said actions in europe can be blaimed squarely on stalin
Did I blame them on anybody else?
and i do believe the nationalists where the recognized government of china when they fled...
And your point is....?
We were engaged with and provided assistance to the Communists during WW2 even if they weren't the recognized Government. In fact, Stillwell spoke in favor of cutting off supplies to the Nationalists and working with the Communists specifically because the Communists were actually fighting the Japanese -- the Nationalists were hording everything we sent them to use against the Communists after the war was over and were only too happy to let the Communists absorb the blunt of the fighting with Japan.
Japan invaded and occupied Manchuria in 1931 [wikipedia.org]. The invasion of the Republic of China in earnest (the second Sino-Japanese war) began in 1937 [wikipedia.org] after years of "incidents" and other minor battles. The Nanking massacre was in late 1937, spanning into early 1938. Japan went on to have clashes with the Soviet Union in 1939. It wasn't until the Japanese invasion of French-Indochina in 1940 that western powers started embargoes (the beginning of the actions that precipitated the war in the Pacific)
Well, part of the delay can be attributed to the general attitudes in favor of appeasement during that time frame and American isolationist sentiment. But I still disagree with your overall analysis. Read about the reactions of the American people and press towards the Nanking massacre. Recall the Panay incident in 1937. Read some of the writings sent back to the states by missionaries and businessmen in China and the public reaction towards them.
The occupation of French Indochina might have been the straw that broke the camel's back (it basically cut off and surrounded the Philippines) but American-Japanese relations had already been deteriorating for the better part of a decade. That deterioration is inexorably linked with Japanese actions in China.
In any case, the fact remains that FDR did everything in his power to assist China, both prior to and after Pearl Harbor. It might be nice to hear the Chinese talk about that instead of focusing on past injustices, especially when the majority of those injustices were not committed by the United States but rather by the European powers and Japan.
So the US went to war to help China? Not because uh, you know, the little incident at Pearl Harbor which you even linked to?
What, do you think the Japanese just woke up one day and said "Hey, let's go to war with a country that has five times our GDP and half again our population!"?
They attacked Pearl Harbor because we cut off their supply of oil and other materials (scrap metal). We did this because of their actions in China and their effective annexation of French Indochina (modern day Vietnam). They needed to seek out another energy source and were afraid of American intervention if they went after the most obvious target (the Dutch East Indies, modern day Indonesia).
If you had bothered to read my first link about the oil situation/embargo you might have understood this before you opened your mouth.
They "claimed" the war in Iraq was unjustified and that there was no evidence of WMDs
I don't recall the French ever saying they didn't think he had WMDs. In fact, I recall them saying (right after the war started) that they would "respond accordingly" if Iraq tried to use WMDs on coalition forces, which was a rather interesting remark to make when they weren't even involved in the war.
They were opposed to the war for many reasons but a lack of WMDs wasn't one of them.
after UN forced had chased north korean into chinese territory iirc
At which point in the war (prior to the Chinese intervention) did the UN violate Chinese territory?
on the other hand, the leadership of china during ww2 ended up fleeing to what is now taiwan after the communist uprising.
If you mean the Nationalists/Kuomintang fled to Taiwan then you are accurate. But they weren't the only 'leadership' of China during WW2. The Communists contributed more to the defeat of the Japanese than the Nationalists did. The Communist leadership was also engaged by the Western Powers during this period -- Stillwell in particular spoke highly about the Communists and their resistance towards the Japanese. So it's a bit of a mistake to say the 'leadership' of China during WW2 fled to Taiwan -- part of the leadership did. The part that actually resisted the Japanese stayed behind.
got to love that stuff. in us eyes, anything other then communist leadership was good. it could be just as dictatorial or worse then the communists, as long as they where not communists...
Well, if you consider the context of the times and the Soviet actions in Europe/violation of their wartime agreements (Potsdam and Yalta) then it really isn't that hard to understand why we were afraid of Communism. In retrospect our actions (particularly in Latin-America) weren't justifiable but it's too easy to condemn them with the full benefit of historical hindsight.
Would you consider our ongoing injustices an internal matter or one that should be roundly discussed, with a final course dictated by the international community?
Two things:
1. I think it's pretty dangerous to try and 'dictate' anything to a country armed with nuclear weapons and ICBMs. This includes China and the United States.
2. Yes, I think our ongoing injustices (Gitmo comes to mind) should be part of the global discussion. I also think our Allies and Trading Partners should be encouraging us to live up to past promises (*cough* Geneva Conventions *cough*) and the better parts of our history.
In that same vain, I don't think the West should be dictating anything to China. But we don't need to be their lapdogs either. We don't need to overlook their abuses simply because it's profitable to do business with them.
Personally, while I'm not going to encourage a boycott of the Olympics, I'm not really feeling any particular desire to go out of my way to watch them either. I felt a lot better about them when the Chinese were treating them as a well-deserved (IMHO) reintroduction to the World after decades of oppression and stagnation. If they turn them into a nationalist spectacle than I don't think comparisons between 2008 and 1936 are entirely unjustified.
And that justifies their oppression, how exactly? I've spoken out about this before -- every time a discussion about China comes up somebody tries to distract us/change the subject by bringing up past/current injustices of the United States/other Western powers.
If you want to have a discussion about Western injustices then fine but I really fail to see how it's relevant in a discussion about Chinese injustices. It's basically the same thing as bringing up the Holocaust as a justification/excuse for Israeli oppression.
This notion that we can't point out human rights abuses because we aren't 100% perfect ourselves isn't logical. During and immediately after WW2 we made tremendous progress towards ensuring basic human rights for all -- the founding the UN and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Around the same time that the ground work was being laid for that we were in the middle of the Japanese Internment and Jim Crow/segregation. Should we have abandoned all of that beneficial work because of those imperfections in our own culture?
'Lots of Chinese people now view the Western media, human rights groups, and Western leaders' criticisms of their country as part of the Racist Western Conspiracy to Stop China From Being Successful.'
You mean like the racist western conspiracy that instigated a war with a formerly allied country mainly because of that countries despicable actions in China? And how did the West get repaid for taking that stance and helping to liberate China? With the Chinese intervention against the United Nations (not just the United States) during the Korean War. Nice going -- we help to stop Japanese aggression and get repaid by China flipping off the entire World to support an aggressive regime that tried to conquer it's Southern neighbor.
If they want to make this into a nationalist cause celebre then somebody should remind them that there's a lot more history behind Chinese relations with the West then just the unequal treaties and not all of that history is the West "oppressing" China.
The ideal is for is to be no greater that 0.8. If it goes above 0.8, then congestion occurs and packets get dropped.
That might be the ideal, but the GP seemed to imply that Ethernet breaks down at and/or can't exceed 80% utilization. That's simply not the case for a well designed network with decent (read: not el-cheapo SOHO 4 port switch/router combos) switches, cabling, NICs and full-duplex operation.
Hell, this is anecdotal from my own experiences, but I've seen hubbed (i.e: half-duplex and non-switched) Ethernets running at 60-75% of capacity without any major issues or hiccups. It's far from ideal but it works well enough for some applications and users.
HTTPS is great, but involves a significant CPU cost per page and isn't friendly to web caches.
Is being friendly to web caches still relevant in this day and age? How many organizations and/or ISPs actually still have to rely on caching because of a lack of edge bandwidth? Is this really still a concern?
In that same vain, is the extra CPU overhead of https really a concern in this day and age? Even for older computers, is the CPU really the bottleneck? I've always found that memory (esp with Firefox) and slower hard drives (esp with less memory when swapping comes into play) are the bigger issues with trying to browse modern webpages on an older machine. Or are you thinking about the CPU overhead on the webserver instead of the client?
The electoral system in most of continental Europe didn't degenerate into the two-party fuckup of the USA
No, it degenerates into a multi-party fuckup instead, where minor (in some cases single issue) parties hold ridiculous amounts of influence that bear no relation to their actual numbers (unless one party can actually attain a majority on it's own). It degenerates into unstable Governments that dissolve, call for elections, get elected, only to dissolve yet again after some minor party walks away from the governing coalition.
Don't get me wrong -- the system seems to work well enough for Europe. But I don't think it's the direction that we should be taking the United States.
But they're not in a position to just be overtly corrupt and overtly in the pocket of some corporation or cartel
This is just downright misinformed. Europe has had it's fair share of corruption and bought-off politicians. Took a look at Italian or British politics sometime.
Exactly what's keeping you from pulling that stunt again?
Apathetic people who would rather whine about how bad things are then actually get involved in the process to change them.
In any case, all the more reason to use the TOR network.
I've barely found TOR to be usable for normal web browsing. What makes you think it can be used in any meaningful way with p2p? It might be usable for small'ish files (I've known people that use it to share mp3s via fserves on IRC) but for real file sharing? Not in my experience....
Could you describe how you do that or point me to a guide?
No problem.
1. Setup unsecured wireless network where people will find it.
2. Intercept their webpage traffic and replace it with something more to your liking (Goatse images work well)
3. ???
4. Profit!
Just as your body contains something like 100,000 kilometers of capillaries, but only a few meters of arteries
This is totally offtopic, but I was going to call bullshit on your 100,000km figure as it seemed pretty excessive. Imagine my surprise when I found this, which actually claims that an adult may have upwards of 100,000 miles (160,934km) of blood vessels in their body.
BUT, if you need to get high to get out of bed in the morning and function in society (and you don't have an underlying condition for which marijuana is a valid treatment) then you're abusing the drug
What about the people that need caffeine in order to function? Are they not abusing the drug?
They have been cracking down on places like restruants that put in devices to block cell-phones
Rightfully so, since those devices (AKA jammers) are illegally broadcasting on licensed frequencies. I don't generally care much for the business practices of the wireless industry but they did spend billions of dollars for those licenses and have legitimate grounds to be pissed if you throw your jammer onto their spectrum.
If you don't want people using cell phones in your establishment then make that a policy and ask people to leave who can't follow it. Or retrofit your building with a Faraday Cage (some theaters are doing this with new construction). Those are your legal options.
We've also been leaving large steel objects on the ocean floor for quite some time (>100 years), both accidentally and deliberately . These are the least of our concerns when talking about ocean pollution. If you actually want to do something about the ocean start talking about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, because that's far more harmful to marine life then a few sunken subway cars or ships that actually provide shelter for fish and a surface for coral to grow on.
ut the articles on security matters and such usually have some useful insights and ideas - like the large discussion on password security I was reading yesterday, which is always work related for an IT department
Oh don't get me wrong. My boss has asked about/. before. It's a "trade journal", don't you know?;)
but I did really have some other things I should probably have done first:P
Slashdot Mirror
Did I blame them on anybody else?
and i do believe the nationalists where the recognized government of china when they fled...And your point is....?
We were engaged with and provided assistance to the Communists during WW2 even if they weren't the recognized Government. In fact, Stillwell spoke in favor of cutting off supplies to the Nationalists and working with the Communists specifically because the Communists were actually fighting the Japanese -- the Nationalists were hording everything we sent them to use against the Communists after the war was over and were only too happy to let the Communists absorb the blunt of the fighting with Japan.
Well, part of the delay can be attributed to the general attitudes in favor of appeasement during that time frame and American isolationist sentiment. But I still disagree with your overall analysis. Read about the reactions of the American people and press towards the Nanking massacre. Recall the Panay incident in 1937. Read some of the writings sent back to the states by missionaries and businessmen in China and the public reaction towards them.
The occupation of French Indochina might have been the straw that broke the camel's back (it basically cut off and surrounded the Philippines) but American-Japanese relations had already been deteriorating for the better part of a decade. That deterioration is inexorably linked with Japanese actions in China.
In any case, the fact remains that FDR did everything in his power to assist China, both prior to and after Pearl Harbor. It might be nice to hear the Chinese talk about that instead of focusing on past injustices, especially when the majority of those injustices were not committed by the United States but rather by the European powers and Japan.
What, do you think the Japanese just woke up one day and said "Hey, let's go to war with a country that has five times our GDP and half again our population!"?
They attacked Pearl Harbor because we cut off their supply of oil and other materials (scrap metal). We did this because of their actions in China and their effective annexation of French Indochina (modern day Vietnam). They needed to seek out another energy source and were afraid of American intervention if they went after the most obvious target (the Dutch East Indies, modern day Indonesia).
If you had bothered to read my first link about the oil situation/embargo you might have understood this before you opened your mouth.
I don't recall the French ever saying they didn't think he had WMDs. In fact, I recall them saying (right after the war started) that they would "respond accordingly" if Iraq tried to use WMDs on coalition forces, which was a rather interesting remark to make when they weren't even involved in the war.
They were opposed to the war for many reasons but a lack of WMDs wasn't one of them.
At which point in the war (prior to the Chinese intervention) did the UN violate Chinese territory?
on the other hand, the leadership of china during ww2 ended up fleeing to what is now taiwan after the communist uprising.If you mean the Nationalists/Kuomintang fled to Taiwan then you are accurate. But they weren't the only 'leadership' of China during WW2. The Communists contributed more to the defeat of the Japanese than the Nationalists did. The Communist leadership was also engaged by the Western Powers during this period -- Stillwell in particular spoke highly about the Communists and their resistance towards the Japanese. So it's a bit of a mistake to say the 'leadership' of China during WW2 fled to Taiwan -- part of the leadership did. The part that actually resisted the Japanese stayed behind.
got to love that stuff. in us eyes, anything other then communist leadership was good. it could be just as dictatorial or worse then the communists, as long as they where not communists...Well, if you consider the context of the times and the Soviet actions in Europe/violation of their wartime agreements (Potsdam and Yalta) then it really isn't that hard to understand why we were afraid of Communism. In retrospect our actions (particularly in Latin-America) weren't justifiable but it's too easy to condemn them with the full benefit of historical hindsight.
Two things:
1. I think it's pretty dangerous to try and 'dictate' anything to a country armed with nuclear weapons and ICBMs. This includes China and the United States.
2. Yes, I think our ongoing injustices (Gitmo comes to mind) should be part of the global discussion. I also think our Allies and Trading Partners should be encouraging us to live up to past promises (*cough* Geneva Conventions *cough*) and the better parts of our history.
In that same vain, I don't think the West should be dictating anything to China. But we don't need to be their lapdogs either. We don't need to overlook their abuses simply because it's profitable to do business with them.
Personally, while I'm not going to encourage a boycott of the Olympics, I'm not really feeling any particular desire to go out of my way to watch them either. I felt a lot better about them when the Chinese were treating them as a well-deserved (IMHO) reintroduction to the World after decades of oppression and stagnation. If they turn them into a nationalist spectacle than I don't think comparisons between 2008 and 1936 are entirely unjustified.
And that justifies their oppression, how exactly? I've spoken out about this before -- every time a discussion about China comes up somebody tries to distract us/change the subject by bringing up past/current injustices of the United States/other Western powers.
If you want to have a discussion about Western injustices then fine but I really fail to see how it's relevant in a discussion about Chinese injustices. It's basically the same thing as bringing up the Holocaust as a justification/excuse for Israeli oppression.
This notion that we can't point out human rights abuses because we aren't 100% perfect ourselves isn't logical. During and immediately after WW2 we made tremendous progress towards ensuring basic human rights for all -- the founding the UN and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Around the same time that the ground work was being laid for that we were in the middle of the Japanese Internment and Jim Crow/segregation. Should we have abandoned all of that beneficial work because of those imperfections in our own culture?
So our ongoing injustices excuse their behavior in Tibet and towards their own people?
You mean like the racist western conspiracy that instigated a war with a formerly allied country mainly because of that countries despicable actions in China? And how did the West get repaid for taking that stance and helping to liberate China? With the Chinese intervention against the United Nations (not just the United States) during the Korean War. Nice going -- we help to stop Japanese aggression and get repaid by China flipping off the entire World to support an aggressive regime that tried to conquer it's Southern neighbor.
If they want to make this into a nationalist cause celebre then somebody should remind them that there's a lot more history behind Chinese relations with the West then just the unequal treaties and not all of that history is the West "oppressing" China.
So our past injustices excuse their modern day oppression?
That might be the ideal, but the GP seemed to imply that Ethernet breaks down at and/or can't exceed 80% utilization. That's simply not the case for a well designed network with decent (read: not el-cheapo SOHO 4 port switch/router combos) switches, cabling, NICs and full-duplex operation.
Hell, this is anecdotal from my own experiences, but I've seen hubbed (i.e: half-duplex and non-switched) Ethernets running at 60-75% of capacity without any major issues or hiccups. It's far from ideal but it works well enough for some applications and users.
Is being friendly to web caches still relevant in this day and age? How many organizations and/or ISPs actually still have to rely on caching because of a lack of edge bandwidth? Is this really still a concern?
In that same vain, is the extra CPU overhead of https really a concern in this day and age? Even for older computers, is the CPU really the bottleneck? I've always found that memory (esp with Firefox) and slower hard drives (esp with less memory when swapping comes into play) are the bigger issues with trying to browse modern webpages on an older machine. Or are you thinking about the CPU overhead on the webserver instead of the client?
No, it degenerates into a multi-party fuckup instead, where minor (in some cases single issue) parties hold ridiculous amounts of influence that bear no relation to their actual numbers (unless one party can actually attain a majority on it's own). It degenerates into unstable Governments that dissolve, call for elections, get elected, only to dissolve yet again after some minor party walks away from the governing coalition.
Don't get me wrong -- the system seems to work well enough for Europe. But I don't think it's the direction that we should be taking the United States.
But they're not in a position to just be overtly corrupt and overtly in the pocket of some corporation or cartelThis is just downright misinformed. Europe has had it's fair share of corruption and bought-off politicians. Took a look at Italian or British politics sometime.
Exactly what's keeping you from pulling that stunt again?Apathetic people who would rather whine about how bad things are then actually get involved in the process to change them.
Do you have a citation for that? I've seen Ethernet networks with decent switches approach 95% of the rated capacity.
Too bad Senator Santorum got defeated two years ago ;)
The name of the file? Fuck that! They should tattoo you with the complete lyrics to the song you were caught sharing.
I pity the fool that shares Alice's Restaurant.....
I've barely found TOR to be usable for normal web browsing. What makes you think it can be used in any meaningful way with p2p? It might be usable for small'ish files (I've known people that use it to share mp3s via fserves on IRC) but for real file sharing? Not in my experience....
Option (4) involves a female that is apparently attracted to Bruce Willis. I don't have much information about her but I'm told that she's "perfect" ;)
(Offtopic, so I disabled my karma bonus)
Seven years of reading /. and I've never seen that ASCII art before? Wow, just wow.....
Bravo, btw ;) 15 minutes ago and you would have gotten one of my mod points.
No problem.
1. Setup unsecured wireless network where people will find it.
Thanks2. Intercept their webpage traffic and replace it with something more to your liking (Goatse images work well)
3. ???
4. Profit!
Your welcome!
This is totally offtopic, but I was going to call bullshit on your 100,000km figure as it seemed pretty excessive. Imagine my surprise when I found this, which actually claims that an adult may have upwards of 100,000 miles (160,934km) of blood vessels in their body.
Learn something new every day I suppose.
What about the people that need caffeine in order to function? Are they not abusing the drug?
Rightfully so, since those devices (AKA jammers) are illegally broadcasting on licensed frequencies. I don't generally care much for the business practices of the wireless industry but they did spend billions of dollars for those licenses and have legitimate grounds to be pissed if you throw your jammer onto their spectrum.
If you don't want people using cell phones in your establishment then make that a policy and ask people to leave who can't follow it. Or retrofit your building with a Faraday Cage (some theaters are doing this with new construction). Those are your legal options.
We've also been leaving large steel objects on the ocean floor for quite some time (>100 years), both accidentally and deliberately . These are the least of our concerns when talking about ocean pollution. If you actually want to do something about the ocean start talking about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, because that's far more harmful to marine life then a few sunken subway cars or ships that actually provide shelter for fish and a surface for coral to grow on.
Oh don't get me wrong. My boss has asked about /. before. It's a "trade journal", don't you know? ;)
but I did really have some other things I should probably have done firstDitto.