If that net is gone, it implies total and complete global destruction of civilization, and probably extinction of humanity, because any even tiny subset left that had any memory would attempt to cobble together a miniature replica of the net to help themselves re-organize and restart.
I laughed. Haha.
Well, if the Internet is gone, it sure would imply the total and complete destruction of my daily life... but humanity is a bit more tough than I am...
or Chinese (perhaps most likely, by sheer numbers)
Well, it's a likely candidate for another reason -- you might be interested to know that the Chinese language has indeed survived for more than 2000 years.
I actually read books from that era to pass time. (And no I'm not a scholar on Chinese literature)
I wish religion could be demoted to the realm of mythology (where I believe they "should" belong), but human nature doesn't allow it. There will always be masses of people who believe in crackpot cults, and when you bring a religion down another will emerge and replace it.
Heck, even in "atheist" societies like communist states, the leaders themselves form a cult and rise to God-like status. Stalin of Soviet Union, Mao of Communist China, and Kim of N. Korea.
Well, nobody ever claimed that human nature was perfect...
I don't know.... the Chinese language has stayed remarkably stable throughout the centuries (which, I gather, is the exception rather than the rule)...
Unedited texts from 2000 years ago are perfectly readable to the average educated person (I have a few of them on my shelf). In particular, Chinese characters with all their sophistication are virtually unchanged for around 2000 years until simplified characters were introduced in the past few decades.
The computer industry had been using the "byte" unit way before the SI Nazis kicked in. The fact that "kilo" means 1000 for grams, meters, etc. doesn't mean it has to apply to bytes.
The reason for SI standardization is for easy conversion between units. Working in base 2 is much more natural than on base 10 in the computer industry. I hereby propose we keep the defacto standard, and invent a new unit called "glob", where a equals 1000,000bytes. For all of us who actually need a base 2 system to work with, we can keep the old metric.
There is a difference between having the names in the court papers, available on request, and the names on the headlines of major media outlets.
Of course there's a certain gray area in between, but in this case it's quite clear cut that the public has no need to know the names of the accused...
Duh. Google might index the court website, and maybe even all its cases, but still who cares? I mean, these days people are too lazy to even click a link. RTFA? (I haven't;-p)
The GP's point:
It doesn't need to be impossible to get at - you just need to prevent it from being shoved in peoples places.
(emphasis mine)
There's a huge difference between the names being obscured in a boring court list and being shown in the headlines of a major newspaper.
Won't work. It already exists and is called defamation.
Newspapers will report "XXX accused of murder" (which is true, and thus defamation fails), but what people actually remember will be "XXX = murderer".
If you're talking about a specific situation where defendants of criminal proceedings get a right to sue media for publishing their names, then I'd say a court order to ban it in the first place would be a much better solution. For one, if the media figures it has profits to make even after paying the damages, they'll still run the story.
If this doesn't work voluntarily, it may become necessary to anonymize court proceedings, so the defendant, witnesses, etc. are identified only by artificial names until the conclusion of a case (and the real names never released by the court in the event that the defendant is found not guilty). Frankly, I'd prefer that anyway, since I think it better serves the interests of justice while still keeping courts open and subject to a healthy level of oversight, but whether it is reasonable for a judge to start ordering this sort of thing unilaterally to make a point is a different question. Indeed, the extent of a lone judge's powers in cases like this, and to which they can or should lobby government for changes in the legal framework where their experience indicates it would be helpful, are all interesting questions.
Nice idea, but probably rather difficult in practice. Often these cases would involve evidence that reveals personal information about the defendants, so unless the trial is not going to be in open court, the information would probably be revealed during the trial. (eg. Man accused of murdering neighbour. So the issue of where he lives would be brought up, etc.)
It's my understanding that news on criminal proceedings before they are concluded are not to be reported in a way prejudicial to the defendants in the common law jurisdictions (which still more or less follow English law closely). I'm a bit surprised this is considered news on slashdot...
I profess I know nothing about the details, but China if anything is more wary of Taiwan than any other country.
One of the platforms of Taiwan president Ma is to allow direct cross strait flights (which last I heard doesn't exist), instead of going through Hong Kong. You'd think China would allow any person from Taiwan to enter its borders?
Even here in Hong Kong, we need to apply for a passport-like permit to enter mainland China. In 99% of the cases it's straightforward, but those who are "blacklisted" for supporting "forbidden causes" like Tibet independence, certain pro-democracy groups, etc. cannot even enter the mainland, even though they are legally Chinese citizens.
I don't disagree that it would be disruptive at first. There is a lot of history that the West went through prior to Democracy taking off and in many places that history simply doesn't exist. That doesn't mean that Democracy isn't ultimately what is needed in China
I agree that democracy is ultimately needed in China. It's just that it won't work if you try to do it overnight. You understand it might be disruptive at first, but there's a huge risk that it's not going to be merely disruptive -- it's going to be devastating. Changing the political structure of a nation with 1.3B people isn't going to be an easy task. Sure outsiders who aren't going to directly bear this risk can babble and criticize all they want, but there's reason for the Chinese to be more wary.
Somehow I doubt that most Taiwan citizens would prefer Chinese citizenship. It would be a complete step backwards for them. As it is they have most of the conveniences of Chinese citizenship (due to Chinese policy) and none of the downsides. Kind of like Puerto Rico in the US...
Talk about that. As a Hong Kong citizen I'm actually having the conveniences of Chinese citizenship without any of the downsides. I'm not sure Taiwanese are having conveniences of Chinese citizenship though (correct me if I'm wrong). And I might sound like a Chinese apologist but you'll have to pry the freedoms we have in Hong Kong from my cold dead hands.
And as for what most Taiwan citizens think... my understanding is that they're mostly tired of all the independence/reunion crap. There are people who want to push for outright independence, and maybe a select few reunionists, but (now) most don't really bother. The status quo has worked for more than half a century, so why bother changing? It might be politically incorrect to say this, but Taiwan has always been defacto independent -- the issue is official (and international) recognition of this status.
Sure, China's military and economic power certainly influenced this a lot, and they have certainly played quite a number of dirty tricks to get to the present situation, but there are other subtle things at work. The situation isn't as clear cut as you (or your post) seem to suggest.
Re:Every country has a different threshold
on
China Blocks iTunes
·
· Score: 1
The flip side is that if I happen to be mistaken as a burglar I might get killed. There are legitimate reasons to knock on somebody's door at midnight, and I don't want to be greeted with a gun.
The last protest I saw in China turned bloody, and it was a telling message of what the Chinese government is prepared to do. If the Chinese people aren't still being oppressed, then why haven't we seen any protests?
I must admit that I'm not particularly informed on this subject, but as far as I know, there *are* countless protests happening in China, although not about freedoms and (political) rights. More like corrupt officials destroying livelihoods of people and forcing them to revolt (like taking away their lands/homes).
Re:Every country has a different threshold
on
China Blocks iTunes
·
· Score: 1
I don't imply you would want to use a gun. But even the thought of having the possibility to resort to deadly violence is still rather unsettling.
I mean, even if somebody breaks into my house and tries to steal things away I wouldn't want to shoot a bullet at him...
Re:Too afraid to see who they are
on
China Blocks iTunes
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Why, most westerners actually think that the citizens of Taiwan actually want to be a separate country!
The next thing those crazy westerners will be trying to tell us is that the Chinese governement actually masaccred students in Tienneman Square! What a load of propaganda!
You think this is funny? Sarcastic?
You're just proving my point.
The current Taiwanese president's (who was popularly elected) stance on Taiwan's status is that he wouldn't push for independence, instead preferring to tread the fine line of the current status quo. The Taiwanese aren't actually loathing for (re)union with China, but they aren't unequivocally for independence either.
And I didn't read People's Daily about the Tienanmen Square event. Did you use CNN/Foxnews as your sources? Have you watched this before? http://www.tsquare.tv/ (note: it isn't made by the Chinese)
And as for the more serious items...
Uh, how about hold elections? The kind where anybody can run? And how about having a free press where one isn't punished for expressing one's opinions? That would be a good start and in the long run would substantially improve the situation.
Considering the fact that most of China is still in poverty, how would you resolve the problem of buying votes? How would you prevent "free press" from inciting revolts and bringing the whole society into chaos? [note: this isn't far fetched, it has more than once in the past few decades] And if you think your suggestions are really insightful, I'd have to break your bubble. The Chinese government tried to move towards this direction two decades ago, and it sort of backfired, resulting in the Tienanmen incident. The government had been cautious to try it again (but it seems they are gradually opening up again in recent years). I'm not making this up... go watch the documentary (above link) yourself.
Indeed. I was talking about the US since most people here seems to be from the US, and "the last seven years of slashdot articles" were mostly stuff about the US (unless they were rants about China's human rights abuses).
But then my main point was really that public outrage works everywhere. Your example highlights the advantages of a representative election system.
I'll give you a better example of "public outrage". I live in Hong Kong. A few years ago, the government tried to pass a bill that basically introduced the "Chinese" laws of state secrets, national security etc. (and you all know how broad the definition of "state secrets" is in China). It caused a public outrage. The legislature was composed of roughly half pro-government legislators and half anti-government legislators, with the pro-govt having a slight edge, and as the bill neared passing, 500 thousand people protested on the streets (which is almost 10% of the total population in Hong Kong, a really sizable number), causing some legislators to rethink their votes and eventually the bill didn't pass.
That's not the full story, but I hope you get the gist of it. What I learned from the incident? This is the kind of protests that actually works. Sometimes waiting a few years for the next election... doesn't work for all cases.
Mao taught the people a lesson that they have to be "political correct" otherwise you will lose your head (most likely not only you but your family), that's 70's and has since become a culture
This has been so for thousands of years in China. In fact, in the past, it wouldn't suffice to be "politically correct". Encountering a mistake in your political career (possibly not your fault) and you might be executed. In particular, you stand a high chance of being executed if you lose a battle (even if you're outnumbered and did your best). I don't recall Mao being that extreme...
(Hi there from Hong Kong, it's really hot this summer)
Might be strawman, but since you're talking about a whole group of people...
How come on slashdot, besides the USA, the main subject of criticism is against China?
Being a US-centric site, large amounts of criticisms against the USA is expected since that's where most(?) slashdotters live and that's the country most slashdotters are familiar with. Yet why does China get more flames than any other place? Sure, China might be a larger country with a larger population, but I'm pretty sure if you add up the stories and comments criticizing any country in Europe, the number would still be lower than those criticizing China.
Simple analogy: I say to you "why are you always complaining about me?", and you reply "No I don't. I also complain about my wife. I'm not singling you out."
Frankly, it makes me angry, because oppression of any people in any country provides lessons to oppress people anywhere.
Hmm, interesting. Where'd you get this myth from? Come to think of it, China is actually really bad at oppressing people... Every time they jail somebody, the whole world points their fingers at them. Heck, even Yahoo is getting a lot of flame for assisting the Chinese government.
I mean, the USA is much more successful with Guantanamo... As for censorship, China has much to learn from the USA on how to censor things without people noticing, how to control the media yet making it seem "free".
If anything, I really hope China doesn't learn how to really oppress people from the USA....
The point isn't whether Jean Charles de Menezes criticized the government. It's the attitude of the reporting, the bias, the implicit messages (sometimes grounded and sometimes not) that the Chinese government is unequivocally evil, bad, and oppressive.
If the GP's example isn't accurate enough, I'll give you an example I recall during the Olympic torch relay. If I remember correctly, BBC ran a story about protests during the torch relay, and then the reporter commented that there was no coverage of the protests in Chinese media -- implying that they had "filtered" away the news. But it turns out that the reason for the lack of coverage was due to some timezone and logistic difficulties, and the Chinese media ran the story about the protests (of course with much less emphasis on the negative side) a short while later.
Slashdot Mirror
Besides, using an obscure user name as a security measure really is the stereotypical "security by obscurity" trick.
I guess the market gap it fills is that it's a browser that works on Windows backed by a 100 pound gorilla company that is not IE.
Technologically, not that interesting, but in business terms it hasn't happened since Netscape went down.
Spooky.
If that net is gone, it implies total and complete global destruction of civilization, and probably extinction of humanity, because any even tiny subset left that had any memory would attempt to cobble together a miniature replica of the net to help themselves re-organize and restart.
I laughed. Haha.
Well, if the Internet is gone, it sure would imply the total and complete destruction of my daily life... but humanity is a bit more tough than I am...
[Slightly OT]
or Chinese (perhaps most likely, by sheer numbers)
Well, it's a likely candidate for another reason -- you might be interested to know that the Chinese language has indeed survived for more than 2000 years.
I actually read books from that era to pass time. (And no I'm not a scholar on Chinese literature)
I wish religion could be demoted to the realm of mythology (where I believe they "should" belong), but human nature doesn't allow it. There will always be masses of people who believe in crackpot cults, and when you bring a religion down another will emerge and replace it.
Heck, even in "atheist" societies like communist states, the leaders themselves form a cult and rise to God-like status. Stalin of Soviet Union, Mao of Communist China, and Kim of N. Korea.
Well, nobody ever claimed that human nature was perfect...
I don't know.... the Chinese language has stayed remarkably stable throughout the centuries (which, I gather, is the exception rather than the rule)...
Unedited texts from 2000 years ago are perfectly readable to the average educated person (I have a few of them on my shelf). In particular, Chinese characters with all their sophistication are virtually unchanged for around 2000 years until simplified characters were introduced in the past few decades.
The computer industry had been using the "byte" unit way before the SI Nazis kicked in. The fact that "kilo" means 1000 for grams, meters, etc. doesn't mean it has to apply to bytes.
The reason for SI standardization is for easy conversion between units. Working in base 2 is much more natural than on base 10 in the computer industry. I hereby propose we keep the defacto standard, and invent a new unit called "glob", where a equals 1000,000bytes. For all of us who actually need a base 2 system to work with, we can keep the old metric.
There's a huge difference between the names being obscured in a boring court list and being shown in the headlines of a major newspaper.
Hmm I'm getting ahead of myself.
There's also a huge difference between the names being obscured in a boring court list and being discussed on all your friends' myspace pages.
There is a difference between having the names in the court papers, available on request, and the names on the headlines of major media outlets.
Of course there's a certain gray area in between, but in this case it's quite clear cut that the public has no need to know the names of the accused...
Duh. Google might index the court website, and maybe even all its cases, but still who cares? ;-p)
I mean, these days people are too lazy to even click a link. RTFA? (I haven't
The GP's point:
It doesn't need to be impossible to get at - you just need to prevent it from being shoved in peoples places.
(emphasis mine)
There's a huge difference between the names being obscured in a boring court list and being shown in the headlines of a major newspaper.
Won't work. It already exists and is called defamation.
Newspapers will report "XXX accused of murder" (which is true, and thus defamation fails), but what people actually remember will be "XXX = murderer".
If you're talking about a specific situation where defendants of criminal proceedings get a right to sue media for publishing their names, then I'd say a court order to ban it in the first place would be a much better solution. For one, if the media figures it has profits to make even after paying the damages, they'll still run the story.
If this doesn't work voluntarily, it may become necessary to anonymize court proceedings, so the defendant, witnesses, etc. are identified only by artificial names until the conclusion of a case (and the real names never released by the court in the event that the defendant is found not guilty). Frankly, I'd prefer that anyway, since I think it better serves the interests of justice while still keeping courts open and subject to a healthy level of oversight, but whether it is reasonable for a judge to start ordering this sort of thing unilaterally to make a point is a different question. Indeed, the extent of a lone judge's powers in cases like this, and to which they can or should lobby government for changes in the legal framework where their experience indicates it would be helpful, are all interesting questions.
Nice idea, but probably rather difficult in practice. Often these cases would involve evidence that reveals personal information about the defendants, so unless the trial is not going to be in open court, the information would probably be revealed during the trial. (eg. Man accused of murdering neighbour. So the issue of where he lives would be brought up, etc.)
It's my understanding that news on criminal proceedings before they are concluded are not to be reported in a way prejudicial to the defendants in the common law jurisdictions (which still more or less follow English law closely). I'm a bit surprised this is considered news on slashdot...
I profess I know nothing about the details, but China if anything is more wary of Taiwan than any other country.
One of the platforms of Taiwan president Ma is to allow direct cross strait flights (which last I heard doesn't exist), instead of going through Hong Kong. You'd think China would allow any person from Taiwan to enter its borders?
Even here in Hong Kong, we need to apply for a passport-like permit to enter mainland China. In 99% of the cases it's straightforward, but those who are "blacklisted" for supporting "forbidden causes" like Tibet independence, certain pro-democracy groups, etc. cannot even enter the mainland, even though they are legally Chinese citizens.
I don't disagree that it would be disruptive at first. There is a lot of history that the West went through prior to Democracy taking off and in many places that history simply doesn't exist. That doesn't mean that Democracy isn't ultimately what is needed in China
I agree that democracy is ultimately needed in China. It's just that it won't work if you try to do it overnight. You understand it might be disruptive at first, but there's a huge risk that it's not going to be merely disruptive -- it's going to be devastating. Changing the political structure of a nation with 1.3B people isn't going to be an easy task. Sure outsiders who aren't going to directly bear this risk can babble and criticize all they want, but there's reason for the Chinese to be more wary.
Somehow I doubt that most Taiwan citizens would prefer Chinese citizenship. It would be a complete step backwards for them. As it is they have most of the conveniences of Chinese citizenship (due to Chinese policy) and none of the downsides. Kind of like Puerto Rico in the US...
Talk about that. As a Hong Kong citizen I'm actually having the conveniences of Chinese citizenship without any of the downsides. I'm not sure Taiwanese are having conveniences of Chinese citizenship though (correct me if I'm wrong). And I might sound like a Chinese apologist but you'll have to pry the freedoms we have in Hong Kong from my cold dead hands.
And as for what most Taiwan citizens think... my understanding is that they're mostly tired of all the independence/reunion crap. There are people who want to push for outright independence, and maybe a select few reunionists, but (now) most don't really bother. The status quo has worked for more than half a century, so why bother changing? It might be politically incorrect to say this, but Taiwan has always been defacto independent -- the issue is official (and international) recognition of this status.
Sure, China's military and economic power certainly influenced this a lot, and they have certainly played quite a number of dirty tricks to get to the present situation, but there are other subtle things at work. The situation isn't as clear cut as you (or your post) seem to suggest.
The flip side is that if I happen to be mistaken as a burglar I might get killed.
There are legitimate reasons to knock on somebody's door at midnight, and I don't want to be greeted with a gun.
The last protest I saw in China turned bloody, and it was a telling message of what the Chinese government is prepared to do. If the Chinese people aren't still being oppressed, then why haven't we seen any protests?
I must admit that I'm not particularly informed on this subject, but as far as I know, there *are* countless protests happening in China, although not about freedoms and (political) rights. More like corrupt officials destroying livelihoods of people and forcing them to revolt (like taking away their lands/homes).
I don't imply you would want to use a gun. But even the thought of having the possibility to resort to deadly violence is still rather unsettling.
I mean, even if somebody breaks into my house and tries to steal things away I wouldn't want to shoot a bullet at him...
Why, most westerners actually think that the citizens of Taiwan actually want to be a separate country!
The next thing those crazy westerners will be trying to tell us is that the Chinese governement actually masaccred students in Tienneman Square! What a load of propaganda!
You think this is funny? Sarcastic?
You're just proving my point.
The current Taiwanese president's (who was popularly elected) stance on Taiwan's status is that he wouldn't push for independence, instead preferring to tread the fine line of the current status quo. The Taiwanese aren't actually loathing for (re)union with China, but they aren't unequivocally for independence either.
And I didn't read People's Daily about the Tienanmen Square event. Did you use CNN/Foxnews as your sources? Have you watched this before? http://www.tsquare.tv/ (note: it isn't made by the Chinese)
And as for the more serious items...
Uh, how about hold elections? The kind where anybody can run? And how about having a free press where one isn't punished for expressing one's opinions? That would be a good start and in the long run would substantially improve the situation.
Considering the fact that most of China is still in poverty, how would you resolve the problem of buying votes? How would you prevent "free press" from inciting revolts and bringing the whole society into chaos? [note: this isn't far fetched, it has more than once in the past few decades] And if you think your suggestions are really insightful, I'd have to break your bubble. The Chinese government tried to move towards this direction two decades ago, and it sort of backfired, resulting in the Tienanmen incident. The government had been cautious to try it again (but it seems they are gradually opening up again in recent years). I'm not making this up... go watch the documentary (above link) yourself.
Indeed. I was talking about the US since most people here seems to be from the US, and "the last seven years of slashdot articles" were mostly stuff about the US (unless they were rants about China's human rights abuses).
But then my main point was really that public outrage works everywhere. Your example highlights the advantages of a representative election system.
I'll give you a better example of "public outrage". I live in Hong Kong. A few years ago, the government tried to pass a bill that basically introduced the "Chinese" laws of state secrets, national security etc. (and you all know how broad the definition of "state secrets" is in China). It caused a public outrage. The legislature was composed of roughly half pro-government legislators and half anti-government legislators, with the pro-govt having a slight edge, and as the bill neared passing, 500 thousand people protested on the streets (which is almost 10% of the total population in Hong Kong, a really sizable number), causing some legislators to rethink their votes and eventually the bill didn't pass.
That's not the full story, but I hope you get the gist of it. What I learned from the incident? This is the kind of protests that actually works. Sometimes waiting a few years for the next election... doesn't work for all cases.
Well duh. Of course China is nobody's bitch...
The fact that you think giving China the right to host the Olympics is enough to make them your (or somebody's) bitch is simply ... hilarious.
Mao taught the people a lesson that they have to be "political correct" otherwise you will lose your head (most likely not only you but your family), that's 70's and has since become a culture
This has been so for thousands of years in China. In fact, in the past, it wouldn't suffice to be "politically correct". Encountering a mistake in your political career (possibly not your fault) and you might be executed. In particular, you stand a high chance of being executed if you lose a battle (even if you're outnumbered and did your best). I don't recall Mao being that extreme...
(Hi there from Hong Kong, it's really hot this summer)
Might be strawman, but since you're talking about a whole group of people...
How come on slashdot, besides the USA, the main subject of criticism is against China?
Being a US-centric site, large amounts of criticisms against the USA is expected since that's where most(?) slashdotters live and that's the country most slashdotters are familiar with. Yet why does China get more flames than any other place? Sure, China might be a larger country with a larger population, but I'm pretty sure if you add up the stories and comments criticizing any country in Europe, the number would still be lower than those criticizing China.
Simple analogy: I say to you "why are you always complaining about me?", and you reply "No I don't. I also complain about my wife. I'm not singling you out."
Frankly, it makes me angry, because oppression of any people in any country provides lessons to oppress people anywhere.
Hmm, interesting. Where'd you get this myth from?
Come to think of it, China is actually really bad at oppressing people... Every time they jail somebody, the whole world points their fingers at them. Heck, even Yahoo is getting a lot of flame for assisting the Chinese government.
I mean, the USA is much more successful with Guantanamo... As for censorship, China has much to learn from the USA on how to censor things without people noticing, how to control the media yet making it seem "free".
If anything, I really hope China doesn't learn how to really oppress people from the USA....
I think you're missing the point totally.
The point isn't whether Jean Charles de Menezes criticized the government. It's the attitude of the reporting, the bias, the implicit messages (sometimes grounded and sometimes not) that the Chinese government is unequivocally evil, bad, and oppressive.
If the GP's example isn't accurate enough, I'll give you an example I recall during the Olympic torch relay. If I remember correctly, BBC ran a story about protests during the torch relay, and then the reporter commented that there was no coverage of the protests in Chinese media -- implying that they had "filtered" away the news. But it turns out that the reason for the lack of coverage was due to some timezone and logistic difficulties, and the Chinese media ran the story about the protests (of course with much less emphasis on the negative side) a short while later.