Both countries have had their governments and government bureaucracies ripped apart and rebuilt basically from scratch post-WWII.
In China, the communists removed KMT, sent Chiang to Taiwan and started from zero. Three times, actually, if you count the Cultural revolution, and the subsequent removal of the Maoist wing by Deng.
Some countries refused to acknowledge the existence of PRC until the 70s, and China started to really perceive itself and try to act as a superpower very recently.
In post-war Japan, the US occupational authority rewrote the constitution, made quite a few changes in the way government was run, engaged in a serious redistribution of wealth via the land reform, etc. US retained full control of the country until 1952, and partial control until 1972.
Some Japanese even say the country still has no independent foreign policy, and indeed it almost seems so at times.
Just last year a party that is quite new to being a government party was elected with a landslide and fresh ideas as to how bureaucracy and foreign relations should work.
It already had one major foreign policy crisis (the clash of sorts with US over an Okinawa base), which was an important reason why the PM stepped down this summer.
Besides, Chinese-Japanese relations weren't all that rich in the past. Japan was a closed society (because of fear from China) until the mid-1800s, and most of the relations they've had with China since then would qualify as "diplomacy" only if you use the von Clausewitz definition thereof.
Are you going say US restrictions on crypto/hi-tech export is doing "a lot of harm to the credibility of the US as an economic player"?
It most certainly did. Did you miss the few years in the 90s when it spurred a large body of crypto research and work outside of the US by all parties, who were affected by the ban?
Are you going to say Russia's restricting food export due to projected shortage, or Thailand's restriction of rice export due to poor harvest is doing "a lot of harm to the credibility of these 2 countries as an economic player
Having a reason for the restriction (shortage due to a crop failure) is something quite different from using trade limits as a policy tool. I am not sure why you can't see the difference.
For example, the attempts of Putin to use gas exports as a policy tool in Europe has certainly brought more than a few frowns from the EU. With Ukraine, it exploded into a full-blown trade war.
is just a simple message to Japan saying "we are not going to let you slap us in our face and then expect business to go on smoothly".
It is my understanding that the arrested captain tried to ram a Japanese vessel. This is certainly a crime in Japan, and probably one in China. In this case, it seems China is applying laws more selectively than Japan.
The most interesting part of this mini-debacle is how did the idea that there would be a shortage of rare earth elements came about at all, and why did the Chinese believe it, the idea being utter bullshit.
While it is true that China manages to produce these cheaply at the moment, rare earth elements are available basically all over the place in similar proportions.
Using them as a policy-making tool has done no harm to Japan, and potentially a lot of harm to the credibility of China as an economic player, especially to its counterparties in Asia, but also anyone who may have a reason to expect potential future clash of interests.
While the Japanese acted out during the crisis as scared pussies, the Chinese appear to have played the role of the dumber party.
Seeing great Asian powers like Japan and China just learning to dab at foreign relations after 6 decades of American dominance is very interesting.
"Charging reasonable rates to cover costs" will only bring negative reactions from all sides, IMHO.
First, if they are required to produce this information by an order of the court, they may not be able to recover any costs at all.
Second, from what I've read, it seems BT is a favorite target for all kinds of accusations of evilitude. It seems very plausible that an "official" price list will cause some lawyer office to complain that legit requests for information are "blocked" by "overcharging".
Third, publishing a price list for processing information requests "officially" sounds like they're in the business of selling customer data. Such step will certainly leave me, were I a customer, with a severely bad aftertaste, even if the company swears it's only in response of "legitimate" requests.
Finally, and most importantly, even if they can charge some amount for processing such requests, and recover the costs, the unit that will be doing this work isn't going to be a profit center.
They aren't protecting the customers so much as themselves. Privacy laws in the EU are somewhat more stringent than elsewhere, and can probably backfire in more egregious cases of abuse.
Also, there are the costs of frivolous requests -- it is not difficult to compile a list of IP addresses and send it around asking for more information -- more so if that's your business and you're getting paid for it.
If, however, you're on the receiving end of many such requests, to you that is obviously all cost and no merit.
I think it is interesting to look at this from a slightly different angle though -- maybe future laws regarding policing copyright violations should be structured in such way that it is costly to both fire frivolous requests, and ignore legitimate complaints.
This would be one more good issue to bring to legislative campaigns on the topic, and help turn the tide, which at the moment seems to be one of presumption of guilt and trying to drive everyone into settlement, violation or no.
Since there is no creative value in the things they lift from each other, it is hard to argue they are "pirating" it. Can I steal a verb they use, and just call it "stealing"?:)
Also, the general population surely should be held to higher standards than the scum of the earth.
What I find really remarkable is that it seems to demonstrate all the features of blender in one neat piece, which is opensourced, so people can learn from it.
As a piece of, well, cinematography, this sucks balls though. Still miles ahead of that crappy "Sorry Ass Elephant" from a few years ago though.
The "EU" as a "state actor" is rich. If there is anything that is farther from a "state actor" in the world today (excluding maybe the UN), it is the EU. They can't make a decision on how to tie their collective shoes together, much less conspire to attack a foreign country.
Look at the EU's "common position" on the Iran sanction proposals for the spine, resolution, unity and swift action the "state actor" has...
This is only a test. Wait until it is in operation free of trouble and come back again.
If memory serves, Japan's Shinkansen has had only one accident (while braking during a very strong earthquake in 2006), and no dead people in how many years of operation now - maybe 40, maybe more.
Yes, you just need to make sure your credit union is federally insured against a default. Reading the FAQ on federal insurance of credit unions, it would seem not all of them are.
Someone I know had the small child of a neighbor flash him in the eye with a cheap Chinese red laser pointer some time ago, and got a permanent scar on his retina and a second "blind spot" in one of his eyes. Apparently, the pointer was a little bit too powerful in the IR region than it should have been.
Moral of the story - avoid high energy beams regardless of the wavelength or the particle kind because you never know what will slip by even in a supposedly "safe" circumstances.
50 km/h in the air is actually quite fast. I've just begun paragliding. The wing flies at roughly the same speed, max is ~60-70 km/h. I am amazed at how much ground can you cover at that speed in an hour compared to the same speed/time in a car.
As for the efficiency -- the original poster was comparing birds to helicopters -- and IIRC, a helicopter is about an order of magnitude less efficient than a fixed wing aircraft.
Yes, yes, I read a couple more of Zbigniew's articles -- I understand how I was wrong, how radiation exposure is very beneficial for organisms, how global warming is a total hoax, how Earth is flat, and how Wojciech, Lukashenko, Kim and Fidel are wise leaders of their nations on the path to freedom and well-being.
Again, there were no doomsday predictions in serious literature, in the East, or in the West, at the time, or post-Chernobyl. In particular, there were no serious claims that "everything but the rats" will die out in the affected zone in Chernobyl.
As far as I can see, even initial predictions about the dosages and effects, published in the West as early as mid-1986 (numerous publications in Nature, etc.) have been decidedly not sensational.
As I said to the GP already, some people, who rely on tabloid knowledge may have had their views colored, but there is a lot of bullshit flying on any topic.
One such piece of bullshit was about "nature thriving" in Chernobyl in spite of the radiation, when, in fact, nature was and still is faring worse than thriving because of the radiation.
As for the paper you quote -- well -- coming from a person who seriously believes that radiation exposure is beneficial, and has been called out on bad science many times -- certainly doesn't lend you credibility.
Slashdot Mirror
Professionalism? How about a baseline of a spelling, grammar and general writing skills?
/ Kill me with moderation, William "B.J." Blazkowicz, I am in a Grammar Nazi mood today.
Both countries have had their governments and government bureaucracies ripped apart and rebuilt basically from scratch post-WWII.
In China, the communists removed KMT, sent Chiang to Taiwan and started from zero. Three times, actually, if you count the Cultural revolution, and the subsequent removal of the Maoist wing by Deng.
Some countries refused to acknowledge the existence of PRC until the 70s, and China started to really perceive itself and try to act as a superpower very recently.
In post-war Japan, the US occupational authority rewrote the constitution, made quite a few changes in the way government was run, engaged in a serious redistribution of wealth via the land reform, etc. US retained full control of the country until 1952, and partial control until 1972.
Some Japanese even say the country still has no independent foreign policy, and indeed it almost seems so at times.
Just last year a party that is quite new to being a government party was elected with a landslide and fresh ideas as to how bureaucracy and foreign relations should work.
It already had one major foreign policy crisis (the clash of sorts with US over an Okinawa base), which was an important reason why the PM stepped down this summer.
Besides, Chinese-Japanese relations weren't all that rich in the past. Japan was a closed society (because of fear from China) until the mid-1800s, and most of the relations they've had with China since then would qualify as "diplomacy" only if you use the von Clausewitz definition thereof.
since it has absolutely no creative value?
If you need someone to testify to that fact in court on your behalf, I'm available.
Me too. I've heard that the Japanese are hiding it in order to defuse the situation, but I'd rather judge for myself.
Still, I can see how it can inflame China further even if it shows that the Japanese vessel is not at fault.
Your understanding is wrong, here's a video for you with the ships in question. They are of similar size :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVJC-eV8jRA
Are you going say US restrictions on crypto/hi-tech export is doing "a lot of harm to the credibility of the US as an economic player"?
It most certainly did. Did you miss the few years in the 90s when it spurred a large body of crypto research and work outside of the US by all parties, who were affected by the ban?
Are you going to say Russia's restricting food export due to projected shortage, or Thailand's restriction of rice export due to poor harvest is doing "a lot of harm to the credibility of these 2 countries as an economic player
Having a reason for the restriction (shortage due to a crop failure) is something quite different from using trade limits as a policy tool. I am not sure why you can't see the difference.
For example, the attempts of Putin to use gas exports as a policy tool in Europe has certainly brought more than a few frowns from the EU. With Ukraine, it exploded into a full-blown trade war.
is just a simple message to Japan saying "we are not going to let you slap us in our face and then expect business to go on smoothly".
It is my understanding that the arrested captain tried to ram a Japanese vessel. This is certainly a crime in Japan, and probably one in China. In this case, it seems China is applying laws more selectively than Japan.
like, for example, importing the stuff from mongolia. this may turn out to be the faster and cheaper way out.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704380504575529383600995748.html
The most interesting part of this mini-debacle is how did the idea that there would be a shortage of rare earth elements came about at all, and why did the Chinese believe it, the idea being utter bullshit.
While it is true that China manages to produce these cheaply at the moment, rare earth elements are available basically all over the place in similar proportions.
Using them as a policy-making tool has done no harm to Japan, and potentially a lot of harm to the credibility of China as an economic player, especially to its counterparties in Asia, but also anyone who may have a reason to expect potential future clash of interests.
While the Japanese acted out during the crisis as scared pussies, the Chinese appear to have played the role of the dumber party.
Seeing great Asian powers like Japan and China just learning to dab at foreign relations after 6 decades of American dominance is very interesting.
"Charging reasonable rates to cover costs" will only bring negative reactions from all sides, IMHO.
First, if they are required to produce this information by an order of the court, they may not be able to recover any costs at all.
Second, from what I've read, it seems BT is a favorite target for all kinds of accusations of evilitude. It seems very plausible that an "official" price list will cause some lawyer office to complain that legit requests for information are "blocked" by "overcharging".
Third, publishing a price list for processing information requests "officially" sounds like they're in the business of selling customer data. Such step will certainly leave me, were I a customer, with a severely bad aftertaste, even if the company swears it's only in response of "legitimate" requests.
Finally, and most importantly, even if they can charge some amount for processing such requests, and recover the costs, the unit that will be doing this work isn't going to be a profit center.
I still see only costs and no merits.
They aren't protecting the customers so much as themselves. Privacy laws in the EU are somewhat more stringent than elsewhere, and can probably backfire in more egregious cases of abuse.
Also, there are the costs of frivolous requests -- it is not difficult to compile a list of IP addresses and send it around asking for more information -- more so if that's your business and you're getting paid for it.
If, however, you're on the receiving end of many such requests, to you that is obviously all cost and no merit.
I think it is interesting to look at this from a slightly different angle though -- maybe future laws regarding policing copyright violations should be structured in such way that it is costly to both fire frivolous requests, and ignore legitimate complaints.
This would be one more good issue to bring to legislative campaigns on the topic, and help turn the tide, which at the moment seems to be one of presumption of guilt and trying to drive everyone into settlement, violation or no.
I've seen some pretty creative lawyers in my day
But you're talking about the lawyer's definition of "creative", not the legal definition.
True, but copied fully in accord with the fair use doctrine.
Yeah, but they call it "trademarks", which, I was told by a lawyer once, give you the rights without creativity by definition.
Since there is no creative value in the things they lift from each other, it is hard to argue they are "pirating" it. Can I steal a verb they use, and just call it "stealing"? :)
Also, the general population surely should be held to higher standards than the scum of the earth.
What I find really remarkable is that it seems to demonstrate all the features of blender in one neat piece, which is opensourced, so people can learn from it.
As a piece of, well, cinematography, this sucks balls though. Still miles ahead of that crappy "Sorry Ass Elephant" from a few years ago though.
"myrtus"? as in, for example, "my RTUs"? Jewish language, you say?
Hehe, mod parent up.
The "EU" as a "state actor" is rich. If there is anything that is farther from a "state actor" in the world today (excluding maybe the UN), it is the EU. They can't make a decision on how to tie their collective shoes together, much less conspire to attack a foreign country.
Look at the EU's "common position" on the Iran sanction proposals for the spine, resolution, unity and swift action the "state actor" has...
And the maglev shinkansen version has apparently gone well over 500km/h in manned flight while I wasn't watching:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_speed_record_for_rail_vehicles
This is only a test. Wait until it is in operation free of trouble and come back again.
If memory serves, Japan's Shinkansen has had only one accident (while braking during a very strong earthquake in 2006), and no dead people in how many years of operation now - maybe 40, maybe more.
Wake me up when the Chinese beat that record.
Yes, you just need to make sure your credit union is federally insured against a default. Reading the FAQ on federal insurance of credit unions, it would seem not all of them are.
http://www.ncua.gov/Resources/ShareInsurance/NCUAInsuranceFundFAQs.htm
Well, I thought it odd too, but that is the explanation he got from the people who treated him and he swears the laser was red, so it probably was.
Anyway, my point was it is dangerous to get in the way of any beam, including the supposedly safe and low-powered laser pointers.
Someone I know had the small child of a neighbor flash him in the eye with a cheap Chinese red laser pointer some time ago, and got a permanent scar on his retina and a second "blind spot" in one of his eyes. Apparently, the pointer was a little bit too powerful in the IR region than it should have been.
Moral of the story - avoid high energy beams regardless of the wavelength or the particle kind because you never know what will slip by even in a supposedly "safe" circumstances.
50 km/h in the air is actually quite fast. I've just begun paragliding. The wing flies at roughly the same speed, max is ~60-70 km/h. I am amazed at how much ground can you cover at that speed in an hour compared to the same speed/time in a car.
As for the efficiency -- the original poster was comparing birds to helicopters -- and IIRC, a helicopter is about an order of magnitude less efficient than a fixed wing aircraft.
Yes, yes, I read a couple more of Zbigniew's articles -- I understand how I was wrong, how radiation exposure is very beneficial for organisms, how global warming is a total hoax, how Earth is flat, and how Wojciech, Lukashenko, Kim and Fidel are wise leaders of their nations on the path to freedom and well-being.
Wise sources indeed.
You didn't read it carefully enough. He estimates the amount of body fat burned from the total body mass lost (not all of which is body fat).
Again, there were no doomsday predictions in serious literature, in the East, or in the West, at the time, or post-Chernobyl. In particular, there were no serious claims that "everything but the rats" will die out in the affected zone in Chernobyl.
As far as I can see, even initial predictions about the dosages and effects, published in the West as early as mid-1986 (numerous publications in Nature, etc.) have been decidedly not sensational.
As I said to the GP already, some people, who rely on tabloid knowledge may have had their views colored, but there is a lot of bullshit flying on any topic.
One such piece of bullshit was about "nature thriving" in Chernobyl in spite of the radiation, when, in fact, nature was and still is faring worse than thriving because of the radiation.
As for the paper you quote -- well -- coming from a person who seriously believes that radiation exposure is beneficial, and has been called out on bad science many times -- certainly doesn't lend you credibility.