When people in China pick up the People's Daily, they'll see Internet addiction on the front page. Remember, in most Chinese mind's addiction is automatically equated to opium. There's a mixture of foreign dominance as well. It's similar to an American hearing about drugs. We instantly think about people killing themselves and Columbian drug lord.
It is regarded as a learned evil, and one the Communist party was responsible for defeating. So if a Chinese person thinks about censoring the Internet, they'll think about Internet addiction. In the US, there's the same thing, but to a much lesser extent. Usually in the US, it's just used to push newspaper or magazine shows, not fascist government policy.
Ni zou gou. You are so hell bent on condemning anything that remotely challenges your pathetic dogma that you ignore the plain and obvious truth.
Is Rupert Murdoch better than Xinhua? Only a little. Is Ted Turner, BBC or even VoA? Absolutely.
Newspapers are routinely shut down for critizing corrupt officials and evil practices. The Internet is censored. A person cannot simply write a pamphlet without risking life and limb. And in this instance, the Central Government is making an attempt to justify the Great Firewall and other oppression they daily visit on people in China.
But you don't care. The Chinese have a word for someone like you: "Master's Dog". It sums up the situation and your attitude rather nicely.
This has nothing to do with being safe on the Internet. China creates the idea of Internet addiction as being a problem to justify the censorship they impose on the Internet. Essentially, the Communist Party is saying "We do not censor the Internet to prevent toppling the corrupt government, we censor the Internet to protect your health."
First, I did not say murdered, I said killed. My language is specific. But since we are on the topic, about 1959 to 1960 during the Great Leap Forward? Mao's misguided attempts at industrialization killed between 17 to 29 million Chinese in a single year.
The Pan-Green alliance, for the most part, is in favor of independence. The groups outside of Taipei, such as the Hakka, are also in favor of independence. If the threat of nuclear annihilation were lifted, many more would be in favor. The Chinese are a pragmatic people, if nothing else.
The Sino-Vietnam war was definitely of China's choosing. The idea in China was the concern of a Indochina Russian alliance. The Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia motivated China to invade Vietnam. The Chinese army, supposedly, I obviously was not there, fought very poorly.
No. China was the chief supplier of the Afghan rebels. The Soviet after action reports make that clear. The Aghans might have had US Stingers, but they were wearing Chinese sneakers and using Chinese radios.
The Muslims in China have been under a situation that could be considered to be genocide for almost as long as the Communists have been in power. Aside from the direct assault on religion, the Communist Party has been deliberately moving Han into areas minority dominated. The idea is to make everyone Han. China may put minorities on their money, but the US does well. It does not mean that Native Americans as a people are almost extinct.
I do not approve of a nuclear armed Israel. I think the treatment of Mordechai Vanunu should make clear to everyone in the world that the nation of Israel is not a nation with laws for freedom. If the security wall and slaughter of the Palestinians wasn't enough. Concerning the US' role in the establishment of Israeli nukes: I don't see how that could not have US involvement, although some point fingers at the UK.
China is a government of personality. There is a man behind the bomb button. He does not answer to anybody. It is only a matter of time before someone like Mao or Hitler is given the power to destroy entire nations. China needs to change, or lots of people will get killed.
The aggression of the United States has little to do with the situation in China. Actually, it has a great deal to do with the situation in China, but in terms of this particular aspect of the world, since China is dealing with the situation in a 3G context, we can discount the fact the US is overextended like a ballerina who's just been pushed off a plank.
Since China's reform, it has slaughtered students, invaded Vietnam, supplied Afghan fighters against the Soviet Union, worked on a genocide program against Muslims, and given nuclear weapon plans to Pakistan knowing full well that those plans would leak out to terrorist nations.
I love the Chinese. But the Chinese government is ultra-aggressive and is going to get a lot more people killed.
China has outraged the world before. They will do so again. The Taiwanese are right to fear a country that has killed more of its own citizens in a one year period than are on the entire island of Taiwan. China has been spending years informing its citizenry that it is better to destroy Taiwan than let it go free. The people of Taiwan are much more familar with this than you are.
Furthermore, and you do not seem to realize this, the Chinese government is not a government of law, it is a government of personality. It is a dictatorship, run by individuals who answer to no voters, or anyone else, for that matter. Since I will assume you do not know Hu Jintao, or Jiang Zemin, you are not qualified to say that China will not launch nukes.
Your understanding and assessment of the situation is incorrect.
On the other hand, it is Tuesday, and if this is a troll, I vote for it as the best I've seen all year.
The ROC, the Taiwanese Government, has acknowledged that it is not the master of China. They have even eliminated the members of Parliment that were from the former provinces of China.
Pxtl seems to misunderstands the situation between China and Taiwan. China is the aggressor. The majority of the Taiwanese, if they believed they could declare themselves independent without total destruction of them and their land, would do so in a heartbeat.
Because it will upset the Chinese. Taiwan is an island. Alcatraz is the United States, it is not Alcatraz the island. Hawaii, on a map, is usually listed as "Hawaii (US)". The Chinese mainland government has been an imperialist government for quite some time. They have fought wars with South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, India, Nepal, and Tibet. They financed the war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. They openly supplied and comforted the Khmer Rouge. The Korean War, which as any tourist to China can tell you is still proudly remembered, was fought against the entire United Nations: including United Kingdom, Australia, Turkey, Canada, New Zealand, the Philippines, Luxembourg, South Africa, and the Netherlands. With the exception of North Korea, Mongolia, and Pakistan, China has pretty much fought with everyone they can easily reach. China has been in the past 50 years an ultra aggressive power.
Google's mission statement is Do No Evil. The inclusion of Taiwan with an aggressive power such as China is not exactly good. They should acknowledge the defacto freedoms the Taiwanese currently possess.
You could stop playing WoW and play some decent games over at NCsoft. You could even play City of Heroes, and custom design your own Spider Man and be involved with a lawsuit at Marvel. It's a win win situation!
Can a person be convicted of solely possessing stolen property, when it was purchased in good faith from the thief? It violates the idea of intent to commit a crime, namely that there must be intent and knowledge for an action to be morally wrong. It means that no matter what you purchase, if it ever happened to have been stolen, you could be held liable. I'll be contacting my local congressmen if this is the case.
The original preemptive US policy was set under JFK. The theory was that the US was prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons to disrupt a Soviet invasion of Europe. The Soviets responded that they would regard any use of any nuclear weapons as demanding a full counterattack. Western Europe and the US did not want to pay to keep enough divisions in Europe to stop a full scale Soviet attack. The only solution that readily presented itself was a full scale nuclear assault, along with enough attack submarines to destroy any possible retaliation from Soviet SSBNs. Of course, the finer details were worked out under later administrations, but this has been the basis of US nuclear stategy until George Bush changed it earlier in his administration.
As for the pre-empt them before they pre-empt us, that's ridiculous. Given the response of the US to the sneak attack in Pearl Harbor, the sneak attack in Korea, and the terrorist action on 9/11, a sensible person would come to the conclusion that the United States tends to respond with overwhelming force only when provoked. (Johnson administration overlooked.)
I find Symantec Enterprise answers very nicely. It can be set up with login scripts easily and will update itself day or quicker. With centralized management, it removes most worries. Cost might be an issue, but so is lost productivity. A slow old computer can do the management. You don't need to spend any money on hardware there.
Invading Iraq has kept the dollar strong? Are you insane?
Heavy investment in alternative energy sources? That would be the Bush administration's drill of to drill in ANWAR ANWAR ANWAR?
Basically, you want me to ride a bicycle, while Republicans make millions of dollars from selling goods to the US Army in a war that is based on a lie.
I think the easiest solution would be to just vote Democrat. Once the United States has a sane foriegn policy, as well as a sensible foreign policy, oil prices will come down.
Most histographers would call the States Rights / Economic Conflict argument the Consense Argument, and the Free the Slaves Argument Revisionist.
The cool historians are saying again that the Civil War was about slavery. It's one of those things. Texas buys it's history books enmasse. Guess which argument they want to buy.
1. Human rights do not slow the economic growth of countries. Unstable political governments slow economic growth. There are a number of highly successful 1st and 2nd world countries that did not abuse human rights. Although limited exceptions can be found, countries like Canada, Greenland, Italy, and Switzerland did not need to resort to the systematic violation of human rights.
Furthermore, calling the Chinese slaves is a bald faced lie. It merely demonstrates Bios Hakr's complete lack of knowledge of the issue. The Chinese building the SP were for the most part well cared for by the railroad. You can start here.
2. The United States fought a war for human rights. It took another century for the aims of that war to be truly achieved, but make no mistake, states' rights had nothing to do with it. Members nations of the EU spent millions of dollars defeating the slave trade.
3. China has signed the Declaration of Human Rights. They have a permanent seat on the Security Council. As such, China has responsibilities both to the world community at large, and to it's own citizens in particular. By going to war against South Korea, Vietnam, India, Tibet, Taiwan, funding a war against the Soviet Union and Nepal, giving nuclear weapons to Pakistan and fully expecting said weapons to travel to powers like Iran, it has proved that it has been a lousy member of the world community. China is the greatest threat to world peace today.
It is not acceptable that China has the worst human rights record on the planet.
We have repeatedly tested the philosophy of science over the past three hundred years and found it to withstand all relevant criticisms. Science itself would change if something better than the current philosophy of science was found. You can hold the understanding of science as a means for understand the universe around us as fact.
Arguing from ignorance is the only possible creationist justification.
There is no reason for any sensible person to ever bother listening to a creationist argument, including intelligent design. There is simply no proof.
What's frustrating is people like Swamii who compares science with religion and declares that both require faith. There is no faith in science, only fact.
Slashdot Mirror
It is regarded as a learned evil, and one the Communist party was responsible for defeating. So if a Chinese person thinks about censoring the Internet, they'll think about Internet addiction. In the US, there's the same thing, but to a much lesser extent. Usually in the US, it's just used to push newspaper or magazine shows, not fascist government policy.
Is Rupert Murdoch better than Xinhua? Only a little. Is Ted Turner, BBC or even VoA? Absolutely.
Newspapers are routinely shut down for critizing corrupt officials and evil practices. The Internet is censored. A person cannot simply write a pamphlet without risking life and limb. And in this instance, the Central Government is making an attempt to justify the Great Firewall and other oppression they daily visit on people in China.
But you don't care. The Chinese have a word for someone like you: "Master's Dog". It sums up the situation and your attitude rather nicely.
This has nothing to do with being safe on the Internet. China creates the idea of Internet addiction as being a problem to justify the censorship they impose on the Internet. Essentially, the Communist Party is saying "We do not censor the Internet to prevent toppling the corrupt government, we censor the Internet to protect your health."
Let's see that hat.
The Pan-Green alliance, for the most part, is in favor of independence. The groups outside of Taipei, such as the Hakka, are also in favor of independence. If the threat of nuclear annihilation were lifted, many more would be in favor. The Chinese are a pragmatic people, if nothing else.
No. China was the chief supplier of the Afghan rebels. The Soviet after action reports make that clear. The Aghans might have had US Stingers, but they were wearing Chinese sneakers and using Chinese radios.
The Muslims in China have been under a situation that could be considered to be genocide for almost as long as the Communists have been in power. Aside from the direct assault on religion, the Communist Party has been deliberately moving Han into areas minority dominated. The idea is to make everyone Han. China may put minorities on their money, but the US does well. It does not mean that Native Americans as a people are almost extinct.
I do not approve of a nuclear armed Israel. I think the treatment of Mordechai Vanunu should make clear to everyone in the world that the nation of Israel is not a nation with laws for freedom. If the security wall and slaughter of the Palestinians wasn't enough. Concerning the US' role in the establishment of Israeli nukes: I don't see how that could not have US involvement, although some point fingers at the UK.
China is a government of personality. There is a man behind the bomb button. He does not answer to anybody. It is only a matter of time before someone like Mao or Hitler is given the power to destroy entire nations. China needs to change, or lots of people will get killed.
The aggression of the United States has little to do with the situation in China. Actually, it has a great deal to do with the situation in China, but in terms of this particular aspect of the world, since China is dealing with the situation in a 3G context, we can discount the fact the US is overextended like a ballerina who's just been pushed off a plank.
Since China's reform, it has slaughtered students, invaded Vietnam, supplied Afghan fighters against the Soviet Union, worked on a genocide program against Muslims, and given nuclear weapon plans to Pakistan knowing full well that those plans would leak out to terrorist nations.
I love the Chinese. But the Chinese government is ultra-aggressive and is going to get a lot more people killed.
Furthermore, and you do not seem to realize this, the Chinese government is not a government of law, it is a government of personality. It is a dictatorship, run by individuals who answer to no voters, or anyone else, for that matter. Since I will assume you do not know Hu Jintao, or Jiang Zemin, you are not qualified to say that China will not launch nukes.
Your understanding and assessment of the situation is incorrect.
On the other hand, it is Tuesday, and if this is a troll, I vote for it as the best I've seen all year.
The kind that are afraid of 600 nuclear tipped missiles 100 miles off their borders. It's not cowardess, it's sensible.
Pxtl seems to misunderstands the situation between China and Taiwan. China is the aggressor. The majority of the Taiwanese, if they believed they could declare themselves independent without total destruction of them and their land, would do so in a heartbeat.
Google's mission statement is Do No Evil. The inclusion of Taiwan with an aggressive power such as China is not exactly good. They should acknowledge the defacto freedoms the Taiwanese currently possess.
You could stop playing WoW and play some decent games over at NCsoft. You could even play City of Heroes, and custom design your own Spider Man and be involved with a lawsuit at Marvel. It's a win win situation!
Can a person be convicted of solely possessing stolen property, when it was purchased in good faith from the thief? It violates the idea of intent to commit a crime, namely that there must be intent and knowledge for an action to be morally wrong. It means that no matter what you purchase, if it ever happened to have been stolen, you could be held liable. I'll be contacting my local congressmen if this is the case.
As for the pre-empt them before they pre-empt us, that's ridiculous. Given the response of the US to the sneak attack in Pearl Harbor, the sneak attack in Korea, and the terrorist action on 9/11, a sensible person would come to the conclusion that the United States tends to respond with overwhelming force only when provoked. (Johnson administration overlooked.)
We can get those in the hammock district, right?
Seeing as how Vista appears to be to XP what ME was to 98, I am not surprised that Microsoft is trying to hype Vista more.
I find Symantec Enterprise answers very nicely. It can be set up with login scripts easily and will update itself day or quicker. With centralized management, it removes most worries. Cost might be an issue, but so is lost productivity. A slow old computer can do the management. You don't need to spend any money on hardware there.
And if you know what I'm talking about, you're required to friend me.
Heavy investment in alternative energy sources? That would be the Bush administration's drill of to drill in ANWAR ANWAR ANWAR?
Basically, you want me to ride a bicycle, while Republicans make millions of dollars from selling goods to the US Army in a war that is based on a lie.
I think the easiest solution would be to just vote Democrat. Once the United States has a sane foriegn policy, as well as a sensible foreign policy, oil prices will come down.
The cool historians are saying again that the Civil War was about slavery. It's one of those things. Texas buys it's history books enmasse. Guess which argument they want to buy.
Furthermore, calling the Chinese slaves is a bald faced lie. It merely demonstrates Bios Hakr's complete lack of knowledge of the issue. The Chinese building the SP were for the most part well cared for by the railroad. You can start here.
2. The United States fought a war for human rights. It took another century for the aims of that war to be truly achieved, but make no mistake, states' rights had nothing to do with it. Members nations of the EU spent millions of dollars defeating the slave trade.
3. China has signed the Declaration of Human Rights. They have a permanent seat on the Security Council. As such, China has responsibilities both to the world community at large, and to it's own citizens in particular. By going to war against South Korea, Vietnam, India, Tibet, Taiwan, funding a war against the Soviet Union and Nepal, giving nuclear weapons to Pakistan and fully expecting said weapons to travel to powers like Iran, it has proved that it has been a lousy member of the world community. China is the greatest threat to world peace today.
It is not acceptable that China has the worst human rights record on the planet.
Without space weapons, I for one will welcome our new alien overlords.
We have repeatedly tested the philosophy of science over the past three hundred years and found it to withstand all relevant criticisms. Science itself would change if something better than the current philosophy of science was found. You can hold the understanding of science as a means for understand the universe around us as fact.
There is no reason for any sensible person to ever bother listening to a creationist argument, including intelligent design. There is simply no proof.
What's frustrating is people like Swamii who compares science with religion and declares that both require faith. There is no faith in science, only fact.