hong Kong, where income per capita is a few times higher than that in China, has a median income a bit higher than $1000 a month. I guess for your statement to be accurate the number is probably around $500 (in some poorer parts of the country, $300? $200?). But then the costs of living in China is much lower than that in the US, so it evens out a bit.
As for show trials, yes this is a Chinese specialty.
if 2 million people in the west wanted to do something about china, they can do NOTHING that matters? that's your position? you really believe that?
Yes. China has a population of 1.3 billion people, and believe me when I say as a Chinese citizen that we will fight tooth and nail against ideological imperialism to make "the world one place" just to make your lives easier.
if a group of people is dead set on doing something, they are going to do it. you realize that, right? motivation is everything. tactics are easy.
Good luck. Tell me when you're set on to change the world, it would be amusing and interesting to see what tactics you've come up with.
Dude, Chinese history is a series of bloody revolutions.
There is no other civilization in the world that has as many revolutions as China.
A rough estimation is that we've had a major one every 100-200 years. Chinese history spans for at least 3000 years. Inefficient kings and emperors usually led to civil unrest, and small scale revolutions (which may turn big). That translates to about 20+ major revolutions, and numerous minor ones. A lot of them were organized from groups of peasants too. Heck even in the past century we've seen two revolutions in China, one by the KMT against the Qing government, and one by the Communists against the KMT government. 1989 Tienanmen incident almost resulted in one. That's just within 100 years.
And all Americans know is the "American Revolution"? Just one? Honestly, you guys don't know crap how this thing works.
Let me give you an example. In the old days in China, treason was not *merely* penalized with death. It was penalized with slow, excruiciating death, a common way was to cut down all the flesh and non-vital organs before delivering the final blow. And that's not only for the one committing treason -- all members of his/her extended family would be executed. This creates a huge incentive for family members to report any illegal activities of other family members to authorities.
And yes, revolutions started in China in these environments.