Sorry, I can't see that site at the moment. However, I'd guess there's some issue with laser pointers being considered dangerous in Australia and are thus illegal in some way?
That much I get. How this is related to this discussion is what I'm questioning...
I find myself responding radically to radical statements; and I can't find any rational reason for it...I wish I could remain balanced when confronted with bias, but I seem to adopt the opposite bias. It's annoying.
Well, from the Tibet point of view, it certainly seems to have backfired. Everyone here knows about the issue due to the riots and the torch protest, but they are even more determined that Tibet is part of China.
All it's done is widen the divide between China and the west (mostly the US, of course). Perhaps that's the intent - or do you *really* think these protests are spontaneous and not orchestrated in some way?
A documentary was shown recently on Chinese TV, in English, outlining the history of Tibet. It was very interesting. It went right back to when Britain invaded, and included the meddling by the US to try to encourage them to become independent (presumably to try to counter "evil communism"). It also covered the atrocities perpetrated by the Tibetan leadership using their 'caste system' and used that as justification for removal of their leadership - seemed reasonable. I wish they'd publish it more widely because I'd love to hear 'the other side', so to speak. I'd also like to see it again...
..and Americans know that more than anyone, and yet they keep selling them.
China is the least of the problems - their problems are all internal. They've never attacked other countries (those they don't have a legitimate claim over), unlike a lot of the other countries the US supports militarily.
If you speak bad against the government in china you are either jailed or just dissapear. OK, so how did all those people in Tian'anmen Square get there if speaking bad against the government wasn't tolerated?
By the way, this applies to a lot of people all over the world, including Americans [1]. This is a curious statement.
It pretty much makes anyone's opinion irrelevant since everyone's position would be baised in favour of their own government.
Most westerners are anti-Chinese purely because of the anti-Communist upbringing they've had, and this is reinforced by the media. It is very difficult to overcome this conditioning.
On the other hand, it's been interesting watching the change in the BBC's stance - it has become much more neutral over the last few weeks. Previously, I had read extremely blatantly biased reports, but now they are much more balanced, tending to report pure facts rather than opinions.
Are you trying to say perspective isn't important?
I would say the opposite - it is *all* important, and we should try to consider every situation from all possible perspectives and not just the one we've been conditioned with.
The weird asian "sheep mode" mindset might stop a lot of them from taking action, but not all of them. I don't see the 'mode' in asia as any different to the 'mode' in many places, most notably, of course, the US.
It's because China includes Taiwan, no matter who governs it. It's as simple as that.
Sorry, but that makes no sense. No need to apologise - it's not your fault. If you can't figure it out, then I'm not sure I can help you. Lets see.
Actually, it's pretty common for westerners to not be able to figure out such things because such things don't have a definition in our language.
It reminds me of how Chinese people are always Chinese, no matter where they are born. It's a matter of heritage. You also can't stop being Chinese, and whether you are born in China or not is irrelevant.
The defining characteristic of sovereignty is that of government. Well, power, yes; but I'm not talking about sovereignty. That word is loaded with western values of "king and country" (or whatever) and doesn't really apply in this part of the world.
The ROC may well have power in Taiwan, but it is not legitimate. It is stolen, and the dispute is still ongoing. You might consider it over and won, but an aweful lot of people don't. Seemingly including many governments in the world too (only 23 of 192 in the UN), who don't recognise Taiwan as a nation. Actually, it's difficult to even express what it is, since 'nation' is not so easily defined either, I think.
China is China, and Taiwan is Taiwan, regardless of what the unificationists would like to believe. Well, you saying it doesn't make what you say true any more that them saying the opposite makes what they say true.
People in mainland China - the vast majority, btw - still claim Taiwan as part of China. They consider it stolen property somewhat - just like all the treasure the ROC stole when they escaped to Taiwan.
Are you suggesting that stolen property becomes the property of the thief? I think that is entirely up to the owner, personally.
They have completely separate governments. Just because the PRC claims the ROC as its own (and, amusingly, the ROC also claims mainland China as its own), that doesn't change the facts.
It may not have the practical implications you seem to yearn for, but there is plenty of reasons to consider it true and they are all based on history, and fairly recent history too. The practical implications are all that matter, and the history is irrelevant. The only salient point is that of governmental influence over a particular parcel of land. These days, that's what defines a "country." If all you are trying to define the present state, then we can agree - the ROC has power there at the moment.
However, to state that history is irrelevant is astonishing. It is the past, it defines how things are today and it will undoubtedly foretell the state tomorrow too.
How you define 'country'[1] is not relevant in this part of the world. How do you define Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet (up until recently)? It's westerner's trying to force their own European definitions onto this part of the world that is causing a lot of these problems (IMO).
However, clearly I don't have the skill to convince you, if that's even possible; so I'm not going to continue with this discussion.
[1] strangely enough, I have similar problems attempting to define my own 'country', England. Using wikipedia, England seems to be defined as a 'constituent country', which seems to be blurring the definition somewhat. That takes me to the page for 'country' itself, which blurs your comfortable definition even more. Following other threads of interest take me to other pages that seem to make your position even more tenuous, even using your own definitions, IMO...but I'm still reading.
Furthermore, he put that comment at the end of the post. If it were at the beginning I could have stopped reading there, but no, he conned us into reading almost all of it.
Ads can be annoying and overdone, but they are a product of a free capitalistic society. Considering the available societal alternatives (China, Myanmar, and Cuba come to mind), I'll take a few ads and nearly constant product placement. Besides, I didn't buy a Tivo for nothing! Er, are you trying to claim that China has no ads? If so, you're very wrong. It's every bit as annoying as in the US (I used to live there before I moved to Beijing), and more so because I can't understand what they're saying (mostly).
I can't speak for the other countries you listed...
I wonder what the fraction is for PBS. It seemed like they were on for the majority of the time advertising with their 'pledge breaks' or something (it's been a while since I was in the US).
My ReplayTV 4000 skips adds automagically and still works after all these years (so I'm told - I let my old room-mates use it since I'm out of the country and last time I visited it was working just fine).
It isn't 100% reliable though, so I noticed that they will often skip back 5 seconds to see if it skipped forward too far...
I asked a local Chinese person about this recently. It is a store, not an hotel, so I don't know about your observation wrt hotel room access/etc.
The only restrictions to the Friendship Store were back in the early '80s when only foreign goods were sold there. Only people with passports could shop there since they could buy them abroad anyway - not just anyone could get a passport in those days (not sure about today, but it seems like anyone can get one).
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I can't see that site at the moment. However, I'd guess there's some issue with laser pointers being considered dangerous in Australia and are thus illegal in some way?
That much I get. How this is related to this discussion is what I'm questioning...
Ah, a balanced opinion. I like that.
Consider me your friend.
I find myself responding radically to radical statements; and I can't find any rational reason for it...I wish I could remain balanced when confronted with bias, but I seem to adopt the opposite bias. It's annoying.
eh? you sent your wallet to the wrong address, and then signed it 'santa clause'?
Did you miss out some crucial bit of information in your post?
Please could you elaborate? I don't get your point (seriously).
Well, from the Tibet point of view, it certainly seems to have backfired. Everyone here knows about the issue due to the riots and the torch protest, but they are even more determined that Tibet is part of China.
All it's done is widen the divide between China and the west (mostly the US, of course). Perhaps that's the intent - or do you *really* think these protests are spontaneous and not orchestrated in some way?
A documentary was shown recently on Chinese TV, in English, outlining the history of Tibet. It was very interesting. It went right back to when Britain invaded, and included the meddling by the US to try to encourage them to become independent (presumably to try to counter "evil communism"). It also covered the atrocities perpetrated by the Tibetan leadership using their 'caste system' and used that as justification for removal of their leadership - seemed reasonable.
I wish they'd publish it more widely because I'd love to hear 'the other side', so to speak. I'd also like to see it again...
..and Americans know that more than anyone, and yet they keep selling them.
China is the least of the problems - their problems are all internal. They've never attacked other countries (those they don't have a legitimate claim over), unlike a lot of the other countries the US supports militarily.
It pretty much makes anyone's opinion irrelevant since everyone's position would be baised in favour of their own government.
Most westerners are anti-Chinese purely because of the anti-Communist upbringing they've had, and this is reinforced by the media. It is very difficult to overcome this conditioning.
On the other hand, it's been interesting watching the change in the BBC's stance - it has become much more neutral over the last few weeks. Previously, I had read extremely blatantly biased reports, but now they are much more balanced, tending to report pure facts rather than opinions.
BTW, what's the [1] for?
Are you trying to say perspective isn't important?
I would say the opposite - it is *all* important, and we should try to consider every situation from all possible perspectives and not just the one we've been conditioned with.
French toast in the US is aweful. I much prefer the UK version. (Ironic enough for you?)
I wonder what it's like in France, or if they even have it.
As an Englishman, I was curious about what the US people call 'English muffins'. I'd never had one before I went to the US.
Actually, it's pretty common for westerners to not be able to figure out such things because such things don't have a definition in our language.
It reminds me of how Chinese people are always Chinese, no matter where they are born. It's a matter of heritage. You also can't stop being Chinese, and whether you are born in China or not is irrelevant. The defining characteristic of sovereignty is that of government. Well, power, yes; but I'm not talking about sovereignty. That word is loaded with western values of "king and country" (or whatever) and doesn't really apply in this part of the world.
The ROC may well have power in Taiwan, but it is not legitimate. It is stolen, and the dispute is still ongoing. You might consider it over and won, but an aweful lot of people don't. Seemingly including many governments in the world too (only 23 of 192 in the UN), who don't recognise Taiwan as a nation. Actually, it's difficult to even express what it is, since 'nation' is not so easily defined either, I think. China is China, and Taiwan is Taiwan, regardless of what the unificationists would like to believe. Well, you saying it doesn't make what you say true any more that them saying the opposite makes what they say true.
People in mainland China - the vast majority, btw - still claim Taiwan as part of China. They consider it stolen property somewhat - just like all the treasure the ROC stole when they escaped to Taiwan.
Are you suggesting that stolen property becomes the property of the thief? I think that is entirely up to the owner, personally. They have completely separate governments. Just because the PRC claims the ROC as its own (and, amusingly, the ROC also claims mainland China as its own), that doesn't change the facts. It may not have the practical implications you seem to yearn for, but there is plenty of reasons to consider it true and they are all based on history, and fairly recent history too. The practical implications are all that matter, and the history is irrelevant. The only salient point is that of governmental influence over a particular parcel of land. These days, that's what defines a "country." If all you are trying to define the present state, then we can agree - the ROC has power there at the moment.
However, to state that history is irrelevant is astonishing. It is the past, it defines how things are today and it will undoubtedly foretell the state tomorrow too.
How you define 'country'[1] is not relevant in this part of the world. How do you define Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet (up until recently)? It's westerner's trying to force their own European definitions onto this part of the world that is causing a lot of these problems (IMO).
However, clearly I don't have the skill to convince you, if that's even possible; so I'm not going to continue with this discussion.
[1] strangely enough, I have similar problems attempting to define my own 'country', England. Using wikipedia, England seems to be defined as a 'constituent country', which seems to be blurring the definition somewhat. That takes me to the page for 'country' itself, which blurs your comfortable definition even more.
Following other threads of interest take me to other pages that seem to make your position even more tenuous, even using your own definitions, IMO...but I'm still reading.
ha. Good point.
I have a 4000 series. IIRC, it works by detecting the fade-to-black and fade-from-black, which only happen with the real show, not the ads in between.
I was wondering when it was going to happen. 7-and-a-bit years to go :)
Furthermore, he put that comment at the end of the post. If it were at the beginning I could have stopped reading there, but no, he conned us into reading almost all of it.
Outrageous!
I can't speak for the other countries you listed...
common mods. that post is worth something...oh, it's AC, so you probably didn't notice it.
I wonder what the fraction is for PBS. It seemed like they were on for the majority of the time advertising with their 'pledge breaks' or something (it's been a while since I was in the US).
My ReplayTV 4000 skips adds automagically and still works after all these years (so I'm told - I let my old room-mates use it since I'm out of the country and last time I visited it was working just fine).
...
It isn't 100% reliable though, so I noticed that they will often skip back 5 seconds to see if it skipped forward too far
I asked a local Chinese person about this recently. It is a store, not an hotel, so I don't know about your observation wrt hotel room access/etc.
The only restrictions to the Friendship Store were back in the early '80s when only foreign goods were sold there. Only people with passports could shop there since they could buy them abroad anyway - not just anyone could get a passport in those days (not sure about today, but it seems like anyone can get one).