The pretext used for the invasion of Tibet was pretty damned flimsy. There had been brief periods of meaningful Chinese control in Tibet. By their argument, China ought to have been invading any number of countries in East and Southeast Asia. Actually, from an intellectual level, listening to her side of the debate on what justified the invasion is quite interesting. She firmly believes, from her childhood education, that the Chinese government was "liberating" Tibet when they went there. Just like they believe the CCP was liberating the rest of the country from dictatorial oppression during the revolution.
There is strong belief that the Dali Lama was an illegitimate monarch who enslaved his people. And it's fascinating how the West and China see him so completely differently. Cruel dictator? The Dali Lama? Surely not.
But of course listening to arguments on why there IS democracy in China is fascinating too.
She did admit that one reason for the invasion was to create a defensive barrier, to take control of a strategic area when it came to mountain fortification. But yes, the idea of historic control of Tibet by China, by that argument Italy should claim control of most of Europe, they controlled it 2000 years ago (a longer claim then China over Tibet). And from the history I've read, for parts of this period, the control was the other way around - Tibet controlled large parts of China, they weren't always pacifist monks.:)
That a government that has so frequently decried Western Imperialism (and in some cases rightfully so) has done precisely the same thing is bad, but to have a bunch of people overawed by the flawed logic that allows them overlook this behavior in their own government is a sad testament to just how evil nationalism truly is. Indeed it is my friend, nationalism is a scary thing which has probably in one way or another lead to most wars in human history. But it's such an easy emotion to exploit, the us and them. The idea you can externalize and blame another group for all your problems. And until we wake up and stop listening to the Bushs of the of the world when they say "you're either with us or against us," and see the world instead as shades of gray, I don't see much changing.
The current Tibet situation is probably also a factor in the dropping of the BBC block. "What?!?!," you're probably saying, "But China likes to hide that kind of stuff from their citizens, they don't like news getting out about unrest." Ahh, but this is a special situation.
When it comes to Tibet, the more Western media that gets in the better for the Chinese government. There is an intense vein of nationalism in China when it comes to Tibet. With outpourings of rage about "biased" western media, distorted facts, and CIA plots to break up China. The more Tibet-sympathetic reports that come from the West and leak in the China, the stronger this nationalism seems to get, and the more the people, even the poor, rally around their government.
My other half is a Chinese national, we've had some very intense conversations lately, and she's sent me links to views coming out of China about the Tibet situation. Ordinary Chinese see this as a direct attack on their sovereignty.
Many Chinese are learning English, especially the under 20 crowd. In the major eastern cities it's now required for all students in elementary school. If the government can channel their unrest against the Imperial West who's trying to break up their country, it takes the heat off the government. The Chinese government has long used nationalism, an us vs. them mentality, to deflect attention from itself domestically.
Of course they certainly wouldn't be the only country doing this, it's a long standing tradition for any unpopular regime. If you can draw this line between you and another group, and get your people to rally around you on some point, you can easily manipulate and pacify a population.
Indeed, I wish the media in this continent (we have the same problem with flaccid media in Canada too) would ask the tough questions like that. Alas most of the time the reporter doesn't even know what the story is about, and simply doesn't have the subject knowledge to ask such pointed questions. Then of course they would have to care enough to hold the subject accountable.
Far too often I hear interviews were the subject gives some double-talk half twisted lie which makes no sense, and the interviewer simply accepts this line as fact. No follow up question, no challenging. It's turned me off watching TV news completely, because politicians continue to get away with the same lies unchallenged.
I wish I knew how to fix this problem. I'm sure corporate control is part of the problem somehow.:)
It doesn't matter what you put in the fuel tank, a world of car dependence is not sustainable. Where will you put the roads needed for these cars? The parking spaces for these cars? You can't build your way out of congestion.
We have to smarten up and move away from the car. That doesn't mean there won't be a place for cars in the future, but for the majority of trips, people will have to use some kind of mass transit.
Trying to build your way out of congestion is like trying to lose weight by loosening your belt.
I agree. While getting this clause removed should be the primary goal, in case of failure, the solution is simple: The EFF still continues to find the patents, then passes the knowledge accumulated to a OSS friendly company to pursue the challenge.
Actually my concern would be more the exact opposite, what are the implications for secure erasure of these drives? Before we could just open the drives and smash the platters if you wanted to be really paranoid. Now, do we have to make sure we find all the flash chips and ensure each one of them is destroyed? Are there other implications because of this flash memory for secure erase utilities?
If your hard drive dies and you don't have a backup, I have very little sympathy for you. You should know better. Especially anyone reading slashdot. Let's get back to our NSA fearing roots and talk about how to protect ourselves with the latest in encryption technology.;-)
Submitter was close, but not quite right, there are three kingdoms. Eukaryotes, bacteria and archaea. While archaea may look a lot like bacteria, biologists recognize this group as a distinct kingdom in the tree of life.
Yeah, because we all know that the backbones have unlimited bandwidth...
Exactly. As I said in a reply to the previous article on this topic, bandwidth caps have been successfully implemented for years in Canada, and it brings a nice clarity to the product rather than receiving a letter claiming you've surpassed some mysterious "limit."
The key is ensuring the caps and packages are reasonable. I had a plan that allowed me 30GB/month. About a year ago I decided to pay $5 more a month to double my speed (to 3Mbps) and increase the cap to 60GB/month. And even as a heavy user, I'm hard pressed to burn through that entire quota (which is probably a better term than "cap").
And has applications increase the bandwidth usage, I would hope companies invest in technology to help increase these limits. So far it's happened here in Canada, I remember when the quotas first came in a few years ago, my monthly quota was 10GB. Over about a year and a half that increased to 30GB because of market demands.
What you folks need to press for down there is more power for the FCC, and hopefully some independence from Dem/Rep politics and lobby groups. A strong regulatory body to kick some corporate ass when they focus more on profit than customer service will hopefully get the investment you so deserve in network infrastructure. It's time to quit whining on slashdot to those who already agree more network infrastructure is needed and to get out there and say, "We are the people, this is what we want, no excuses, make it happen."
Where is the news in this? Canadian ISPs have had caps and over usage charges for years. I can tell on any day exactly how much bandwidth I've used and how close to my cap I am.
I don't see a problem with this, having usage tiers with costs depending how much you plan to use is fine. The problem in the past has always been claims of "unlimited" until you reach a magical, secret cap. I don't think users will have a problem with tiers as long as you make the exact numbers completely clear, and of course that you charge reasonable rates.
US ISPs have charged different rates for different speeds for a long time, how is this any different? It brings clarity to users.
I, for example pay $35/month and am told I get 2.5Mbps down, 760kbps up, and 30GB total transfer. And if I want to transfer more, I pay more. It seems reasonable to me.
Agreed. This person came to slashdot to ask such a question?
It'd be like asking Larry Ellison, "So, I have this old version of Oracle we use in the classroom, but I want to upgrade to something newer. Tell me about this MySQL thing I keep hearing about...."
Heaven help us if RMS ever gets wind of this article....
Slashdot Mirror
There is strong belief that the Dali Lama was an illegitimate monarch who enslaved his people. And it's fascinating how the West and China see him so completely differently. Cruel dictator? The Dali Lama? Surely not.
But of course listening to arguments on why there IS democracy in China is fascinating too.
She did admit that one reason for the invasion was to create a defensive barrier, to take control of a strategic area when it came to mountain fortification. But yes, the idea of historic control of Tibet by China, by that argument Italy should claim control of most of Europe, they controlled it 2000 years ago (a longer claim then China over Tibet). And from the history I've read, for parts of this period, the control was the other way around - Tibet controlled large parts of China, they weren't always pacifist monks.
The current Tibet situation is probably also a factor in the dropping of the BBC block. "What?!?!," you're probably saying, "But China likes to hide that kind of stuff from their citizens, they don't like news getting out about unrest." Ahh, but this is a special situation.
When it comes to Tibet, the more Western media that gets in the better for the Chinese government. There is an intense vein of nationalism in China when it comes to Tibet. With outpourings of rage about "biased" western media, distorted facts, and CIA plots to break up China. The more Tibet-sympathetic reports that come from the West and leak in the China, the stronger this nationalism seems to get, and the more the people, even the poor, rally around their government.
My other half is a Chinese national, we've had some very intense conversations lately, and she's sent me links to views coming out of China about the Tibet situation. Ordinary Chinese see this as a direct attack on their sovereignty.
Many Chinese are learning English, especially the under 20 crowd. In the major eastern cities it's now required for all students in elementary school. If the government can channel their unrest against the Imperial West who's trying to break up their country, it takes the heat off the government. The Chinese government has long used nationalism, an us vs. them mentality, to deflect attention from itself domestically.
Of course they certainly wouldn't be the only country doing this, it's a long standing tradition for any unpopular regime. If you can draw this line between you and another group, and get your people to rally around you on some point, you can easily manipulate and pacify a population.
Indeed, I wish the media in this continent (we have the same problem with flaccid media in Canada too) would ask the tough questions like that. Alas most of the time the reporter doesn't even know what the story is about, and simply doesn't have the subject knowledge to ask such pointed questions. Then of course they would have to care enough to hold the subject accountable.
:)
Far too often I hear interviews were the subject gives some double-talk half twisted lie which makes no sense, and the interviewer simply accepts this line as fact. No follow up question, no challenging. It's turned me off watching TV news completely, because politicians continue to get away with the same lies unchallenged.
I wish I knew how to fix this problem. I'm sure corporate control is part of the problem somehow.
It doesn't matter what you put in the fuel tank, a world of car dependence is not sustainable. Where will you put the roads needed for these cars? The parking spaces for these cars? You can't build your way out of congestion.
We have to smarten up and move away from the car. That doesn't mean there won't be a place for cars in the future, but for the majority of trips, people will have to use some kind of mass transit.
Trying to build your way out of congestion is like trying to lose weight by loosening your belt.
Agreed. Buy a bunch of 512MB or 1GB memory sticks, you can usually get them for less than $15 these days.
And then go with an XO laptop, they're small, durable, and low power.
I agree. While getting this clause removed should be the primary goal, in case of failure, the solution is simple: The EFF still continues to find the patents, then passes the knowledge accumulated to a OSS friendly company to pursue the challenge.
What's so hard about that?
Actually my concern would be more the exact opposite, what are the implications for secure erasure of these drives? Before we could just open the drives and smash the platters if you wanted to be really paranoid. Now, do we have to make sure we find all the flash chips and ensure each one of them is destroyed? Are there other implications because of this flash memory for secure erase utilities?
;-)
If your hard drive dies and you don't have a backup, I have very little sympathy for you. You should know better. Especially anyone reading slashdot. Let's get back to our NSA fearing roots and talk about how to protect ourselves with the latest in encryption technology.
Submitter was close, but not quite right, there are three kingdoms. Eukaryotes, bacteria and archaea. While archaea may look a lot like bacteria, biologists recognize this group as a distinct kingdom in the tree of life.
Thanks for playing, please try again next time.
Yeah, because we all know that the backbones have unlimited bandwidth...
Exactly. As I said in a reply to the previous article on this topic, bandwidth caps have been successfully implemented for years in Canada, and it brings a nice clarity to the product rather than receiving a letter claiming you've surpassed some mysterious "limit."
The key is ensuring the caps and packages are reasonable. I had a plan that allowed me 30GB/month. About a year ago I decided to pay $5 more a month to double my speed (to 3Mbps) and increase the cap to 60GB/month. And even as a heavy user, I'm hard pressed to burn through that entire quota (which is probably a better term than "cap").
And has applications increase the bandwidth usage, I would hope companies invest in technology to help increase these limits. So far it's happened here in Canada, I remember when the quotas first came in a few years ago, my monthly quota was 10GB. Over about a year and a half that increased to 30GB because of market demands.
What you folks need to press for down there is more power for the FCC, and hopefully some independence from Dem/Rep politics and lobby groups. A strong regulatory body to kick some corporate ass when they focus more on profit than customer service will hopefully get the investment you so deserve in network infrastructure. It's time to quit whining on slashdot to those who already agree more network infrastructure is needed and to get out there and say, "We are the people, this is what we want, no excuses, make it happen."
Where is the news in this? Canadian ISPs have had caps and over usage charges for years. I can tell on any day exactly how much bandwidth I've used and how close to my cap I am.
I don't see a problem with this, having usage tiers with costs depending how much you plan to use is fine. The problem in the past has always been claims of "unlimited" until you reach a magical, secret cap. I don't think users will have a problem with tiers as long as you make the exact numbers completely clear, and of course that you charge reasonable rates.
US ISPs have charged different rates for different speeds for a long time, how is this any different? It brings clarity to users.
I, for example pay $35/month and am told I get 2.5Mbps down, 760kbps up, and 30GB total transfer. And if I want to transfer more, I pay more. It seems reasonable to me.
I saw a show on the Discovery channel over a decade ago showing a one legged robot that could recover it's balance when kicked.
I'm just worried about when they start to kick back. Ouch.
Agreed. This person came to slashdot to ask such a question?
It'd be like asking Larry Ellison, "So, I have this old version of Oracle we use in the classroom, but I want to upgrade to something newer. Tell me about this MySQL thing I keep hearing about...."
Heaven help us if RMS ever gets wind of this article....