ACtually, yes I do believe that an American life is more valuable than a foreigners. Just like I believe a member of my family is more valuable than a non-member of my family. And given a choice between a member of my family, and a non-member, I choose the member of my family every time.
what the article doesn't say: format? - 1080i, 720 p... which one? outputs? component video? firewire? DVI? disc life? backwards compatibility? approximate price? when will hd dvd discs be sold, and what studios will re-release?
I can't wait to have my entire collection of DVDs in HD
I beg to differ. While Titan AE didn't do well as far as box office revenues, I thought it wasn't at all painfully dull nor was it poorly written. And it wasn't artistically poor, either. I saw a high definition version of it on HBO or showtime (can't remember which) and I thought it was awesome.
Mindstorms was not conceptually revolutionary, and it was a failure. The only ones celebrating it are doing so because of personal affiliation or nostalgia.
I disagree with the last statement you made. Heres why I believe mindstorms was revolutionary:
1.> Mindstorms is a toy that is programmable. It teaches children about, in a rudimentary way, code paths and primitive 'debugging'. Mathematics, engineering and computer science all use those concepts. It is the first 'programmable' toy of this scale, that I am aware of. If its not the first, then its the most prominent / successful.
2.> Mindstorms is also open-solution, like all lego. The idea is that you can build ANYTHING, and have it do anything. Look at lego's website to see what people have built. Using the camera in mindstorms to build a robotic rubik's cube solver? done. The product allows kids to take their imaginations and transform them into real working systems. Most educational toys today are pre-defined in their scope and purpose. Mindstorms wasn't.
I'd think it may have inspired by the way that our children play today versus how they played twenty years ago.
Actually, the main point of the lego mindstorms was to change the way kids learned... to make learning and playing the same.
The prototype for the mindstorms toy was built at the MIT media lab by roboticist Fred Martin. (who teaches at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell at a budding robotics lab). Fred really wanted to know about how to use computing to educate kids, and lego offered a sum of money to the media lab in order to foster a new type of marketable toy that had "engaging computing" potential. So he built a lego brick with a computer inside, which was the base of the toy.
Interesting enough, Fred Martin also built the handyboard, which is a great way to get into amateur robotics. As shameless self-promotion, the work I did in Fred Martin's class can be found here.
Yeah, dogs don't vote. Neither do cows, which is why we eat them.
Animals are property. Cruelty to animals doesn't apply in beasts of burden, animals raised for food, animals used to test drugs, or animals used to save military lives. Cruelty only applies to animals kept as pets.
Lately there's been a movement to classify humans as pet 'guardians' in order to give pets a greater status with regard to the law. I think thats wrong. Humans are sentient creatures, with a rational faculty, born with inalienable rights. Animals are not.
Most people don't have a free will. They think they have but they don't.
So, then, if most people do not have free will, then you imply that some do, some don't. and therefore some people by nature of their birth are inherently better than others. You imply that all men are not created equal.
No point in having violent videogames either. As a matter of fact, how about I just determine what's absolutely necessary, and whats not, and hold you to it. Without your say.
I think it can be considered an interesting post. I think he meant, "Why is it safe for emergency vehicles and not for the rest of us?"... technologies only allowed by the government is kinda scary... He raises a valid point, even if he didn't RTFA
I tried to find the incident you mentioned, but could not. I do know of the Shah's speech at Harvard. I do know that the Shah helped modernize Iran. I do know that the Ayatollah murdered Americans and has not taken steps to prevent terrorism in its own country. I know that the Iranians will never be a major player on the world stage because of the militant religious attitude of the Ayatollah. To say that because the Shah may have been worse hardly forgives the Ayatollah. Every man and woman deserves, as part of being a human, basic rights and freedoms. Tell me the current regime affords those freedoms, and I will gladly withdraw my criticism. however, if this is not the case, then I stand by my claim.
I don't know why this was modded funny, to be honest. The people of Iran don't exactly have it so great. Ever since the revolution and the ayatollahs, its been rough riding for those not in line with the government.
Theocracies are not healthy governments. Iranian students have protested several times on large scales, and government thugs have repressed them continuously.
I think free software is great, especially since repressive regimes tend to have bad economies, and therefore free software means victims of that regime can possibly more easliy afford computer access, and therefore, have access to ideas not blocked by traditional media.
I had made my comment because while its a good thing that free software makes it to that part of the world, its a bad thing that they still live under a government that restricts basic freedom.
and yes, I'm from the USA. and no, I wasn't making reference to our current president.
I disagree with your assesment. I doubt any committee or any government regulators will do anything to 'level the playing field.'
Any time a company needs the government to rule a certain way to profit, that company doesn't have a sound business model.
Software is something between customers and consumers. governments may lend a hand in this case, but why does one company, like Mandrakesoft, deserve a government's help, and another company, say, microsoft, deserve a government's crippling legal action?
The only 'fair' or 'level' playing field is one in where companies develop a product, and customers buy one. I don't trust government meddling in software, or the internet, or any other issue... at least with a company, I can buy or not buy.... or, as linus did, write my own.
I also disagree with 'mandrake delivering on the financials'. I like mandrake, I bought my copy of 7.2 a few years back. made a nice webserver and taught me a lot. But it isn't in good times financially. While they may post a profit, they haven't proven that their customer base will expand.
personally, I believe that linux has to start approaching small computer resellers / vendors and get itself on those PCs. Charge 1/10th the license fee, offer the complete software package (os, office suite, art tools, etc) and get your product out there.
See, I agree with you on one point, and take issue on another. Because the government refuses to fund a technology doesn't make it illegal. The governments refusal to fund nanotechnology simply means that private companies will have to foot their own research bill. IBM and others who really see a promise in nanotechnology will make their own breakthroughs without the restrictions and limitations of federal money.
Whats happening with cloning and stem cells, on the other hand, is fucking abhorrent. Basically the governments of the world are trying to make a specific type of scientific research illegal. No matter what money you come up with, you can't do it. Arrested for thinking... that hasn't happened on such an important scale since Socrates was convicted of his crimes.
A supporter of open standards, Ellison does not like the cacophony of enterprise-scale products offered to the companies. "If Detroit ran like Silicon Valley, nobody would sell cars -- just parts", he proclaims. "Customers would have to figure out which were the best parts -- a Honda engine, a Ford transmission, a BMW chassis, GM electrical system -- and buy them and try to assemble them into a working car. Good luck. I know it sounds crazy, but that's how companies put together business systems today".
Yeah, and when you try and package the entire car, you get sued for product integration, like IE being built into Windows.
Nothing is sealed, my friend. Water is simply Hydrogen, which a large amount of the universe is made of, and oxygen. We can manufacture it in space or on the moon itself.
The reason that Saddam and Kim Jong Il and the like are being told they cannot develop certain weapons is not because of the weapons themselves, but their status as a nation.
Certain nations have forfeit their rights to exist when they commit acts against humanity. Invading Kuwait was universally ruled as such an act. The UN then demanded that certain things take place in retribution. They were no longer allowed to have certain weapons, etc.
That is why India and Pakistan developed nukes without being invaded. We economically sanctioned them, but they hadn't violated such laws as to have their status as a legitimate nation effectively revoked by the UN. Therefore we had no right to invade those nation. That is why n. korea hasn't been invaded.
But Iraq is different. They proved their unstable-ness and general malaise towards the concept of human rights. it was brought before the UN, voted on, and agreed.
You may not agree with US policy, but the US has not committed any acts as such for a very long time. (at least since the inception of the UN). The US has one of the best human rights records, despite the trolls that will ensue. Therefore we have weapons and weapons research, because we have no intention of using them offensively.
The sad thing is, the science teacher was absolutely right.
Uranium, pound for pound, will give you more energy in a nuclear reaction than almost any other substance will give you through combustion. The reason why the Atomic Age never really happened is two-fold: Political and Economic.
Political, because people are scared of nuclear energy. They get scared when a proposal for nuclear power comes to town. Never mind that coal, oil and natural gas power facilities have killed 10 to 100 times the people that nuclear power plants would ever kill. People don't protest coal plants the same way, they don't know the 'coal' symbol like they know the nuclear fallout symbol. There are no 'coal' weapons that obliterate people.
Economic, because nuclear energy became incredibly regulated. There hasn't been a new nuclear plant since TMI, (three mile island) since the cost of building and maintaining one is absurbly expensive. Now, I'm not saying nuclear plants shouldn't be regulated, but perhaps the regulation should be reviewed to make it economically feasible.
Electricity and batter power , not combustion, will be the method of auto transport in the future. and the only way that becomes cheap is to make electricity dirt cheap. the only way to do that is atomic energy.
*sigh* Hijacked election. Thats all anyone can ever say.
There is a law in Florida. The law says that ex-felons cannot vote. This law was in place before the 2000 election.
No one challenged the law prior. Nor would it matter. ex-felons are the least likely group to vote regardless. out of 57,000 felons, would even 10 percent vote? I doubt it, since only 33% of Americans vote. I'd expect maybe 3% would vote, if that. whats that, 1500 votes? not enough to turn the election after the military votes and absentee votes were counted. Which, by the way, were motioned to be discounted by the Gore legal team. Now , its one thing to make a law prior to any election, but its another to change the rules after the fact. Anyone could have challenged that law in supreme courts. No one did.
stop spewing FUD. the rules were laid out prior to that election.
As I cannot let your accusations stand unaddressed , I will address each to the best of my knowledge.
Branch Dividians were murdered by the gov. The Branch Davidians were not exactly law abiding citizens. They illegally stockpiled weapons without a license (weapons which, in most nations outside the US, are illegal), and treated children in a questionable if not outright illegal manner (from what was stated in subsequent reports, the leader of the davidians took preteen girls as 'wives' and he had sexual intercourse with them). When the authorities went to address those claims, the Davidians refused to cease and desist. they were killed because they took arms against the government, which sought a trial against them. the government did what it was supposed to do.
The US has the highest youth* exicution rate If a youth is someone under 18, then you're probably right. Although, I don't know any specifics, people tried as adults, assumed to be in the proper mental state at the time of their crime, can be executed. Most crimes bearing death as a penalty are murder of children, murder of a peace officer, murder of multiple victims. Premeditated assault of one individual by another deserves the punishment of death. You may disagree, but I'd hardly call the US approach capricious.
The US has had death marches, genocide, and death squads** I don't know what specifics you allude to, but certainly not this century, which is my major point. 200 years ago almost all governments had the above. every nation save for a few has abandoned these. China CONTINUES HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES. The abuses you claim have been apologized, attempted to be reconciled, and rebuked. We cannot travel back in time to change these things, but we can stop todays. and today, china is in a sorry state, and the US is in a grand state, one of the freest nations on the earth.
The people of the US did not vote to go to the moon, but the gov went anyway. No, we elect officials, who act in our stead. Hence our republic. The Chinese 'republic' is hardly legitimate. there is no constitution that outlines the rights on men. We don't vote on every single issue. we vote for policy makers.
I disagree with your characterization. We allow convicts who have served their time to vote, they just can't vote while incarcerated.
We haven't detained those in camp x-ray for religious beliefs. If that were the case, we wouldn't allow religious chaplains to visit them and counsel them. Those people are detained from Afghanistan as combatants in a war, which was authorized by the U.N., no less. The more we can learn from them about worldwide terrorist cells as well as who the remaining leaders are in Afghanistan, the safer the world is.
As far as the DMCA, I may not agree with all tenets, but I believe in copyright. Either you do or you don't believe in the concept of ideas having ownership for a specific amount of time. You can take issue with that concept, but by no means can you call the DMCA a tyranny for tyranny's sake. it is there to protect a concept that the United States supports, and that is copyright.
While I loathe to respond to the nation bashing that weaves this thread, I think that there is a valid reason to speak against China. I think that China's policy towards human rights is horrible. From Tianamen Square to Falun Gong oppression (and no, I don't believe in religion, but I believe you should be able to practice,) China has abused its citizens. And I think history had proved that the communist governments tend to act this way. So when a rocket is built by a nation paid for by the taxes of citizens, who never got to vote for the people who decided the rocket should be built... It is hideous. It is very hard to be celebratory.
No, the US isn't perfect. But we don't arrest people for their religion, we allow people to vote, we honor personal achievement, science, etc etc etc. When we went to the moon in 1969, there were ticker tape parades, spontaneous celebration... heck , people camped out in Florida to see the launch. In china there might be state sponsored/forced events, but I doubt you'll see anything like what happened in the US
Do you believe the chinese are as enthusiastic? do you know why?
I love science, achievement, technology... but what good are all those if we don't have the freedom needed to create and use those things?
Slashdot Mirror
don't forget, that the last time we tried to go to the poles of mars, we lost the lander. that was in 1999.
ACtually, yes I do believe that an American life is more valuable than a foreigners. Just like I believe a member of my family is more valuable than a non-member of my family. And given a choice between a member of my family, and a non-member, I choose the member of my family every time.
Thats funny, when the WTC collapsed, the first words out of my mouth were: "Oh fuck, there go thousands of innocent civilian lives."
what the article doesn't say: ... which one?
format? - 1080i, 720 p
outputs? component video? firewire? DVI?
disc life? backwards compatibility? approximate price? when will hd dvd discs be sold, and what studios will re-release?
I can't wait to have my entire collection of DVDs in HD
I beg to differ. While Titan AE didn't do well as far as box office revenues, I thought it wasn't at all painfully dull nor was it poorly written. And it wasn't artistically poor, either. I saw a high definition version of it on HBO or showtime (can't remember which) and I thought it was awesome.
Mindstorms was not conceptually revolutionary, and it was a failure. The only ones celebrating it are doing so because of personal affiliation or nostalgia.
I disagree with the last statement you made. Heres why I believe mindstorms was revolutionary:
1.> Mindstorms is a toy that is programmable. It teaches children about, in a rudimentary way, code paths and primitive 'debugging'. Mathematics, engineering and computer science all use those concepts. It is the first 'programmable' toy of this scale, that I am aware of. If its not the first, then its the most prominent / successful.
2.> Mindstorms is also open-solution, like all lego. The idea is that you can build ANYTHING, and have it do anything. Look at lego's website to see what people have built. Using the camera in mindstorms to build a robotic rubik's cube solver? done. The product allows kids to take their imaginations and transform them into real working systems. Most educational toys today are pre-defined in their scope and purpose. Mindstorms wasn't.
I'd think it may have inspired by the way that our children play today versus how they played twenty years ago.
Actually, the main point of the lego mindstorms was to change the way kids learned... to make learning and playing the same.
The prototype for the mindstorms toy was built at the MIT media lab by roboticist Fred Martin. (who teaches at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell at a budding robotics lab). Fred really wanted to know about how to use computing to educate kids, and lego offered a sum of money to the media lab in order to foster a new type of marketable toy that had "engaging computing" potential. So he built a lego brick with a computer inside, which was the base of the toy.
Interesting enough, Fred Martin also built the handyboard, which is a great way to get into amateur robotics. As shameless self-promotion, the work I did in Fred Martin's class can be found here.
Yeah, dogs don't vote. Neither do cows, which is why we eat them.
Animals are property. Cruelty to animals doesn't apply in beasts of burden, animals raised for food, animals used to test drugs, or animals used to save military lives. Cruelty only applies to animals kept as pets.
Lately there's been a movement to classify humans as pet 'guardians' in order to give pets a greater status with regard to the law. I think thats wrong. Humans are sentient creatures, with a rational faculty, born with inalienable rights. Animals are not.
Most people don't have a free will. They think
they have but they don't.
So, then, if most people do not have free will, then you imply that some do, some don't. and therefore some people by nature of their birth are inherently better than others. You imply that all men are not created equal.
off topic.
No point in having violent videogames either. As a matter of fact, how about I just determine what's absolutely necessary, and whats not, and hold you to it. Without your say.
oh wait, that might be totalitarianism.
I think it can be considered an interesting post. I think he meant, "Why is it safe for emergency vehicles and not for the rest of us?"... technologies only allowed by the government is kinda scary... He raises a valid point, even if he didn't RTFA
I tried to find the incident you mentioned, but could not. I do know of the Shah's speech at Harvard. I do know that the Shah helped modernize Iran. I do know that the Ayatollah murdered Americans and has not taken steps to prevent terrorism in its own country. I know that the Iranians will never be a major player on the world stage because of the militant religious attitude of the Ayatollah. To say that because the Shah may have been worse hardly forgives the Ayatollah. Every man and woman deserves, as part of being a human, basic rights and freedoms. Tell me the current regime affords those freedoms, and I will gladly withdraw my criticism. however, if this is not the case, then I stand by my claim.
I don't know why this was modded funny, to be honest. The people of Iran don't exactly have it so great. Ever since the revolution and the ayatollahs, its been rough riding for those not in line with the government.
Theocracies are not healthy governments. Iranian students have protested several times on large scales, and government thugs have repressed them continuously.
I think free software is great, especially since repressive regimes tend to have bad economies, and therefore free software means victims of that regime can possibly more easliy afford computer access, and therefore, have access to ideas not blocked by traditional media.
I had made my comment because while its a good thing that free software makes it to that part of the world, its a bad thing that they still live under a government that restricts basic freedom.
and yes, I'm from the USA. and no, I wasn't making reference to our current president.
... but the people of Iran, that might be another thing entirely.
I disagree with your assesment. I doubt any committee or any government regulators will do anything to 'level the playing field.'
Any time a company needs the government to rule a certain way to profit, that company doesn't have a sound business model.
Software is something between customers and consumers. governments may lend a hand in this case, but why does one company, like Mandrakesoft, deserve a government's help, and another company, say, microsoft, deserve a government's crippling legal action?
The only 'fair' or 'level' playing field is one in where companies develop a product, and customers buy one. I don't trust government meddling in software, or the internet, or any other issue... at least with a company, I can buy or not buy.... or, as linus did, write my own.
I also disagree with 'mandrake delivering on the financials'. I like mandrake, I bought my copy of 7.2 a few years back. made a nice webserver and taught me a lot. But it isn't in good times financially. While they may post a profit, they haven't proven that their customer base will expand.
personally, I believe that linux has to start approaching small computer resellers / vendors and get itself on those PCs. Charge 1/10th the license fee, offer the complete software package (os, office suite, art tools, etc) and get your product out there.
See, I agree with you on one point, and take issue on another. Because the government refuses to fund a technology doesn't make it illegal. The governments refusal to fund nanotechnology simply means that private companies will have to foot their own research bill. IBM and others who really see a promise in nanotechnology will make their own breakthroughs without the restrictions and limitations of federal money.
Whats happening with cloning and stem cells, on the other hand, is fucking abhorrent. Basically the governments of the world are trying to make a specific type of scientific research illegal. No matter what money you come up with, you can't do it. Arrested for thinking... that hasn't happened on such an important scale since Socrates was convicted of his crimes.
A supporter of open standards, Ellison does not like the cacophony of enterprise-scale products offered to the companies. "If Detroit ran like Silicon Valley, nobody would sell cars -- just parts", he proclaims. "Customers would have to figure out which were the best parts -- a Honda engine, a Ford transmission, a BMW chassis, GM electrical system -- and buy them and try to assemble them into a working car. Good luck. I know it sounds crazy, but that's how companies put together business systems today".
Yeah, and when you try and package the entire car, you get sued for product integration, like IE being built into Windows.
Nothing is sealed, my friend. Water is simply Hydrogen, which a large amount of the universe is made of, and oxygen. We can manufacture it in space or on the moon itself.
*sigh*
The reason that Saddam and Kim Jong Il and the like are being told they cannot develop certain weapons is not because of the weapons themselves, but their status as a nation.
Certain nations have forfeit their rights to exist when they commit acts against humanity. Invading Kuwait was universally ruled as such an act. The UN then demanded that certain things take place in retribution. They were no longer allowed to have certain weapons, etc.
That is why India and Pakistan developed nukes without being invaded. We economically sanctioned them, but they hadn't violated such laws as to have their status as a legitimate nation effectively revoked by the UN. Therefore we had no right to invade those nation. That is why n. korea hasn't been invaded.
But Iraq is different. They proved their unstable-ness and general malaise towards the concept of human rights. it was brought before the UN, voted on, and agreed.
You may not agree with US policy, but the US has not committed any acts as such for a very long time. (at least since the inception of the UN). The US has one of the best human rights records, despite the trolls that will ensue. Therefore we have weapons and weapons research, because we have no intention of using them offensively.
The sad thing is, the science teacher was absolutely right.
Uranium, pound for pound, will give you more energy in a nuclear reaction than almost any other substance will give you through combustion. The reason why the Atomic Age never really happened is two-fold: Political and Economic.
Political, because people are scared of nuclear energy. They get scared when a proposal for nuclear power comes to town. Never mind that coal, oil and natural gas power facilities have killed 10 to 100 times the people that nuclear power plants would ever kill. People don't protest coal plants the same way, they don't know the 'coal' symbol like they know the nuclear fallout symbol. There are no 'coal' weapons that obliterate people.
Economic, because nuclear energy became incredibly regulated. There hasn't been a new nuclear plant since TMI, (three mile island) since the cost of building and maintaining one is absurbly expensive. Now, I'm not saying nuclear plants shouldn't be regulated, but perhaps the regulation should be reviewed to make it economically feasible.
Electricity and batter power , not combustion, will be the method of auto transport in the future. and the only way that becomes cheap is to make electricity dirt cheap. the only way to do that is atomic energy.
*sigh* Hijacked election. Thats all anyone can ever say.
There is a law in Florida. The law says that ex-felons cannot vote. This law was in place before the 2000 election.
No one challenged the law prior. Nor would it matter. ex-felons are the least likely group to vote regardless. out of 57,000 felons, would even 10 percent vote? I doubt it, since only 33% of Americans vote. I'd expect maybe 3% would vote, if that. whats that, 1500 votes? not enough to turn the election after the military votes and absentee votes were counted. Which, by the way, were motioned to be discounted by the Gore legal team. Now , its one thing to make a law prior to any election, but its another to change the rules after the fact. Anyone could have challenged that law in supreme courts. No one did.
stop spewing FUD. the rules were laid out prior to that election.
As I cannot let your accusations stand unaddressed , I will address each to the best of my knowledge.
Branch Dividians were murdered by the gov.
The Branch Davidians were not exactly law abiding citizens. They illegally stockpiled weapons without a license (weapons which, in most nations outside the US, are illegal), and treated children in a questionable if not outright illegal manner (from what was stated in subsequent reports, the leader of the davidians took preteen girls as 'wives' and he had sexual intercourse with them). When the authorities went to address those claims, the Davidians refused to cease and desist. they were killed because they took arms against the government, which sought a trial against them. the government did what it was supposed to do.
The US has the highest youth* exicution rate
If a youth is someone under 18, then you're probably right. Although, I don't know any specifics, people tried as adults, assumed to be in the proper mental state at the time of their crime, can be executed. Most crimes bearing death as a penalty are murder of children, murder of a peace officer, murder of multiple victims. Premeditated assault of one individual by another deserves the punishment of death. You may disagree, but I'd hardly call the US approach capricious.
The US has had death marches, genocide, and death squads** I don't know what specifics you allude to, but certainly not this century, which is my major point. 200 years ago almost all governments had the above. every nation save for a few has abandoned these. China CONTINUES HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES. The abuses you claim have been apologized, attempted to be reconciled, and rebuked. We cannot travel back in time to change these things, but we can stop todays. and today, china is in a sorry state, and the US is in a grand state, one of the freest nations on the earth.
The people of the US did not vote to go to the moon, but the gov went anyway.
No, we elect officials, who act in our stead. Hence our republic. The Chinese 'republic' is hardly legitimate. there is no constitution that outlines the rights on men. We don't vote on every single issue. we vote for policy makers.
I disagree with your characterization.
We allow convicts who have served their time to vote, they just can't vote while incarcerated.
We haven't detained those in camp x-ray for religious beliefs. If that were the case, we wouldn't allow religious chaplains to visit them and counsel them. Those people are detained from Afghanistan as combatants in a war, which was authorized by the U.N., no less. The more we can learn from them about worldwide terrorist cells as well as who the remaining leaders are in Afghanistan, the safer the world is.
As far as the DMCA, I may not agree with all tenets, but I believe in copyright. Either you do or you don't believe in the concept of ideas having ownership for a specific amount of time. You can take issue with that concept, but by no means can you call the DMCA a tyranny for tyranny's sake. it is there to protect a concept that the United States supports, and that is copyright.
While I loathe to respond to the nation bashing that weaves this thread, I think that there is a valid reason to speak against China. I think that China's policy towards human rights is horrible. From Tianamen Square to Falun Gong oppression (and no, I don't believe in religion, but I believe you should be able to practice,) China has abused its citizens. And I think history had proved that the communist governments tend to act this way. So when a rocket is built by a nation paid for by the taxes of citizens, who never got to vote for the people who decided the rocket should be built... It is hideous. It is very hard to be celebratory.
No, the US isn't perfect. But we don't arrest people for their religion, we allow people to vote, we honor personal achievement, science, etc etc etc. When we went to the moon in 1969, there were ticker tape parades, spontaneous celebration... heck , people camped out in Florida to see the launch. In china there might be state sponsored/forced events, but I doubt you'll see anything like what happened in the US
Do you believe the chinese are as enthusiastic? do you know why?
I love science, achievement, technology... but what good are all those if we don't have the freedom needed to create and use those things?