Re:Every country has a different threshold
on
China Blocks iTunes
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps it's because I'm living in a place with a really low crime rate (eg. I walk the streets way past midnight and there had never been any problem)... but I've always thought that feeling the need to use a gun in a civilized society is simply so crude. Or more precisely... barbaric.
I hope you don't mind the analogy, but it's like if you take a tribesman from the amazon for a tour in your city and he insists on taking his trusty spear with him, just in case he's attacked....
And isn't the purpose of the right to bear arms is when the government gets corrupted beyond repair, it gives the people the devices to stage a revolution? It definitely wasn't written into the US constitution so that you guys could shoot that burglar...
Re:Every country has a different threshold
on
China Blocks iTunes
·
· Score: 1
Legitimacy of the CCP is always an interesting topic. But no, your analysis is simply too naive.
Their legitimacy in the 1950s was basically based on might, since they won the civil war against the KMT. Their "legitimacy" during 1960-1970s was basically based on Mao's cult-like following. Legitimacy since 1980s have been based on the government's success on economic growth... and recently on making China a potential world superpower.
But the fundamental legitimacy of the CCP is the fact that there has been no major uprisings against them. After all, if a billion people are upset by your rule, no amount of oppression would be sufficient to contain the outrage. The people ultimately hold the veto power. And one thing you may not know about the Chinese is that they are experts in uprisings when it is deemed that the Emperor no longer has the "heavens mandate"...
Of course, what I didn't mention is how they are going to maintain that legitimacy, i.e. how long will they be able to keep the people happy with economic growth etc., without giving them any substantial political rights. They probably can't, and this problem is going to fuel a major change in China within the next few decades...
Legitimacy is not necessarily static.
Re:Every country has a different threshold
on
China Blocks iTunes
·
· Score: 1
Apparently while China is governed by elite families and friends, the US is governed by elite corporations
How is the US not governed by elite families and friends? Are you really sure the current US president got this position due to merits of his own? And vice versa, how is China not governed by elite corporations? (well until recently China had no corporations... so it didn't apply, but this will change soon)
One of those checks and balances is public outrage
My impression is that public outrage does absolutely nothing in the USA... You really have to give a better example.
And you really don't know anything about China if you think public outrage doesn't work there... I mean, without the institutional check and balances (eg. democratic elections, independent judiciary, separation of powers, etc.), public outrage is the only thing that may actually work in China...
In fact, westerners who are bashing China are usually completely out of touch with China.
Sometimes I myself would think it hilarious, except that some of these ignorant people are actually making non-trivial impact.
I mean, it's not that the criticisms towards China is unfounded -- it's that most people crying fowl almost never make any constructive, feasible suggestions. Of course, they think free speech and democracy are silver bullets, and prescribe heavy doses of them, because they work instantly when you install a shrink wrapped version onto any country. The only thing holding it back is the evil, EVIL dictator whose greatest pleasure is to oppress people. Once you take down that EVIL dictator everything works PERFECTLY.
Seriously, if anybody indeed has constructive ideas on how to substantially improve the situation in China, I'm sure a lot of people (including Chinese) would lend you their ears. But if the best you could do is whine about a possibly non-event (as reported by other slashdotters that iTunes is actually accessible), don't be surprised if you're simply ignored.
The concept of free speech does not exist per se, at least it isn't viewed as a fundamental, inherent right. But then the Chinese don't have an inherent fondness of suppressing speech. The problem is the difference in priorities.
The biggest hurdle for westerners in understanding "Chinese values" is that the "fundamental" value in Chinese political theory (since probably 3000 years ago) is the "nation", and "national unity" is as sacred as the constitution is to Americans. Everything else is second. Like it or not, it's the thing that binds the whole country and its people together. (As to why this is the case, you really have to dig into Chinese history... and I think that's a subject with a huge learning curve for westerners...) That's why you can't advocate Tibet independence in China (without facing dire consequences), but other things that don't affect the stability of the political structure are usually OK in practice.
If you understand that, then you might understand why the Chinese are so upset when westerners keep bringing up the Tibet issue.
You probably don't realize how spot on you are. Particularly the last line.
For a nation which has endured more than a century of unending (civil) wars, the loss of some civil-political rights in exchange for "stability" is (or more precisely, "was") indeed the choice made. You could even say that the choice was made particularly in the spring/summer of 1989, during the Tienanmen incident. In that atmosphere, the people could have revolted, and toppled the ruling party... it didn't happen.
Yet things are changing. I believe that in a few decades civil rights in China would improve just as its economy had in the past three decades. And if not, I firmly believe that there would be a number of Chinese who'd risk everything to achieve this goal (as opposed to "outrages" on the other side of the globe without real action).
Not a linguistic expert here. "can1 teng1" is probably a recent phrase, but I don't think it's related to canteen. We usually don't call canteens "can1 teng1", and the actual meaning of the words "can1" and "teng1" (as also mentioned in another post) actually do mean "a place to have meals".
Of course, the similarity of "Chinese" words that sound like English or French is (was) basically because Cantonese speaking people had more contact with the West in the 19th century due to Canton (Guangdong) being a trade port, and also probably because a lot of phrases you hear are inventions from Hong Kong, which was under more than 100 years of British rule.
You remind me of KFC's "We do chicken right" being translated (by others, not official, I think) to "We are prostitutes and that's right!" ("chicken" being the slang for prostitutes).
Another classic that you may or may not have heard of is "fuck goods".
Due to simplification of Chinese characters, the words "dry" and a "do" merged into one single simplified Chinese character. In slang, "do" can mean copulation. The correct translation is "dried goods". You can see the rest yourself.
Read up on other posts by people who actually have been in China and spoken to the people there.
Reporting on an incident which is almost history as "news" is just idiotic. It should be on history books, and taught as such, not as a political tool for anybody, including you.
Sometimes the "little stories" are probably not newsworthy as they are common occurrence.
I admit I haven't heard about the "little things" you mentioned, but regarding the one year imprisonment without trial, I think it's called "re-education through labour", and it's a weird kind of "administrative sanction" which happens always, so it wouldn't be much news to the Chinese people.
The proper attitude, I think, would be not to paint anybody as anything.
Hate to sound like trying to blurt out Zen gibberish, but things that came to be came to be, and there's not much a point (beyond chatter among geeks who are bored) in discussing who's the "good" and "bad" guy/gal.
Unless brought up in a violent neighborhood, people generally don't kill another unless they are really messed up (psychologically, emotionally, whatever) themselves. And that, deserves some pity, though of course I do not in any sense condone his actions.
The GP had no qualms with the line being drawn right there when you kill someone. A sentence of life imprisonment (not to mention capital punishment depending on where you are) isn't child's play.
I think the GP was just saying that until we know the intimate details (which probably nobody does except Hans now), we shouldn't make a moral judgment so quickly.
Disclaimer: I never really understood morality in the normative perspective.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps it's because I'm living in a place with a really low crime rate (eg. I walk the streets way past midnight and there had never been any problem)... but I've always thought that feeling the need to use a gun in a civilized society is simply so crude. Or more precisely... barbaric.
I hope you don't mind the analogy, but it's like if you take a tribesman from the amazon for a tour in your city and he insists on taking his trusty spear with him, just in case he's attacked....
And isn't the purpose of the right to bear arms is when the government gets corrupted beyond repair, it gives the people the devices to stage a revolution? It definitely wasn't written into the US constitution so that you guys could shoot that burglar...
Legitimacy of the CCP is always an interesting topic. But no, your analysis is simply too naive.
Their legitimacy in the 1950s was basically based on might, since they won the civil war against the KMT. Their "legitimacy" during 1960-1970s was basically based on Mao's cult-like following. Legitimacy since 1980s have been based on the government's success on economic growth... and recently on making China a potential world superpower.
But the fundamental legitimacy of the CCP is the fact that there has been no major uprisings against them. After all, if a billion people are upset by your rule, no amount of oppression would be sufficient to contain the outrage. The people ultimately hold the veto power. And one thing you may not know about the Chinese is that they are experts in uprisings when it is deemed that the Emperor no longer has the "heavens mandate"...
Of course, what I didn't mention is how they are going to maintain that legitimacy, i.e. how long will they be able to keep the people happy with economic growth etc., without giving them any substantial political rights. They probably can't, and this problem is going to fuel a major change in China within the next few decades...
Legitimacy is not necessarily static.
Apparently while China is governed by elite families and friends, the US is governed by elite corporations
How is the US not governed by elite families and friends? Are you really sure the current US president got this position due to merits of his own?
And vice versa, how is China not governed by elite corporations? (well until recently China had no corporations... so it didn't apply, but this will change soon)
One of those checks and balances is public outrage
My impression is that public outrage does absolutely nothing in the USA...
You really have to give a better example.
And you really don't know anything about China if you think public outrage doesn't work there...
I mean, without the institutional check and balances (eg. democratic elections, independent judiciary, separation of powers, etc.), public outrage is the only thing that may actually work in China...
In fact, westerners who are bashing China are usually completely out of touch with China.
Sometimes I myself would think it hilarious, except that some of these ignorant people are actually making non-trivial impact.
I mean, it's not that the criticisms towards China is unfounded -- it's that most people crying fowl almost never make any constructive, feasible suggestions. Of course, they think free speech and democracy are silver bullets, and prescribe heavy doses of them, because they work instantly when you install a shrink wrapped version onto any country. The only thing holding it back is the evil, EVIL dictator whose greatest pleasure is to oppress people. Once you take down that EVIL dictator everything works PERFECTLY.
Seriously, if anybody indeed has constructive ideas on how to substantially improve the situation in China, I'm sure a lot of people (including Chinese) would lend you their ears. But if the best you could do is whine about a possibly non-event (as reported by other slashdotters that iTunes is actually accessible), don't be surprised if you're simply ignored.
The concept of free speech does not exist per se, at least it isn't viewed as a fundamental, inherent right. But then the Chinese don't have an inherent fondness of suppressing speech. The problem is the difference in priorities.
The biggest hurdle for westerners in understanding "Chinese values" is that the "fundamental" value in Chinese political theory (since probably 3000 years ago) is the "nation", and "national unity" is as sacred as the constitution is to Americans. Everything else is second. Like it or not, it's the thing that binds the whole country and its people together. (As to why this is the case, you really have to dig into Chinese history... and I think that's a subject with a huge learning curve for westerners...) That's why you can't advocate Tibet independence in China (without facing dire consequences), but other things that don't affect the stability of the political structure are usually OK in practice.
If you understand that, then you might understand why the Chinese are so upset when westerners keep bringing up the Tibet issue.
You probably don't realize how spot on you are.
Particularly the last line.
For a nation which has endured more than a century of unending (civil) wars, the loss of some civil-political rights in exchange for "stability" is (or more precisely, "was") indeed the choice made. You could even say that the choice was made particularly in the spring/summer of 1989, during the Tienanmen incident. In that atmosphere, the people could have revolted, and toppled the ruling party... it didn't happen.
Yet things are changing. I believe that in a few decades civil rights in China would improve just as its economy had in the past three decades. And if not, I firmly believe that there would be a number of Chinese who'd risk everything to achieve this goal (as opposed to "outrages" on the other side of the globe without real action).
Because nobody cares.
Sounds about right.
The coder must have graduated from BASIC, where GOTOs are the crux of the language.
Nope. The Chinese characters there read "restaurant", and nothing in the photo indicates where it is... No brand, no location, no pointers...
[And I'm pretty sure 99.99%+ of the potential customers who has actually been there don't read slashdot...]
Not a linguistic expert here. "can1 teng1" is probably a recent phrase, but I don't think it's related to canteen. We usually don't call canteens "can1 teng1", and the actual meaning of the words "can1" and "teng1" (as also mentioned in another post) actually do mean "a place to have meals".
Of course, the similarity of "Chinese" words that sound like English or French is (was) basically because Cantonese speaking people had more contact with the West in the 19th century due to Canton (Guangdong) being a trade port, and also probably because a lot of phrases you hear are inventions from Hong Kong, which was under more than 100 years of British rule.
Mandarin has less of these things.
True, but the "wat son" characters look ugly...
I could write better than that .... and my handwriting is really bad.
Assorted Dried Fruits.
The first character is "scattered", which in this context means "assorted", but could mean "spread (out)" in others.
You remind me of KFC's "We do chicken right" being translated (by others, not official, I think) to "We are prostitutes and that's right!" ("chicken" being the slang for prostitutes).
Another classic that you may or may not have heard of is "fuck goods".
Due to simplification of Chinese characters, the words "dry" and a "do" merged into one single simplified Chinese character. In slang, "do" can mean copulation. The correct translation is "dried goods". You can see the rest yourself.
In fact, my impression of the habit of the Chinese government (in the past, say, 30 years) is that they usually deliver what they promised.
I really can't say the same of western politicians.
Prove me wrong?
Maybe, you are indoctrinated.
Read up on other posts by people who actually have been in China and spoken to the people there.
Reporting on an incident which is almost history as "news" is just idiotic. It should be on history books, and taught as such, not as a political tool for anybody, including you.
Sometimes the "little stories" are probably not newsworthy as they are common occurrence.
I admit I haven't heard about the "little things" you mentioned, but regarding the one year imprisonment without trial, I think it's called "re-education through labour", and it's a weird kind of "administrative sanction" which happens always, so it wouldn't be much news to the Chinese people.
You could deal with a real person you know in real life for years and find out eventually that you were tricked.
Knowing the identity of the other end helps, but it's not the solution to everything...
Your problem is more of a social problem than a technological problem IMHO....
But you can have a private data exchange with the same specific "anonymous" instead of potentially different anonymous entities.
There are worse things that you can do to a person than killing him/her.
The proper attitude, I think, would be not to paint anybody as anything.
Hate to sound like trying to blurt out Zen gibberish, but things that came to be came to be, and there's not much a point (beyond chatter among geeks who are bored) in discussing who's the "good" and "bad" guy/gal.
Unless brought up in a violent neighborhood, people generally don't kill another unless they are really messed up (psychologically, emotionally, whatever) themselves. And that, deserves some pity, though of course I do not in any sense condone his actions.
There are abuses which are far worse than death.
To the point where killing would be relief, relatively speaking.
Of course, the criminal law needs to be there, so society can work, but sometimes it's not "fair" to paint every murderer in the same moral black ink.
The GP had no qualms with the line being drawn right there when you kill someone. A sentence of life imprisonment (not to mention capital punishment depending on where you are) isn't child's play.
I think the GP was just saying that until we know the intimate details (which probably nobody does except Hans now), we shouldn't make a moral judgment so quickly.
Disclaimer: I never really understood morality in the normative perspective.
Well, why can't you lie to them? The trick is not to get caught ;-p