The only thing I could think of...say a large city like New York or LA has a terrorist attack. People overwhelm the network(s) and in order to allow emergency personnel to have dependable access, they black out all of the network except for what the emergency people need to use.
Except having open communications when the I35W bridge collapsed helped. Businesses were able to keep communications open. Ham radio has helped in a number of cases as well.
I hate to break it to you, but the government already has far greater powers than this law provides. In certain situations, I've heard that they're even allowed to kill people.
They are allowed to kill people. They can even roast 76 men, women, and children without consequences. And people wonder about the rise of militias and the attacks on government.
Whenever a government does not intervene and regulate, power vacuums are quickly filled by mustachioed land barons
Oh, you mean like when the government gave land away to robber barons during the Gilded Age? Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew W. Mellon, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Flagler, and J.P. Morgan didn't all get wealthy purely by hard work, they were handed land others owned but was taken away by the government when it used the power of Eminent domain. Kind of like how they just steal land. Or Kelo v. City of New London, when the city forced a bunch of citizens off their land so a large pharmaceutical business could build on the land.
I hope you never have to endure governments as powerless as you desire them to be.
I hope you never have to deal with a government as powerful as you wish them to be. Any government powerful enough to give you what you want is powerful enough to take it way too. Now if you really do want powerful government then there's Iran and North Korea you can move to. Or Zimbabwe.
Yes, the problem with BBS and radio stations and the like is that they are centralized mass communication.
Ah, that's how the NAZIs were able to stop communications in occupied territories. Except not all was stopped. Shortwave radio can be used on the go and with packet radio technology there can be digital communications. Maybe mesh networking can be used too.
Add up all these and it will be harder for a small group to control a larger one.
"The military are here, and they are telling me to get off the air, but I won't..." Gunshots. Silence.
I know there are some VERY archaic laws on the books in all states, but sex toys are a fairly modern things, no? Did someone pass anti-vibrator laws in the past 3-4 decades?
That depends on what you call sex toys and what "fairly modern" is. What we'd call sex toys today were being made in the 1800s. Vibrators were being used in the 1880s, as a medical device. The first one was invented in 1869. Kama Sutra which is thousands of years old talks about using sex aids or toys. Dildos come from around 1400. The Brief History of Sex toys has more info.
So, what do you mean by "sex toys are a fairly modern things"?
Would you want your cops to stop an arson in progress, or should they be forced to go through the courts first? A DDoS could do far more damage than an arson.
Who's the greater threat, arsonists or governments? Arsonists kill less than terrorists and terrorists on 911 killed less than 4000 people however governments have killed millions.
Well how about the fact that we're slowly computerizing the electrical grid for remote shutoff?
And you want to make it easier for government to do that, turn off the grid remotely?
We're becoming more and more interconnected and from a security standpoint it's not a good thing.
That's why it's better to be off the grid. If you must be connected to the grid then you should use two inverters, one from the grid connected to the other. That way when the grid goes out the first inverter will disconnect while the second one supplies power to the house.
This is just another story of government over reaching in to the lives of the population. First health care now privacy.
Before health care there was, and still is, the War on Drugs. Two Republican, 2 not 1 and Republican not Democrat, presidents overreached with that. Republican President Nixon had The Shafer Commissionstudy whether hemp, marijuana, should be legalized. Of the 13 members Nixon appointed 9. Even then he said no matter what the commission concludes he would never agree to allow hemp to be legalized. And that is exactly what the commission concluded. After him Republican President Reagan then toughened law enforcement and sentencing for drug offices. Nancy Reagan was the one that started the Just Say No campaign. Neither Nixon nor Reagan, nor most Democrats for that matter, would agree to legalization.
but your argument is pretty weak. If having "created" the Internet had any bearing on getting to control it (it doesn't), and if DARPA "created" the Internet (true only in some senses of the word) then DARPA should control it. DARPA is controlled by the US government, so metaphorically speaking "the USA" is controlling DARPA and should be able to control the net.
I didn't read the post myself, it's "beneath your current threshold". However in one form or another a network of networks, which is what the internet is, would have developed without ARPANET or DARPA. Neither had anything to do with CompuServe for instance. Compu-Serv Network, Inc was started in 1969 by an insurance company. It was spun off as a separate business in 1975 and it's name changed to CompuServe. Also during the 1970s BBSes or Bulletin board systems were springing up like mushrooms after a night's rain. FidoNet allowed communications between different BBSes. During the 1980s a number of other online service providers arose. AOL, GEnie, and Prodigy are some of the ones I recall.
It was only a matter of tyme before someone came along with the idea of a public square instead of just the walled gardens of most online services.
That has little to do with free speech, you'll have trouble for doing that even with your mouth shut.
Speech isn't just oral or verbal. Another aspect is gesture, and guess what, saluting is a gesture.
my country, e.g., has an article criminalizing "movements aimed at limiting civil rights and liberties"
Which limits people's civil rights and liberty. At least here in the US. Using laws to quell speech only drives it underground, instead debate bad speech with good speech.
The interesting part about that is that Darl himself stated that they didn't need the copyrights. It's quoted in the Groklaw report on his testimony. Basically, they got all the same rights as HP (HP-UX), IBM (AIX), and others who rolled their own Unix. They didn't need the copyrights and proving that should be trivial at this point.
The problem with this is that if SCO can roll up their own Unix, so can everyone else. If SCO can so can IBM so SCO loses.
I agree it's not over though, SCO will be around for some tyme to come.
Who cares about the success or failure of a company when you're sipping champagne on your yacht?
The stockholders, when a corporate executive mishandles a corporation driving it into the ground stockholders can sue. Executives have a fiduciary duty to the corporation.
...is like declaring victory because you're the last person to hit the ground in the plane crash. How much has this cost Novell and IBM in real $$'s? With SCO bankrupt how can either expect to recoup any of the 7 years of court costs?
Novell's win against SCO ends that lawsuit but it doesn't end the SCO v IBM suit. The "Salt Lake Tribune" article has this little tidbit:
"Former U.S. District Judge Edward Cahn, the trustee for SCO's bankruptcy filed in Delaware, said the company is "deeply disappointed" in the jury's verdict in the dispute over which company owned the copyrights to Unix, which is widely used in business computing.
"But Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM, in which the computer giant is accused of using Unix code to make the Linux operating system a viable competitor, causing a decline in SCO's revenues."
Exactly what claim SCO can make I have no idea, but it took Novell more than 6 years to prevail over SCO and I have no illusion SCO will die a quick death.
How does being bigger than Microsoft entail that Google was 'that big'?
Can you show where I said Google was big? No you can't, because I didn't say it. What I said was that it was bigger than MS.
To my knowledge, Google was barely at 15% market share and not getting any bigger, *in China*. Fifteen is way smaller than basically anywhere.
15% is bigger than 10% which is bigger than 5%. Of course if you don't want that 5% raise I'll take it.
Leaving then, especially after the hacking, is a sound *business* move;
I don't disagree. However instead of totally pulling out Google could have split off and sold the Chinese business. Split off then licensed to use Google patents it could have been listed on Chinese stock exchanges. Or sold to a competitor.
And, again, leaving after knowingly entering a censored market does not give Google any higher moral ground than e.g. Microsoft, or even Cisco, as far as I'm concerned.
On it's own yes. But if a business goes into a market and works to change that market, such as trying to get the government to open up, then it is better than the business that goes in that only cares about profits.
As the anonymous person points out... your link starts with a note that they are over 90% the same ethnic group. And most view themselves as the same race.
First, where does the wiki article say most Chinese view themselves as the same ethnic group? Next, as for the majority of Chinese being Han, that's true for all of modern day China, however in some regions ethnic minorities are the majority. To offset this the authorities encourage, and even force, Han Chinese to emigrate to these regions. As Niccolò Machiavelli wrote in "The Prince" an effective way to take over an invaded area, and China did invade independent areas, is by relocating native inhabitants to that area. So for instance the Chinese government encouraged Han Chinese to move to Tibet after the 1949-1950 Chinese invasion of Tibet and continues to do so. Heck the British did that in Ireland, encouraged Protestant British to move to Ireland. Unionism in Ireland. Even the US did that, encouraged settlers to "go west" giving them the land they homesteaded on. This of course didn't sit well with American Indians.
You run into it all over the place... one example being here: http://cobb.typepad.com/cobb/2005/01/is_that_what_yo_1.html [typepad.com]
"When I pressed him on why he thought that way he finally revealed that because of the racial superiority of the Chinese people, there can never be true equality between a Chinese and non-Chinese and since any deep relationship would require that...there can be no true relationship."
Think about that, you just said the same as I did, it's found everywhere and not just by Chinese. Even the link you hints as much, "And I thought back to the 80s when everybody was sure that the Japanese were going to buy all the real estate in America up, including the Statue of Liberty. Yet somehow when it came to moving around the cities they were consuming, they would still somehow figure out not to go to the ghettoes or buy anything there, thereby leaving blackfolks just as poor in an overheated market." Today there are any number of groups in the US who if not have a superiority/inferiority complex. The "Southern Poverty Law Center counted 932 active hate groups in the United States in 2009." Like U2 sang, "you've got someone to blame?"
Oh, btw, some economists think it will turn out the same for the Chinese as it did for the Japanese. While many Americans and Europeans are afraid the Chinese will take over the world economically, like some did in the 1980s about the Japanese, there are economists who dispute this. Chinese was able to take over a lot of manufacturing because their wages were low however those wages are rising and as they do manufacturers will be looking for other places to go to. Free trade, er as there is no free trade freer trade, benefits a lot of people. Of course China needs to allow it's currency the yuan to float on exchanges. However the US needs to stop giving US agribusinesses billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. Much like the nuclear industry the agriculture industry is hooked on subsidies. Archer Daniels Midland or ADM which is a $500 billion a year multinational corporation, and Cargill the largest privately owned company are examples of corporate welfare queens, receiving billions of taxpayer dollars a year.
Actually, I disagree. I think that pulling out of China does far more harm to citizens of China than staying there.
How so?
And yes, I am serious. And I'm personally sick of the claim that MS abused its monopoly. MS's position IMO was still the right one.
And I'm sick and tired of people sticking up for the abuse of power.
A web browser is an OS feature.
A web browser IS NOT an OS feature, all OSes need do is provide a method to run a computer and it's software. The only reason MS gave it away was for anti-competitive purposes.
I think the forced decoupling of the OS from the web browser has actually slowed innovation.
Oh really? Microsoft doesn't innovate, it plays catchup. MS didn't do anything with IE until after Firefox started gaining a significant marketshare. MS hasn't done much with it's OS either. Under the desk I'm sitting at I still have my PC running NT4. I bought the PC brand new in December 1997 and the last tyme I ran Windows update was in January 2000. When I did I got a message from MS that I needed to order a CD with the updates and bug fixes. Luckily I posted about this though and someone gave me links to them so I could download them.
He just had an $80, 000 operation and I asked him how he felt that it would have been $0 in Canada, other than your taxes.
Except even those who can't pay get medical care in the US too. More than 10 years ago I was riding my bike after my college classes one day when I was hit. My medical bills came to more than US$120,000 yet I was treated in a hospital by doctors without having any way to pay those bills. Since then I have been on and collecting disability income because the accident left me disabled. Besides my disability income I have Medicare, government, coverage and get a little economic assistance. I hate it, needing the aid, but what I hate most is the system is set up to keep people down once they are down. I have yet to find any assistance, my disability is permanent, in getting a job or the training for a job. And if I were able to find someone willing to hire me, for what I don't know, I can lose the assistance I do get. It seems like it's all or nothing. I fear Obamacare will make it worse.
I don't know if there were databases, other than paper files in file cabinets, but if so then they could also be used to keep track of European Jews who wanted to emigrate. See, it's a fable or lie to say the NAZIs wanted to exterminate all Jews. What the NAZIs wanted was to get rid of Jews in Europe. The NAZIs actually signed an agreement with the Zionist Federation of Germany to assist Jews emigrate to Palestine. This agreement was the Haavara (Transfer) Agreement and was signed in 1933. As late as 1940 NAZIs were aiding Jews move to Palestine. Heck the Stern Gang or Lehi offered to fight with NAZI Germany against Britain. Back then Britain called them, the Jewish Stern Gang as well as others such as the Irgun and the earlier Haganah, terrorists.
Those early Jews were Zionists who wanted an ethnically purified Israel for Jews only. David Ben-Gurion, who Declared Israel's Independence and was it's first prime minister, stated "Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country... There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So it is simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army." In the article The Long Path Out of Denial: Zionism, Heartache, and a New Vision of Israel and Palestine the Jewish magazine "Tikkun" has more quotes from some of Israel's founders, such as this one:
Shlomo Lavie, a well-known leader of the Israeli Labor Party, the Mapai, declared that the "transfer of Arabs out of the country in my eyes is one of the most just, moral, and correct things that can be done."
Google would have never withdrawn if it had managed to take a large enough market share there. They weren't that big
Google wasn't that big? It was bigger than Microsoft however they left while MS stayed. One comment even touched on this: "I don't think many companies can follow Google. First, Google is big enough; second, the hacking really damaged its core interests; third, their market share is only [a small] percentage of their global market." Of course Microsoft isn't the problem Cisco is, Cisco provides the hardware for filtering.
You can tell that the US is a mixed economy because half the country complains about being socialist while the other half complains that corporations control everything.
I'll have to remember that.
You're right about the US being a mixed economy, several minutes ago I posted the same thing but in different words. Personally I complain about socialism and the corporate aristocracy both. I want free trade with lots of competition not socialism or capitalism as practiced too often today. At the same tyme I don't want small groups owning the infrastructure. But what can be done? For instance with broadband, only so many cables or fibers can be laid out. The same with powerlines, water and sewage, and so on.
I'm more concerned with the world class inferiority/racial superiority complex that the chinese have going as a culture.
One, that's found throughout the world. Secondly China isn't one culture and just one ethnic group. There are more than 50 ethnic groups in Mainland China. And the Kuomentang or KMT invaded the islands of Taiwan, of which the largest is Formosa. The inhabitants of Formosa had more than 20 different languages. Those inhabitants call 28 February 1947 Taiwan's Holocaust.
Now I'm not sure about the written Formosan languages but the Mainland Chinese languages share the same written ideograms, spoken languages are what's different. I don't know much now, too many years have gone by since I last spoke Mandarin, but I have a niece who's goes to a Chinese immersion school for kindergarten.
Best thing that could happen to them is a lot of immigrants and a lot of interracial marriages.
The opposite is happening now, a lot of Chinese are emigrating to other countries. Now if a Westerner, Americans, Canadians, and Europeans, want to live like kings they can move to either China or India and get paid very well if they have certain skills. The pay isn't as well as in the west but the cost of living isn't as high either.
For those interested in traveling overseas to find work, check out Transitions Abroad.
Yes, there is a difference and no China is not socialist. As a theory socialism advocates state ownership of industry and as an economic system the state owns the capital. China however allows and advocates individuals owning their own business. And it's not just in China the government allows private businesses, Cuba does as well, it is experimenting with private ownership of small businesses. The economic system in USSR on the other hand was communism which banned the private ownership of property. Everything was collectively owned, er that's how it was supposed to be, but it wasn't really. And like China and Cuba technically the US has a mixed economy, the new health insurance reform bill Obama signed underscoring that.
I think the point is that MS is no less honorable than Google.
You can't be serious. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. Not that being a monopoly is bad, what makes a monopoly bad is what it does with the power. MS has done a number of bad things besides restricting competition. Not since the late '70s has MS innovated much, instead it either buys, borrows, or steals others' technology. MS didn't even create Internet Explorer. Instead it bought a license for Spyglass. Part of the payment was supposed to be royalties on the sell on IE but MS gave it away so MS even cheated on that.
At the end of the day Google hasn't improved the lives or prospects of Chinese citizens
Nor has it harmed Chinese citizens, whereas MS cooperating with the Chinese government can harm the citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
The only thing I could think of...say a large city like New York or LA has a terrorist attack. People overwhelm the network(s) and in order to allow emergency personnel to have dependable access, they black out all of the network except for what the emergency people need to use.
Except having open communications when the I35W bridge collapsed helped. Businesses were able to keep communications open. Ham radio has helped in a number of cases as well.
Falcon
I hate to break it to you, but the government already has far greater powers than this law provides. In certain situations, I've heard that they're even allowed to kill people.
They are allowed to kill people. They can even roast 76 men, women, and children without consequences. And people wonder about the rise of militias and the attacks on government.
Whenever a government does not intervene and regulate, power vacuums are quickly filled by mustachioed land barons
Oh, you mean like when the government gave land away to robber barons during the Gilded Age? Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew W. Mellon, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Flagler, and J.P. Morgan didn't all get wealthy purely by hard work, they were handed land others owned but was taken away by the government when it used the power of Eminent domain. Kind of like how they just steal land. Or Kelo v. City of New London, when the city forced a bunch of citizens off their land so a large pharmaceutical business could build on the land.
I hope you never have to endure governments as powerless as you desire them to be.
I hope you never have to deal with a government as powerful as you wish them to be. Any government powerful enough to give you what you want is powerful enough to take it way too. Now if you really do want powerful government then there's Iran and North Korea you can move to. Or Zimbabwe.
Falcon
Yes, the problem with BBS and radio stations and the like is that they are centralized mass communication.
Ah, that's how the NAZIs were able to stop communications in occupied territories. Except not all was stopped. Shortwave radio can be used on the go and with packet radio technology there can be digital communications. Maybe mesh networking can be used too.
Add up all these and it will be harder for a small group to control a larger one.
"The military are here, and they are telling me to get off the air, but I won't..." Gunshots. Silence.
Twitter arrested.
Falcon
I know there are some VERY archaic laws on the books in all states, but sex toys are a fairly modern things, no? Did someone pass anti-vibrator laws in the past 3-4 decades?
That depends on what you call sex toys and what "fairly modern" is. What we'd call sex toys today were being made in the 1800s. Vibrators were being used in the 1880s, as a medical device. The first one was invented in 1869. Kama Sutra which is thousands of years old talks about using sex aids or toys. Dildos come from around 1400. The Brief History of Sex toys has more info.
So, what do you mean by "sex toys are a fairly modern things"?
Falcon
Would you want your cops to stop an arson in progress, or should they be forced to go through the courts first? A DDoS could do far more damage than an arson.
Who's the greater threat, arsonists or governments? Arsonists kill less than terrorists and terrorists on 911 killed less than 4000 people however governments have killed millions.
Falcon
Well how about the fact that we're slowly computerizing the electrical grid for remote shutoff?
And you want to make it easier for government to do that, turn off the grid remotely?
We're becoming more and more interconnected and from a security standpoint it's not a good thing.
That's why it's better to be off the grid. If you must be connected to the grid then you should use two inverters, one from the grid connected to the other. That way when the grid goes out the first inverter will disconnect while the second one supplies power to the house.
Falcon
My assumption is that this is intended to give the President the authority to shut down botnet controllers during DDoS attacks.
Where do you get the idea it's about shutting down botnets? Nowhere are botnets mentioned.
Falcon
This is just another story of government over reaching in to the lives of the population. First health care now privacy.
Before health care there was, and still is, the War on Drugs. Two Republican, 2 not 1 and Republican not Democrat, presidents overreached with that. Republican President Nixon had The Shafer Commissionstudy whether hemp, marijuana, should be legalized. Of the 13 members Nixon appointed 9. Even then he said no matter what the commission concludes he would never agree to allow hemp to be legalized. And that is exactly what the commission concluded. After him Republican President Reagan then toughened law enforcement and sentencing for drug offices. Nancy Reagan was the one that started the Just Say No campaign. Neither Nixon nor Reagan, nor most Democrats for that matter, would agree to legalization.
Next they will tell you what to eat
Michael Bloomberg, a Republican, wants to say what people eat. He also advocated smoking bans as well as gun bans.
Big brother here we come.
That's true with both Republicans and Democrats.
Falcon
but your argument is pretty weak. If having "created" the Internet had any bearing on getting to control it (it doesn't), and if DARPA "created" the Internet (true only in some senses of the word) then DARPA should control it. DARPA is controlled by the US government, so metaphorically speaking "the USA" is controlling DARPA and should be able to control the net.
I didn't read the post myself, it's "beneath your current threshold". However in one form or another a network of networks, which is what the internet is, would have developed without ARPANET or DARPA. Neither had anything to do with CompuServe for instance. Compu-Serv Network, Inc was started in 1969 by an insurance company. It was spun off as a separate business in 1975 and it's name changed to CompuServe. Also during the 1970s BBSes or Bulletin board systems were springing up like mushrooms after a night's rain. FidoNet allowed communications between different BBSes. During the 1980s a number of other online service providers arose. AOL, GEnie, and Prodigy are some of the ones I recall.
It was only a matter of tyme before someone came along with the idea of a public square instead of just the walled gardens of most online services.
Falcon
That has little to do with free speech, you'll have trouble for doing that even with your mouth shut.
Speech isn't just oral or verbal. Another aspect is gesture, and guess what, saluting is a gesture.
my country, e.g., has an article criminalizing "movements aimed at limiting civil rights and liberties"
Which limits people's civil rights and liberty. At least here in the US. Using laws to quell speech only drives it underground, instead debate bad speech with good speech.
Falcon
The interesting part about that is that Darl himself stated that they didn't need the copyrights. It's quoted in the Groklaw report on his testimony. Basically, they got all the same rights as HP (HP-UX), IBM (AIX), and others who rolled their own Unix. They didn't need the copyrights and proving that should be trivial at this point.
The problem with this is that if SCO can roll up their own Unix, so can everyone else. If SCO can so can IBM so SCO loses.
I agree it's not over though, SCO will be around for some tyme to come.
Falcon
Who cares about the success or failure of a company when you're sipping champagne on your yacht?
The stockholders, when a corporate executive mishandles a corporation driving it into the ground stockholders can sue. Executives have a fiduciary duty to the corporation.
Falcon
...is like declaring victory because you're the last person to hit the ground in the plane crash. How much has this cost Novell and IBM in real $$'s? With SCO bankrupt how can either expect to recoup any of the 7 years of court costs?
Novell's win against SCO ends that lawsuit but it doesn't end the SCO v IBM suit. The "Salt Lake Tribune" article has this little tidbit:
"Former U.S. District Judge Edward Cahn, the trustee for SCO's bankruptcy filed in Delaware, said the company is "deeply disappointed" in the jury's verdict in the dispute over which company owned the copyrights to Unix, which is widely used in business computing.
"But Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM, in which the computer giant is accused of using Unix code to make the Linux operating system a viable competitor, causing a decline in SCO's revenues."
Exactly what claim SCO can make I have no idea, but it took Novell more than 6 years to prevail over SCO and I have no illusion SCO will die a quick death.
Falcon
You forgot the "I'll get modded down for this, but here goes..." line in your post.
No, as another slashdotter said "Reasonable people understand that evidence is necessary to back up their spurious claims."
Falcon
position? Maybe not now, maybe not in a few years, but you never know what happens or who buys what company..
Hopefully by then software patents will be invalidated.
Falcon
How does being bigger than Microsoft entail that Google was 'that big'?
Can you show where I said Google was big? No you can't, because I didn't say it. What I said was that it was bigger than MS.
To my knowledge, Google was barely at 15% market share and not getting any bigger, *in China*. Fifteen is way smaller than basically anywhere.
15% is bigger than 10% which is bigger than 5%. Of course if you don't want that 5% raise I'll take it.
Leaving then, especially after the hacking, is a sound *business* move;
I don't disagree. However instead of totally pulling out Google could have split off and sold the Chinese business. Split off then licensed to use Google patents it could have been listed on Chinese stock exchanges. Or sold to a competitor.
And, again, leaving after knowingly entering a censored market does not give Google any higher moral ground than e.g. Microsoft, or even Cisco, as far as I'm concerned.
On it's own yes. But if a business goes into a market and works to change that market, such as trying to get the government to open up, then it is better than the business that goes in that only cares about profits.
Falcon
As the anonymous person points out... your link starts with a note that they are over 90% the same ethnic group. And most view themselves as the same race.
First, where does the wiki article say most Chinese view themselves as the same ethnic group? Next, as for the majority of Chinese being Han, that's true for all of modern day China, however in some regions ethnic minorities are the majority. To offset this the authorities encourage, and even force, Han Chinese to emigrate to these regions. As Niccolò Machiavelli wrote in "The Prince" an effective way to take over an invaded area, and China did invade independent areas, is by relocating native inhabitants to that area. So for instance the Chinese government encouraged Han Chinese to move to Tibet after the 1949-1950 Chinese invasion of Tibet and continues to do so. Heck the British did that in Ireland, encouraged Protestant British to move to Ireland. Unionism in Ireland. Even the US did that, encouraged settlers to "go west" giving them the land they homesteaded on. This of course didn't sit well with American Indians.
You run into it all over the place... one example being here:
http://cobb.typepad.com/cobb/2005/01/is_that_what_yo_1.html [typepad.com]
"When I pressed him on why he thought that way he finally revealed that because of the racial superiority of the Chinese people, there can never be true equality between a Chinese and non-Chinese and since any deep relationship would require that...there can be no true relationship."
Think about that, you just said the same as I did, it's found everywhere and not just by Chinese. Even the link you hints as much, "And I thought back to the 80s when everybody was sure that the Japanese were going to buy all the real estate in America up, including the Statue of Liberty. Yet somehow when it came to moving around the cities they were consuming, they would still somehow figure out not to go to the ghettoes or buy anything there, thereby leaving blackfolks just as poor in an overheated market." Today there are any number of groups in the US who if not have a superiority/inferiority complex. The "Southern Poverty Law Center counted 932 active hate groups in the United States in 2009." Like U2 sang, "you've got someone to blame?"
Oh, btw, some economists think it will turn out the same for the Chinese as it did for the Japanese. While many Americans and Europeans are afraid the Chinese will take over the world economically, like some did in the 1980s about the Japanese, there are economists who dispute this. Chinese was able to take over a lot of manufacturing because their wages were low however those wages are rising and as they do manufacturers will be looking for other places to go to. Free trade, er as there is no free trade freer trade, benefits a lot of people. Of course China needs to allow it's currency the yuan to float on exchanges. However the US needs to stop giving US agribusinesses billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. Much like the nuclear industry the agriculture industry is hooked on subsidies. Archer Daniels Midland or ADM which is a $500 billion a year multinational corporation, and Cargill the largest privately owned company are examples of corporate welfare queens, receiving billions of taxpayer dollars a year.
Falcon
Actually, I disagree. I think that pulling out of China does far more harm to citizens of China than staying there.
How so?
And yes, I am serious. And I'm personally sick of the claim that MS abused its monopoly. MS's position IMO was still the right one.
And I'm sick and tired of people sticking up for the abuse of power.
A web browser is an OS feature.
A web browser IS NOT an OS feature, all OSes need do is provide a method to run a computer and it's software. The only reason MS gave it away was for anti-competitive purposes.
I think the forced decoupling of the OS from the web browser has actually slowed innovation.
Oh really? Microsoft doesn't innovate, it plays catchup. MS didn't do anything with IE until after Firefox started gaining a significant marketshare. MS hasn't done much with it's OS either. Under the desk I'm sitting at I still have my PC running NT4. I bought the PC brand new in December 1997 and the last tyme I ran Windows update was in January 2000. When I did I got a message from MS that I needed to order a CD with the updates and bug fixes. Luckily I posted about this though and someone gave me links to them so I could download them.
Falcon
He just had an $80, 000 operation and I asked him how he felt that it would have been $0 in Canada, other than your taxes.
Except even those who can't pay get medical care in the US too. More than 10 years ago I was riding my bike after my college classes one day when I was hit. My medical bills came to more than US$120,000 yet I was treated in a hospital by doctors without having any way to pay those bills. Since then I have been on and collecting disability income because the accident left me disabled. Besides my disability income I have Medicare, government, coverage and get a little economic assistance. I hate it, needing the aid, but what I hate most is the system is set up to keep people down once they are down. I have yet to find any assistance, my disability is permanent, in getting a job or the training for a job. And if I were able to find someone willing to hire me, for what I don't know, I can lose the assistance I do get. It seems like it's all or nothing. I fear Obamacare will make it worse.
identifying the people who go to the gas chamber
I don't know if there were databases, other than paper files in file cabinets, but if so then they could also be used to keep track of European Jews who wanted to emigrate. See, it's a fable or lie to say the NAZIs wanted to exterminate all Jews. What the NAZIs wanted was to get rid of Jews in Europe. The NAZIs actually signed an agreement with the Zionist Federation of Germany to assist Jews emigrate to Palestine. This agreement was the Haavara (Transfer) Agreement and was signed in 1933. As late as 1940 NAZIs were aiding Jews move to Palestine. Heck the Stern Gang or Lehi offered to fight with NAZI Germany against Britain. Back then Britain called them, the Jewish Stern Gang as well as others such as the Irgun and the earlier Haganah, terrorists.
Those early Jews were Zionists who wanted an ethnically purified Israel for Jews only. David Ben-Gurion, who Declared Israel's Independence and was it's first prime minister, stated "Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country ... There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So it is simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army." In the article The Long Path Out of Denial: Zionism, Heartache, and a New Vision of Israel and Palestine the Jewish magazine "Tikkun" has more quotes from some of Israel's founders, such as this one:
Shlomo Lavie, a well-known leader of the Israeli Labor Party, the Mapai, declared that the "transfer of Arabs out of the country in my eyes is one of the most just, moral, and correct things that can be done."
There's plenty of blame to go around.
Falcon
Google would have never withdrawn if it had managed to take a large enough market share there. They weren't that big
Google wasn't that big? It was bigger than Microsoft however they left while MS stayed. One comment even touched on this: "I don't think many companies can follow Google. First, Google is big enough; second, the hacking really damaged its core interests; third, their market share is only [a small] percentage of their global market." Of course Microsoft isn't the problem Cisco is, Cisco provides the hardware for filtering.
Falcon
You can tell that the US is a mixed economy because half the country complains about being socialist while the other half complains that corporations control everything.
I'll have to remember that.
You're right about the US being a mixed economy, several minutes ago I posted the same thing but in different words. Personally I complain about socialism and the corporate aristocracy both. I want free trade with lots of competition not socialism or capitalism as practiced too often today. At the same tyme I don't want small groups owning the infrastructure. But what can be done? For instance with broadband, only so many cables or fibers can be laid out. The same with powerlines, water and sewage, and so on.
Falcon
I'm more concerned with the world class inferiority/racial superiority complex that the chinese have going as a culture.
One, that's found throughout the world. Secondly China isn't one culture and just one ethnic group. There are more than 50 ethnic groups in Mainland China. And the Kuomentang or KMT invaded the islands of Taiwan, of which the largest is Formosa. The inhabitants of Formosa had more than 20 different languages. Those inhabitants call 28 February 1947 Taiwan's Holocaust.
Now I'm not sure about the written Formosan languages but the Mainland Chinese languages share the same written ideograms, spoken languages are what's different. I don't know much now, too many years have gone by since I last spoke Mandarin, but I have a niece who's goes to a Chinese immersion school for kindergarten.
Best thing that could happen to them is a lot of immigrants and a lot of interracial marriages.
The opposite is happening now, a lot of Chinese are emigrating to other countries. Now if a Westerner, Americans, Canadians, and Europeans, want to live like kings they can move to either China or India and get paid very well if they have certain skills. The pay isn't as well as in the west but the cost of living isn't as high either.
For those interested in traveling overseas to find work, check out Transitions Abroad.
Falcon
Yes, there is a difference and no China is not socialist. As a theory socialism advocates state ownership of industry and as an economic system the state owns the capital. China however allows and advocates individuals owning their own business. And it's not just in China the government allows private businesses, Cuba does as well, it is experimenting with private ownership of small businesses. The economic system in USSR on the other hand was communism which banned the private ownership of property. Everything was collectively owned, er that's how it was supposed to be, but it wasn't really. And like China and Cuba technically the US has a mixed economy, the new health insurance reform bill Obama signed underscoring that.
Falcon
I think the point is that MS is no less honorable than Google.
You can't be serious. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. Not that being a monopoly is bad, what makes a monopoly bad is what it does with the power. MS has done a number of bad things besides restricting competition. Not since the late '70s has MS innovated much, instead it either buys, borrows, or steals others' technology. MS didn't even create Internet Explorer. Instead it bought a license for Spyglass. Part of the payment was supposed to be royalties on the sell on IE but MS gave it away so MS even cheated on that.
At the end of the day Google hasn't improved the lives or prospects of Chinese citizens
Nor has it harmed Chinese citizens, whereas MS cooperating with the Chinese government can harm the citizens.
Ne hao, ne hao ma?
Falcon