Depending on whether you consider the surrounding areas "London", the metropolitan at the time was served by more than just two water companies. The data compiled by Snow himself lists several.
Yes, most people at the time still thought "contaminated vapors" were involved. But I don't think it is fair to chalk up the chilly reception of Snow's idea to any fault of Snow. The scientific vigor of Snow's statistical study was largely undervalued by the people of the time. In his defense, Snow's study was "On the Mode of Communication of Cholera" not on the cause of cholera itself. In this goal, it is hard to argue Snow was not successful. When you are aware of *how* a disease spreads, the nature of the disease is largely irrelevent in any effort to contain an epidemic.
The point I wanted to make is, a single managing entity has much more freedom to act decisively. Let's say during snow's time, one or more of the water companies heeded Snow and actually took steps to halt the spread of cholera from their own pipes. The disease would still be spread in the city by those company(s) which chose to do nothing.
Today's Internet, by it's very nature, is fractionaly owned and maintained. But if residential access was centraly managed like a utility, it would exist as a public service for a municipal resident rather than a means for a private business to generate profit. The level of responsiblity would demand that accessibility and service approach the standards of water or gas or electricity providers.
Over the years, as Internet use has become ubiquidous, I have the erie sense of deja vu as I recall learing about how, in 1800's, the city of London was supplied by several different private water utilities. In 1849, Dr. John Snow published a landmark theory that implicated contaminated water supplies as the source of frequent cholera outbreaks. In hindsight, we can say the reason London (as well as other metro areas of the world at the time) was ravaged by epidemics like this has as much do to with the lack of public oversight over a public consumable as with medical/sanitation ignorance. To return to the subject at hand, how many problems would we solve by turning internet access into a public utility? I suppose some would chaf at such a thing out of concerns for privacy or freedom. But wouldn't it be great if *all* spammers and other net abusers are hit with penalties and fines as they would be if municipal laws are violated?
Reading this article reminds me of the first time I learned about Chimeras. NPR once had a segment about a woman whose flesh, bones, and blood was made up of genetically heterogeneus tissue. Admittedly, this was not an interspecies thing, but this apearantly was an all natural (albit rare) occurence.
I remember thinking a the time what if something like the reverse happens, where one single egg splits in 2 and is fertilized by two different sperms. Would the resulting twins, sharing half their maternally inherited genes but not the father's, be viable? You could end up with a pair of siblings that are not quit identical, but not quit fraternal either. What would it be like to have a sibling of the oposite sex which has half your chromosomes but not the same sex organs???
Ya know, this was widely speculated for a time. But even with conformation by the original manga artist, there hasn't been much of a splash splash. There has been rumors of a Gunnm movie for years. The regulars at alt.comics.gunnm are so jaded by this kind of news now everyone is taking a what-else-is-new attitude. Some worry that Gunnm will be dumbed down and americanized by Cameron's hands. But even though there is some trepidation, it's not quite as adverse a reaction as the announcement of the live action Evangelion movie.
Dude! *I* am not the webmaster of said site! But I'll gladly tell you what appreciation *I* have for the guy's effort. I chose to link this particular sight because it was more visual than many of the other fan sites that are on the web. (As least it would have been if it was maintained as well as it was in the past.) I thought it might give/.ers a chance to compare and contrast thed "look" of the characters and settings of Gunnm (aka "Battle Angel" or "Battle Angel Alita" and "Dark Angel".
For a little more substantiave treatment of the Manga, go here .
But before I go any further, let me say that I think I've been misunderstood. I spoke in jest of Mr. Cameron. "Dark Angel" had it's own appeal (Anyone who doesn't think Jessica Alba is a cutie has no balls.), but it is easy to poke fun of it when compared to Gunnm. For example, DA and BA both take place in a futuristic version of the United States. But whereas DA seems to be in the not too distant future when everything is more or less recognizable to people of today, BA has an alien, otherworldly feel that I think is much more sci fi. As such, the plot and theme of BA is more focused on basic ideas that are more universally identified - things like what it means to be human, what one is willing to fight for. DA on the other hand is wrapped up in pop culture baggage that will only be recognizable to someone with a late 20th century upbringing weaned on the likes of Cameron's previous cinamatic bash-fests.
Despite Cameron's reputation for glorious action, the stunts and effects on DA are mediocre at best. I liked BA because beyond the violence and gore (often creative at times) that gives it edge, there are tender introspective mements in the plot that dramatically extends the characters multidemensionally. Cameron had a chance to do the same in DA series but it isn't executed as well.
But enough raving from a fanboy. Check out Gunnm for yourself if you are interested and do your own comparison.
You think the Ohio govt. ordered the guardsman to fire? The national guard didn't do a very good job, 'cause they only got four of them with their 60 bullets. Obviously it's impossible to know anything, but the likelihood of this is tiny, and not worth arguing. Tiananmen and Kent are not similar incidents.
I respectfully disagree. While it *is* pointless to argue how many students the guards killed. The motivation and consequences of the shooting is not trivial. The Ohio Govt. may not have ordered the guards to shoot, but their complacence in the aftermath of the event is equally reprehensible. Regardless of whether it was an accident or not, why was no one brought to justice for the death of four students? did those guardsmen get away with murder?
Exactly. Beijing felt their power was threatened, and the power was shifting to its people, so they killed them.
There *WAS NO* power shift to the people. The protesters at Tiananmen was a semi-organized mob. What little leadership existed was running the protest. If the student leaders had made any effort to develope a plan to *replace* the government, then your comments would make sense. But if you check the documented history, most of the activities were geared toward petitioning the government to reform and evolve. As it was, the leaders in Beijing was the recognized as the legitimate power holders and expected to act as such. This doesn't mean the students got what they deserved. But perhaps they should have anticipated and avoided confrontation.
You then try to draw parallells to this kind of action and executing murderers. Executing murderers is a way to keep the citizenry safe, but it doesn't protect politician's political power. You should stop trying to draw relationships where they are completely different things.
You have grossly misunderstood my comments. At no point do I mention murderers. I was talking about individuals convicted of crimes under the US legal system. Surely you are not so naive to believe the US judicial system is flawless? It is a fact that innocent people are freed from
wrongful convictions on a regular basis. These folks have had their human rights violated. Who knows how many more there are still languishing in jail needlessly?
I don't hate Chinese people...
I don't doubt that, but I didn't say "chinese-haters", there is a distinction between China-the country and Chinese-it's people. By the way, would you care to provide documentation on that lawn thingie? So far as I know, Lawns as a landscape ornament has never been a thing in China, at least not near institutions of incarceration. In rural areas like where I lived, however, wild grass are often cut by hand for farming and livestock.
I'm not going to hold my breath. It has been several thousands of years.
huh???? what are you smoking?
Anecdotally....
If hearsay and propaganda are all that you're aware of your comments are not going to be very credible. It truly is a pitty so few Americans know the acurate history of modern China which so many has painted as an adversary. There is no "lopsided power of the state for thousands of years." The China of antiquity ended in 1911 when the Nationalist party set up a republican government to administer the country. They failed however due to corruption and lack of leadership. China had already been weaken by rampant colonialism by European (and American) imperialism, they just could not muster the needed resource or motivation to set things right. Most of the population, which was rural, had fallen on hard times without strong national leadership to repel deeply entrenched foreign agression. Not only did the Nationalists fail to return the country to the Chinese, the Japanese Invasion of Manchuria happened around this time. It was at this time Mao Zedong and the Communists began organizing the rural peasants and gave them what no previous government had given them: leadership and direction. After generations of foreign domination and
Yeah, we learned about Kent State in college, and my reaction to it is the same. Tragically, a guardsmen lost his cool and accidentally or otherwise pulled his trigger, which caused a short lived panic among other guardsman. I don't think the Kent State guardsmen had the government's permission to kill the Kent state protesters. That's the sense I'm talking about.
Based on the description of events at wikipedia, I'm not as inclined to think it was such an accident. The students who were killed or wounded were too far away to pose as a physical threat to the troopers who shot them, so self defense goes out the window. Additionally, I quote: "....the Guardsmen suddenly turned on the crowd and fired a 13-second fusillade of between 61 and 67 shots......Only one of the four students killed was participating in the protest... This most certainly does not describe an accident stemming from a missunderstanding. 13 seconds are a long time, 60 some-odd shots are a lot of bullets. The Guardsmen were sent onto campus by the government. They performed their duties with what seems like deliberate purpose. I can't speculate on the exact orders they were given, but I found it odd that no mention was made of disciplinary actions taken against Guardsmen who violated any orders to *not* shoot the students. Other sources reveal that there had been one hearing and an additional trial where the Guardsmen were cleared of responsibility for the shooting. So on the surface, it seems due process was observed and a legal resolution was carried out. Think what you will, but this seems no better than the sham trials China puts it's political disidents through to give the sembalence of justice.
This sounds strange and racist to me. Do you mean I can't point out that a bunch of my fellow human beings were killed by the brutal Chinese government because they are Chinese, or even more strangely, because they are somehow owned by the Chinese government?
Yes, it is very strange that you should think that. No government owns their citizens, Certainly not the Chinese. I don't recall saying only the Chinese have skeletons in their closets. Every nation, every government has done things they are not proud of. One could just as well talk about the "brutal" US invasion of the sovereign country of Vietnam, or the "unjust" oppression of the Afgans in the 80's by the Soviets army. Were these events racially motivated? hardly. They were responses to percieved geo-political instability. To avoid loosing focus on the subject, I think we need to understand the actions of the Chinese Government as responding to percieved domestic instability. Beijing was in a state of emergency. Martial Law was declared. Thousands of people died, but it wasn't random, wanton killing. The soldiers who carried out the attacks in Tiananmen Square were not psychotic bloodthirsty berserkers. They were diciplined military personel charged with a task and carrying out their orders to the extent which were necessary. (In this sense, they weren't too different from the Guardsmen at Kent state.) I know it doesn't make it excusable, but it compels us to accept the fact a deliberate series of events occured which lead to certain deliberate decisions and the events which percipitated. The question is: How were those decision made and why? Not in the context of an American who is used to living with the legacy of a North American New World socio-historic heritage but in the context of a group of leaders saddled with the baggage of China's modern 20th century history.
First, I think you are confused about the topic. You keep trying to convince people that China's human rights record is somehow similar to the US's. In debating against you, I use the good practice of actually bringing up concrete examples rather than making airy abstract reasoning.
Which topic am I confusing? You're partially right here. I do believe that by virtue
Come on. All the guy is saying that there is a big difference between the theoretical (some might say imagined) consequences of the patriot act and the actual effects.
I appreciate the spirit of your argument, but I'd like you to consider the thought that percieved threat no matter how imaginary can be dangerous also. People who are scared do irrational things with much less reservation. Our nation allowed Senator Joseph McCarthy's communist witch hunt to ruin countless lives of honest to goodness American citizens during the height of the red scare. More recently, how many/.ers can forget the events which percipitated "Tales from the Hellmouth"? It's embarassing, but yeah...we still live in that society of fear and ethno/cultural-centricity.
Now, do you think in China such a law could exist for a long time?
Now, THAT is an interesting question. It is exactly the kind of thinking we should be doing. Rather than making self serving comments like "China is so screwed up. We are so much better.", wondering "What if..." opens up endless possibilities. If for no other reason, it lets one think about the situation. Then maybe we would be motivated to actually learn and find out for ourselves what the system is really like in China instead of relying on hearsay and gossip.
Do you think that the US government could get away with mowing down and killing US citizens like they did the students in Tiananmen square?
To answer your question in the strictest sense, yes. I refer you to the shooting at Kent State. . The sad thing is other than the scale of the tragedy, the circumstances are almost identical. Students criticize government with demonstration. Students are killed or injured by federal troops. I am not a China apologist. I don't condone what happened in '89. But it angers me when people use tragedies like this to win political arguement. Dragging out the skeletons in other people's closets to incite negative feelings might give the incitor some sense of power, but it is ultimately useless in solving the real problem. So I ask again: How did China get like this? Where is it going? Is there anything others (read: we) can do to move it along in the right direction? Perhaps most significantly: What does China teach us about ourselves? How are we different? Similar?
Grandparent has watched too much TV and movies about corrupt public officials who appearantly infest the US govn't and legal system. Can't blame him. Our entertainment industry does a banged up job of serving as cultural ambassador to the rest of the world. I remember reading about an american police commissioner who was hired as a consultant to Chinese law enforcement. The first thing he did was to make them watch "Dirty Harry".
You know them? They are friends of yours? Or are they people you know about that have been imprisoned? I was asking if you personally knew of anyone.
Why should that matter? Are you suggesting only the people you know personally deserve to be protected?
Why do you diminish the pain and lack of freedom that the people in China have to live under just to try and make yourself a marter?
I don't know how much either of you really know much about China. But I seriously doubt you know much about "pain and lack of freedom" in the daily lives of people whose culture and lifestyle are not necesarily the same as yours. It is pretty arrogant of Americans to always act on the assumption their way is the only way. I'm not trying to trivialize the reality that problems do exist in China. But the kind of uninformed and inflammatory rhetoric that emerges on Slashdot time and time again is a futile solution. Get a clue people, the world is full of things you don't know and may not understand. But you make life very miserable for yourself if you recoil in fear and distain everytime you're confronted with something that makes you uncomfortable. I've always thought intelligent people have a natural sense of natural curiosity. How has China managed to steer toward capitalism while avoiding democracy so sucessfully? Doesn't anyone wonder just how far you can go in the Chinese system before you turn head?
Well, in fact, in the 1800s in the U.S., most newspapers explicitly stated their bias on the front page. We still have remnants of that era; one of my town's local papers is the "Republican", for example (in an area which has usually voted strongly Republican).
Perhaps your neck of America still retain old world charms, but I seriously doubt it can be considered the pulse of the country. Names, in and of themselves, don't always have much meaning behind them. For example, the "Christian Science Monitor" is an extremely well respected secular newspaper which, since it's birth, has had no relations with the religous institution that is it's namesake.
But all sources of media are biased; it does not matter which source you cite, for they have a bias (the NYTimes and SFGate are liberal, the WSJ and Chicago Tribune are conservative, Reason and The Economist magazine tend to be libertarian, and so forth).
I don't believe I ever said the media is *not* biased. My point was that political agendas are not the primary motivations for news professionals. They may lean one way or another, but they all adhere to journalistic ethics to some degree. You may not be able to trust them completely, But they are also not raving propagandist. The good ones make exceptional efforts to present balanced coverage/reporting. For example, the "Philadelphia Inquirer" publicly endorses Kerry, but over 21 days, the Repubicans were granted a matching voice in the form of an opposing column to address specific issues as if in a formal debate. To get the discussion back on track, my belief is that this kind of strive for balance is the kind of thing we should hold most news outlets responsible for. Perhaps I'm missing your point, but by emphatically stressing the bias present in our media, you seem to strongly condone it despite professing dislike for dishonesty. The reason I mentioned the media at all in the original post was stress the point that the american society is not the supreme beacon of democratic process from which China can be criticized. The news media plays a significant hand in stifling the free expression of ideas and information. You seem to acknowledge the shortcomings of the media by presenting skewed information in terms of bias in reporting, so I'm no longer sure what our disagreement is.
Just because he has a bone to pick w/ the Chinese govn't does not mean he is wrong.
Still, if (for some reason) you cannot believe CNN's quoting of a Chinese guy with an anti-China bias, you can try the BSR.
Or Freechina.net.
Or Thefreedictionary.com.
Now, about Harry Wu, is it appropriate to characterize him as being right or wrong? Remember, CNN is presenting his comments as OPINION. Opinions are not right or wrong - you either agree or disagree. As with anyone with an agenda, he exagerates what he can show and conveniently ignores what he doesn't want you to know. However, Harry made a few fatal mistakes in presenting "facts" that are easily debunked. As the rebuttal to his piece reveal, film footage of alleged organ harvest from condemed criminals showed the surgical opening on the wrong part of the body. He lied. and *THAT* is why I can't trust him. The other sources you cite, I can not deconstruct with the same detail, but it is obvious they all have specific purpose and present a highly skewed and misleading charicterization of China. For you to look at China and see only a human rights problem is like looking at the United States and see only drug addicts, hookers, and christian fundamentalists. It is xenophobic and it is wrong.
China may not be a beacon of human rights, but with the Patriot Act now backed by an even more republican federal government, neither are we. So it's time we got of our high horse and stop harassing China for problems we are no better at eradicating ourselves.
It seems I've misscommunicated. Your knowledge of economics is impressive, but I don't see what relevence it has to a discussion about the political nature of policy and regulation regarding Internet access. My appearantly ineffectual reference to the current presidential election was an attempt to illustrate the rediculous relationship you draw between socialism and totalitarianism. China may still be economically socialist to some degree, but it is hardly politically totalitarian in the mold of Stalinistic Russia. In China, even at it's worst during the Mao era, there weren't much of a thing comparable to the Soviet secret police. In fact, the worst excesses of the cultural revolution was carried out in the gory glory of public spectacles.
The point I wanted to make was supposed to be that political information in the US is heavily filtered. As it happens, such is also the case in China. In other words, they're not that much worse off than we are in regards to freedoms and choices. Just as democracy doesn't prevail in it's purest form here in the US, control in China is not as rigid as you believe. *How much* worse off they are we would likely disagree. I'm intrigued actually and would welcome that discussion.
Now, your comments about journalism and reporters I find truly perplexing. While your perspective on bias carries some element of truth, I seriously doubt a self-respecting journalism professional would condone or support such a perspective. Because beyond a certain threshold, the media consuming public wouldn't stand for it. No one enjoy being swindled, lied to, or otherwise tricked with half truths and exagerations. The fact it is sometimes tolerated does not mean it should be emulated or promoted. I'm fairly confident most in this profession aspire to a grander ideal and only bends to the extent necessary to apease advertisers and sponsors.
I'd also like to address the source you cite for forced prison labor. While the article resides under the prestigious banner of CNN, it should be emphasized the piece is presented as an OPINION. Harry Wu, the author, is a social activist of significant notoriety and as such, can not make much claims to journalistic integrity. In the body of the article, he fails to mention that he has been incarcerated via the LaoGai system and has a bone to pick with the Chinese regime. To take him seriously as a proper reporter presenting reliable information would be like asking SCO to arbitrate a dispute between Microsoft and Linux. For what it's worth, the article itself links to a counterpoint that disects Wu's assertions point by point.
Your response to the charge of hypocrisy doesn't make much sense. The nature of the criticism levied against the Chinese is based on a relative comparison between the two systems. If the US turns out not to be what it is cracked up to be, what does that say about the subject of comparison? You can not make a good case against China without declaring where you're coming from. To use your job interview analogy, The project of my employer is emphatically relevent to my own past project because it would likely have a direct relationship with my reason for interviewing for the job in the first place.
point taken. I'd be the first to call out the outrageous excesses exemplified by the Cultural Revolution. It wasn't thousands, but millions that died following the famine caused the the Cultural Revolution. Before that, one of my grandfather died in a Communist prison for no greater crime than being a doctor at a Nationalist military hospital prior to the "liberation". It was wrong and it was inexcusable. My comments are, however, in the current context of this slashdot discussion. I think we both recognize there are clueless xenophobes here posting thoughts and ideas out of their asses. I feel compelled to return some balance to what is amounting to an unchecked China-bashing by people who don't know any better. I believe a genuinely curious individual should have the chance to be exposed to a broader, more complex landscape. Sure, despite my references, I'll confess my post is more opinion than fact. But I'm not forcing anyone to internalize what I had to say. It is one voice among many, one piece of a greater whole. Sure there are other pieces, others are calling attention to them without my help. There are no shortage of posts casting China in the worst possible light with the most rediculous claims. In contrast, there are scant voices who seem to want to say anything truly thought provoking. I say what I say not nececerily because I believe in them personally, but because I believe it needs to be said.
I will not compel you to respond, but my curiosity has got the better of me. Since you have such a bad opinion of more or less everything, what keeps you getting up in the morning? It is hard to imagine how an arrogant elitist find contentment when *everything* is unworthy.
I'm not sure why you are apologizing. Perhaps for being willfully ignorant and narrowminded? Perhaps for being an atrociously bad speller? No matter. Honestly, I feel a little sorry for you too. You should travel a bit and see the world for what it really is rather than what you fantasize.
I take it you know little about the chinese leadership. luckily a few clicks can remedy that. As you can see, the lot of them actually do have an education very much based in reality. Which is more than I can say for the current leadership of the US. Now, do you *really* want to talk about insanity? or do you still profess to be unconfused?
hear,hear!
mode parent up.
One of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson once said something to the effect, "before there can be universal democracy, there must be universal enlightenment." Even in a relatively open society like the US, enlightenment is a hard goal to achieve. The great thing China has going for it is Rock Solid stability. Each society has learned valuble lessons from it's own past, and for China one of those lessons is chaos like the Cultural Revolution is Not A Good Thing. There is no question that China will politically mature at some point, but on it's own terms in keeping with it's own abilities.
Most people tend to forget China was a failed representative republic before the Communists prevailed in the civil war. Simply put, the communists won because they were better for the country than the old regime had been. In many ways, it still is. Just look at the state of affairs of the reminents of the defeated Nationalists as recently as nine years ago. Debacles like this has even won them a place in the Ig Nobel prizes. More recently, the sordid details of the Chu Mei Fung political sex scandal are fresh in people's mind (as well as a lot of hard drives). All things considering, the chinese communist government have done alright for such a huge nation.
no one will object to your right to have an opinion, but you would be a lot more credible if you were to clean up your own act before you criticize someone else. So far, we Americans haven't given the rest of the world much more of a reason to respect us.
Don't take anything China says at face value. This is not a free country we're talking about here. They release only that information which makes them look good to other countries, and if they haven't got any suitable information to release, they will make something up.
It may come as a suprise to most/.ers that the last two generations of Chinese leaders have technical backgrounds and worked their way up from being engineers. Folks, these aren't the ignorant peasant warriors feared and hated by your brainwashed parents. This "small party of old men" are a lot more in touch with the real world than the current ocuppant of the White House. To be frank, I would feel much more comfortable if, as an American, our own leadership was staffed with less politicians full of hot air and more technology professionals who knows how to manage resources and weigh trade-offs.
Slashdot Mirror
Depending on whether you consider the surrounding areas "London", the metropolitan at the time was served by more than just two water companies. The data compiled by Snow himself lists several.
Yes, most people at the time still thought "contaminated vapors" were involved. But I don't think it is fair to chalk up the chilly reception of Snow's idea to any fault of Snow. The scientific vigor of Snow's statistical study was largely undervalued by the people of the time. In his defense, Snow's study was "On the Mode of Communication of Cholera" not on the cause of cholera itself. In this goal, it is hard to argue Snow was not successful. When you are aware of *how* a disease spreads, the nature of the disease is largely irrelevent in any effort to contain an epidemic.
The point I wanted to make is, a single managing entity has much more freedom to act decisively. Let's say during snow's time, one or more of the water companies heeded Snow and actually took steps to halt the spread of cholera from their own pipes. The disease would still be spread in the city by those company(s) which chose to do nothing.
Today's Internet, by it's very nature, is fractionaly owned and maintained. But if residential access was centraly managed like a utility, it would exist as a public service for a municipal resident rather than a means for a private business to generate profit. The level of responsiblity would demand that accessibility and service approach the standards of water or gas or electricity providers.
Over the years, as Internet use has become ubiquidous, I have the erie sense of deja vu as I recall learing about how, in 1800's, the city of London was supplied by several different private water utilities. In 1849, Dr. John Snow published a landmark theory that implicated contaminated water supplies as the source of frequent cholera outbreaks. In hindsight, we can say the reason London (as well as other metro areas of the world at the time) was ravaged by epidemics like this has as much do to with the lack of public oversight over a public consumable as with medical/sanitation ignorance. To return to the subject at hand, how many problems would we solve by turning internet access into a public utility? I suppose some would chaf at such a thing out of concerns for privacy or freedom. But wouldn't it be great if *all* spammers and other net abusers are hit with penalties and fines as they would be if municipal laws are violated?
I remember thinking a the time what if something like the reverse happens, where one single egg splits in 2 and is fertilized by two different sperms. Would the resulting twins, sharing half their maternally inherited genes but not the father's, be viable? You could end up with a pair of siblings that are not quit identical, but not quit fraternal either. What would it be like to have a sibling of the oposite sex which has half your chromosomes but not the same sex organs???
Ya know, this was widely speculated for a time. But even with conformation by the original manga artist, there hasn't been much of a splash splash. There has been rumors of a Gunnm movie for years. The regulars at alt.comics.gunnm are so jaded by this kind of news now everyone is taking a what-else-is-new attitude. Some worry that Gunnm will be dumbed down and americanized by Cameron's hands. But even though there is some trepidation, it's not quite as adverse a reaction as the announcement of the live action Evangelion movie.
But before I go any further, let me say that I think I've been misunderstood. I spoke in jest of Mr. Cameron. "Dark Angel" had it's own appeal (Anyone who doesn't think Jessica Alba is a cutie has no balls.), but it is easy to poke fun of it when compared to Gunnm. For example, DA and BA both take place in a futuristic version of the United States. But whereas DA seems to be in the not too distant future when everything is more or less recognizable to people of today, BA has an alien, otherworldly feel that I think is much more sci fi. As such, the plot and theme of BA is more focused on basic ideas that are more universally identified - things like what it means to be human, what one is willing to fight for. DA on the other hand is wrapped up in pop culture baggage that will only be recognizable to someone with a late 20th century upbringing weaned on the likes of Cameron's previous cinamatic bash-fests.
Despite Cameron's reputation for glorious action, the stunts and effects on DA are mediocre at best. I liked BA because beyond the violence and gore (often creative at times) that gives it edge, there are tender introspective mements in the plot that dramatically extends the characters multidemensionally. Cameron had a chance to do the same in DA series but it isn't executed as well.
But enough raving from a fanboy. Check out Gunnm for yourself if you are interested and do your own comparison.Because the man is a plagerizing hack who's work can never compare to the original
I respectfully disagree. While it *is* pointless to argue how many students the guards killed. The motivation and consequences of the shooting is not trivial. The Ohio Govt. may not have ordered the guards to shoot, but their complacence in the aftermath of the event is equally reprehensible. Regardless of whether it was an accident or not, why was no one brought to justice for the death of four students? did those guardsmen get away with murder?
Exactly. Beijing felt their power was threatened, and the power was shifting to its people, so they killed them.
There *WAS NO* power shift to the people. The protesters at Tiananmen was a semi-organized mob. What little leadership existed was running the protest. If the student leaders had made any effort to develope a plan to *replace* the government, then your comments would make sense. But if you check the documented history, most of the activities were geared toward petitioning the government to reform and evolve. As it was, the leaders in Beijing was the recognized as the legitimate power holders and expected to act as such. This doesn't mean the students got what they deserved. But perhaps they should have anticipated and avoided confrontation.
You then try to draw parallells to this kind of action and executing murderers. Executing murderers is a way to keep the citizenry safe, but it doesn't protect politician's political power. You should stop trying to draw relationships where they are completely different things.
You have grossly misunderstood my comments. At no point do I mention murderers. I was talking about individuals convicted of crimes under the US legal system. Surely you are not so naive to believe the US judicial system is flawless? It is a fact that innocent people are freed from wrongful convictions on a regular basis. These folks have had their human rights violated. Who knows how many more there are still languishing in jail needlessly?
I don't hate Chinese people...
I don't doubt that, but I didn't say "chinese-haters", there is a distinction between China-the country and Chinese-it's people. By the way, would you care to provide documentation on that lawn thingie? So far as I know, Lawns as a landscape ornament has never been a thing in China, at least not near institutions of incarceration. In rural areas like where I lived, however, wild grass are often cut by hand for farming and livestock.
I'm not going to hold my breath. It has been several thousands of years.
huh???? what are you smoking?
Anecdotally....
If hearsay and propaganda are all that you're aware of your comments are not going to be very credible. It truly is a pitty so few Americans know the acurate history of modern China which so many has painted as an adversary. There is no "lopsided power of the state for thousands of years." The China of antiquity ended in 1911 when the Nationalist party set up a republican government to administer the country. They failed however due to corruption and lack of leadership. China had already been weaken by rampant colonialism by European (and American) imperialism, they just could not muster the needed resource or motivation to set things right. Most of the population, which was rural, had fallen on hard times without strong national leadership to repel deeply entrenched foreign agression. Not only did the Nationalists fail to return the country to the Chinese, the Japanese Invasion of Manchuria happened around this time. It was at this time Mao Zedong and the Communists began organizing the rural peasants and gave them what no previous government had given them: leadership and direction. After generations of foreign domination and
Based on the description of events at wikipedia, I'm not as inclined to think it was such an accident. The students who were killed or wounded were too far away to pose as a physical threat to the troopers who shot them, so self defense goes out the window. Additionally, I quote: " ....the Guardsmen suddenly turned on the crowd and fired a 13-second fusillade of between 61 and 67 shots......Only one of the four students killed was participating in the protest... This most certainly does not describe an accident stemming from a missunderstanding. 13 seconds are a long time, 60 some-odd shots are a lot of bullets. The Guardsmen were sent onto campus by the government. They performed their duties with what seems like deliberate purpose. I can't speculate on the exact orders they were given, but I found it odd that no mention was made of disciplinary actions taken against Guardsmen who violated any orders to *not* shoot the students. Other sources reveal that there had been one hearing and an additional trial where the Guardsmen were cleared of responsibility for the shooting. So on the surface, it seems due process was observed and a legal resolution was carried out. Think what you will, but this seems no better than the sham trials China puts it's political disidents through to give the sembalence of justice.
This sounds strange and racist to me. Do you mean I can't point out that a bunch of my fellow human beings were killed by the brutal Chinese government because they are Chinese, or even more strangely, because they are somehow owned by the Chinese government?
Yes, it is very strange that you should think that. No government owns their citizens, Certainly not the Chinese. I don't recall saying only the Chinese have skeletons in their closets. Every nation, every government has done things they are not proud of. One could just as well talk about the "brutal" US invasion of the sovereign country of Vietnam, or the "unjust" oppression of the Afgans in the 80's by the Soviets army. Were these events racially motivated? hardly. They were responses to percieved geo-political instability. To avoid loosing focus on the subject, I think we need to understand the actions of the Chinese Government as responding to percieved domestic instability. Beijing was in a state of emergency. Martial Law was declared. Thousands of people died, but it wasn't random, wanton killing. The soldiers who carried out the attacks in Tiananmen Square were not psychotic bloodthirsty berserkers. They were diciplined military personel charged with a task and carrying out their orders to the extent which were necessary. (In this sense, they weren't too different from the Guardsmen at Kent state.) I know it doesn't make it excusable, but it compels us to accept the fact a deliberate series of events occured which lead to certain deliberate decisions and the events which percipitated. The question is: How were those decision made and why? Not in the context of an American who is used to living with the legacy of a North American New World socio-historic heritage but in the context of a group of leaders saddled with the baggage of China's modern 20th century history.
First, I think you are confused about the topic. You keep trying to convince people that China's human rights record is somehow similar to the US's. In debating against you, I use the good practice of actually bringing up concrete examples rather than making airy abstract reasoning.
Which topic am I confusing? You're partially right here. I do believe that by virtue
I appreciate the spirit of your argument, but I'd like you to consider the thought that percieved threat no matter how imaginary can be dangerous also. People who are scared do irrational things with much less reservation. Our nation allowed Senator Joseph McCarthy's communist witch hunt to ruin countless lives of honest to goodness American citizens during the height of the red scare. More recently, how many /.ers can forget the events which percipitated "Tales from the Hellmouth"? It's embarassing, but yeah...we still live in that society of fear and ethno/cultural-centricity.
Now, do you think in China such a law could exist for a long time?Now, THAT is an interesting question. It is exactly the kind of thinking we should be doing. Rather than making self serving comments like "China is so screwed up. We are so much better.", wondering "What if..." opens up endless possibilities. If for no other reason, it lets one think about the situation. Then maybe we would be motivated to actually learn and find out for ourselves what the system is really like in China instead of relying on hearsay and gossip.
Do you think that the US government could get away with mowing down and killing US citizens like they did the students in Tiananmen square?To answer your question in the strictest sense, yes. I refer you to the shooting at Kent State. . The sad thing is other than the scale of the tragedy, the circumstances are almost identical. Students criticize government with demonstration. Students are killed or injured by federal troops. I am not a China apologist. I don't condone what happened in '89. But it angers me when people use tragedies like this to win political arguement. Dragging out the skeletons in other people's closets to incite negative feelings might give the incitor some sense of power, but it is ultimately useless in solving the real problem. So I ask again: How did China get like this? Where is it going? Is there anything others (read: we) can do to move it along in the right direction? Perhaps most significantly: What does China teach us about ourselves? How are we different? Similar?
Grandparent has watched too much TV and movies about corrupt public officials who appearantly infest the US govn't and legal system. Can't blame him. Our entertainment industry does a banged up job of serving as cultural ambassador to the rest of the world. I remember reading about an american police commissioner who was hired as a consultant to Chinese law enforcement. The first thing he did was to make them watch "Dirty Harry".
Why should that matter? Are you suggesting only the people you know personally deserve to be protected?
Why do you diminish the pain and lack of freedom that the people in China have to live under just to try and make yourself a marter?I don't know how much either of you really know much about China. But I seriously doubt you know much about "pain and lack of freedom" in the daily lives of people whose culture and lifestyle are not necesarily the same as yours. It is pretty arrogant of Americans to always act on the assumption their way is the only way. I'm not trying to trivialize the reality that problems do exist in China. But the kind of uninformed and inflammatory rhetoric that emerges on Slashdot time and time again is a futile solution. Get a clue people, the world is full of things you don't know and may not understand. But you make life very miserable for yourself if you recoil in fear and distain everytime you're confronted with something that makes you uncomfortable. I've always thought intelligent people have a natural sense of natural curiosity. How has China managed to steer toward capitalism while avoiding democracy so sucessfully? Doesn't anyone wonder just how far you can go in the Chinese system before you turn head?
As opposed to the current fashion being to rip on the big bad red commies?
Well, in fact, in the 1800s in the U.S., most newspapers explicitly stated their bias on the front page. We still have remnants of that era; one of my town's local papers is the "Republican", for example (in an area which has usually voted strongly Republican).
Perhaps your neck of America still retain old world charms, but I seriously doubt it can be considered the pulse of the country. Names, in and of themselves, don't always have much meaning behind them. For example, the "Christian Science Monitor" is an extremely well respected secular newspaper which, since it's birth, has had no relations with the religous institution that is it's namesake.
But all sources of media are biased; it does not matter which source you cite, for they have a bias (the NYTimes and SFGate are liberal, the WSJ and Chicago Tribune are conservative, Reason and The Economist magazine tend to be libertarian, and so forth).
I don't believe I ever said the media is *not* biased. My point was that political agendas are not the primary motivations for news professionals. They may lean one way or another, but they all adhere to journalistic ethics to some degree. You may not be able to trust them completely, But they are also not raving propagandist. The good ones make exceptional efforts to present balanced coverage/reporting. For example, the "Philadelphia Inquirer" publicly endorses Kerry, but over 21 days, the Repubicans were granted a matching voice in the form of an opposing column to address specific issues as if in a formal debate. To get the discussion back on track, my belief is that this kind of strive for balance is the kind of thing we should hold most news outlets responsible for. Perhaps I'm missing your point, but by emphatically stressing the bias present in our media, you seem to strongly condone it despite professing dislike for dishonesty. The reason I mentioned the media at all in the original post was stress the point that the american society is not the supreme beacon of democratic process from which China can be criticized. The news media plays a significant hand in stifling the free expression of ideas and information. You seem to acknowledge the shortcomings of the media by presenting skewed information in terms of bias in reporting, so I'm no longer sure what our disagreement is.
Just because he has a bone to pick w/ the Chinese govn't does not mean he is wrong. Still, if (for some reason) you cannot believe CNN's quoting of a Chinese guy with an anti-China bias, you can try the BSR. Or Freechina.net. Or Thefreedictionary.com.
Now, about Harry Wu, is it appropriate to characterize him as being right or wrong? Remember, CNN is presenting his comments as OPINION. Opinions are not right or wrong - you either agree or disagree. As with anyone with an agenda, he exagerates what he can show and conveniently ignores what he doesn't want you to know. However, Harry made a few fatal mistakes in presenting "facts" that are easily debunked. As the rebuttal to his piece reveal, film footage of alleged organ harvest from condemed criminals showed the surgical opening on the wrong part of the body. He lied. and *THAT* is why I can't trust him. The other sources you cite, I can not deconstruct with the same detail, but it is obvious they all have specific purpose and present a highly skewed and misleading charicterization of China. For you to look at China and see only a human rights problem is like looking at the United States and see only drug addicts, hookers, and christian fundamentalists. It is xenophobic and it is wrong.
China may not be a beacon of human rights, but with the Patriot Act now backed by an even more republican federal government, neither are we. So it's time we got of our high horse and stop harassing China for problems we are no better at eradicating ourselves.
It seems I've misscommunicated. Your knowledge of economics is impressive, but I don't see what relevence it has to a discussion about the political nature of policy and regulation regarding Internet access. My appearantly ineffectual reference to the current presidential election was an attempt to illustrate the rediculous relationship you draw between socialism and totalitarianism. China may still be economically socialist to some degree, but it is hardly politically totalitarian in the mold of Stalinistic Russia. In China, even at it's worst during the Mao era, there weren't much of a thing comparable to the Soviet secret police. In fact, the worst excesses of the cultural revolution was carried out in the gory glory of public spectacles.
The point I wanted to make was supposed to be that political information in the US is heavily filtered. As it happens, such is also the case in China. In other words, they're not that much worse off than we are in regards to freedoms and choices. Just as democracy doesn't prevail in it's purest form here in the US, control in China is not as rigid as you believe. *How much* worse off they are we would likely disagree. I'm intrigued actually and would welcome that discussion.
Now, your comments about journalism and reporters I find truly perplexing. While your perspective on bias carries some element of truth, I seriously doubt a self-respecting journalism professional would condone or support such a perspective. Because beyond a certain threshold, the media consuming public wouldn't stand for it. No one enjoy being swindled, lied to, or otherwise tricked with half truths and exagerations. The fact it is sometimes tolerated does not mean it should be emulated or promoted. I'm fairly confident most in this profession aspire to a grander ideal and only bends to the extent necessary to apease advertisers and sponsors.
I'd also like to address the source you cite for forced prison labor. While the article resides under the prestigious banner of CNN, it should be emphasized the piece is presented as an OPINION. Harry Wu, the author, is a social activist of significant notoriety and as such, can not make much claims to journalistic integrity. In the body of the article, he fails to mention that he has been incarcerated via the LaoGai system and has a bone to pick with the Chinese regime. To take him seriously as a proper reporter presenting reliable information would be like asking SCO to arbitrate a dispute between Microsoft and Linux. For what it's worth, the article itself links to a counterpoint that disects Wu's assertions point by point.
Your response to the charge of hypocrisy doesn't make much sense. The nature of the criticism levied against the Chinese is based on a relative comparison between the two systems. If the US turns out not to be what it is cracked up to be, what does that say about the subject of comparison? You can not make a good case against China without declaring where you're coming from. To use your job interview analogy, The project of my employer is emphatically relevent to my own past project because it would likely have a direct relationship with my reason for interviewing for the job in the first place.
point taken. I'd be the first to call out the outrageous excesses exemplified by the Cultural Revolution. It wasn't thousands, but millions that died following the famine caused the the Cultural Revolution. Before that, one of my grandfather died in a Communist prison for no greater crime than being a doctor at a Nationalist military hospital prior to the "liberation". It was wrong and it was inexcusable. My comments are, however, in the current context of this slashdot discussion. I think we both recognize there are clueless xenophobes here posting thoughts and ideas out of their asses. I feel compelled to return some balance to what is amounting to an unchecked China-bashing by people who don't know any better. I believe a genuinely curious individual should have the chance to be exposed to a broader, more complex landscape. Sure, despite my references, I'll confess my post is more opinion than fact. But I'm not forcing anyone to internalize what I had to say. It is one voice among many, one piece of a greater whole. Sure there are other pieces, others are calling attention to them without my help. There are no shortage of posts casting China in the worst possible light with the most rediculous claims. In contrast, there are scant voices who seem to want to say anything truly thought provoking. I say what I say not nececerily because I believe in them personally, but because I believe it needs to be said.
I will not compel you to respond, but my curiosity has got the better of me. Since you have such a bad opinion of more or less everything, what keeps you getting up in the morning? It is hard to imagine how an arrogant elitist find contentment when *everything* is unworthy.
I'm not sure why you are apologizing. Perhaps for being willfully ignorant and narrowminded? Perhaps for being an atrociously bad speller? No matter. Honestly, I feel a little sorry for you too. You should travel a bit and see the world for what it really is rather than what you fantasize.
qi guai. ting qi lai, ni yi dian dou bu xiang. ;-)
I take it you know little about the chinese leadership. luckily a few clicks can remedy that. As you can see, the lot of them actually do have an education very much based in reality. Which is more than I can say for the current leadership of the US. Now, do you *really* want to talk about insanity? or do you still profess to be unconfused?
hear,hear! mode parent up. One of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson once said something to the effect, "before there can be universal democracy, there must be universal enlightenment." Even in a relatively open society like the US, enlightenment is a hard goal to achieve. The great thing China has going for it is Rock Solid stability. Each society has learned valuble lessons from it's own past, and for China one of those lessons is chaos like the Cultural Revolution is Not A Good Thing. There is no question that China will politically mature at some point, but on it's own terms in keeping with it's own abilities.
ops. The link takes you to an article from the year 2000. the Ig Nobel prize was won in 1995.
Most people tend to forget China was a failed representative republic before the Communists prevailed in the civil war. Simply put, the communists won because they were better for the country than the old regime had been. In many ways, it still is. Just look at the state of affairs of the reminents of the defeated Nationalists as recently as nine years ago. Debacles like this has even won them a place in the Ig Nobel prizes. More recently, the sordid details of the Chu Mei Fung political sex scandal are fresh in people's mind (as well as a lot of hard drives). All things considering, the chinese communist government have done alright for such a huge nation.
no one will object to your right to have an opinion, but you would be a lot more credible if you were to clean up your own act before you criticize someone else. So far, we Americans haven't given the rest of the world much more of a reason to respect us.
Don't take anything China says at face value. This is not a free country we're talking about here. They release only that information which makes them look good to other countries, and if they haven't got any suitable information to release, they will make something up.
ahemm...
weapons of mass destruction, anyone?
Okay, I'll bite.
/.ers that the last two generations of Chinese leaders have technical backgrounds and worked their way up from being engineers. Folks, these aren't the ignorant peasant warriors feared and hated by your brainwashed parents. This "small party of old men" are a lot more in touch with the real world than the current ocuppant of the White House. To be frank, I would feel much more comfortable if, as an American, our own leadership was staffed with less politicians full of hot air and more technology professionals who knows how to manage resources and weigh trade-offs.
It may come as a suprise to most