It's because China includes Taiwan, no matter who governs it. It's as simple as that.
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.
Just because Taiwan does not fall under PRC jurisdiction is irrelevant to whether or not Taiwan is part of China. IIRC, at least in a theoretical sense, the ROC still claim ownership of mainland China.
Of course how it happened is relevant. That *defines* the disagreement. It is because the US allowed the ROC to maintain some control over some of China that this issue is even here.
Perhaps it is best considered that China is still in civil war, albeit in a long-term "stand off". I doubt PRC will do anything (in a military way) to enforce its authority over all of China. More likely the PRC will become so economically powerful that the Taiwan residents will vote to re-establish significant links with the PRC - I hear indications of that from time to time. They are all Chinese after all, and a lot of them have parts of their families on the mainland.
Taiwan *is* part of China, of course. Just because the US stuck their noses in, YET AGAIN, where it wasn't wanted or needed and allowed the ROC to escape from the PRC doesn't suddenly change the ownership of the island... or are you saying the US has the right to chop bits off one country in order to create another country?
Google doesn't help (~) anyone here (in China) because (~) no one uses it. They (~) all use a Chinese equivalent (baidu).
(~) Only foreigners use it, and, personally, I find myself using other search engines more and more because Google (or ISP, perhaps) cock it up and present us with Chinese results when we want English.
I think the joke was based on the use of 'thought' instead of 'though'.
A common enough mistake, I think.
Often, it will make the sentence incorrect, but that is not the case with the sentence you used.
In this case, it implies it hurts your thought (ie what you are thinking about) - and since the post you were replying to was refering to 'copulate' and/. posters only really do that 'in their minds', the concept of "hurting thought" is surprisingly apt.
Not funny anymore? Didn't think so. Perhaps it wasn't to start with.
I've no idea what "vid nÃfrmare eftertanke" means. Sorry.
I guess the students had a cache of modified semiautomatic weapons as well. Supposedly, they had weapons taken when the army laid down theirs.
This is my supposition based on talking (BJ residents) and listening (BBC) to people in BJ at the time. While I can't claim it's fact, it could be and it's at least plausible (IMO).
I've seen (BBC) video footage of protesters burning soldiers alive.
What isn't plausible to me is that the army opened fire on defenceless students.
Wikipedia's article on itself says it has "over 10 million articles", but I haven't counted them personally, and I'm told we can't really trust what's in Wikipedia. Strangely enough, they have an article on that too.
I know this will sound stupid, but really, a text-only email client is pushing it. Right. A text-only email client? What do they mean by that? Do they mean Mutt, Pine and such like? I don't see why that would be any more appropriate for low bandwidth than some GUI client like Mozilla Thunderbird.
...or do they mean that they can't send images much?
Ever considered offering money, or are you only after a free (beer) help?
I expect there's some kind of clearing house for jobs people want done. I forget, but didn't Yahoo!, AOL or someone like that have some system for this sort of thing?
IIRC, SGI did this back in the mid-90s. There had been many repeated computer thefts from the building and surrounding buildings, so they put some motion detection s/w onto an SGI Indy to record anything that moved. All Indy's shipped with a webcam - I think they were one of the first to do so.
Worked like a charm, apparently.
This was at their HQ in Reading, UK. I heard about this second hand, so I don't know the details.
Why do people keep saying this and then stating the opposite (in this case, linking to a story that says the opposite); to quote the referenced story :
"
the fact remains that CCTVs only help with 3% of all street robberies"
Yes, western countries have never killed protesters
I don't trust them either. But if you mean to claim that China's - or any country's - actions are justified simply because they're not unique, then I fail to see how you can have any respect for human rights at all.
Clearly it doesn't justify anything.
What it *does* do is cause them to ignore your opinion and attempts to make them change. A hypocrite has little power to encourage change, unfortunately.
I'm a Christian - I get that sort of thing all the time:|
Slashdot Mirror
It's because China includes Taiwan, no matter who governs it. It's as simple as that.
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.
On the contrary.
Just because Taiwan does not fall under PRC jurisdiction is irrelevant to whether or not Taiwan is part of China. IIRC, at least in a theoretical sense, the ROC still claim ownership of mainland China.
Of course how it happened is relevant. That *defines* the disagreement. It is because the US allowed the ROC to maintain some control over some of China that this issue is even here.
Perhaps it is best considered that China is still in civil war, albeit in a long-term "stand off". I doubt PRC will do anything (in a military way) to enforce its authority over all of China. More likely the PRC will become so economically powerful that the Taiwan residents will vote to re-establish significant links with the PRC - I hear indications of that from time to time. They are all Chinese after all, and a lot of them have parts of their families on the mainland.
man, please, get a history book and start reading until you reach the current date. ....it's pathetic. seriously.
Taiwan *is* part of China, of course. Just because the US stuck their noses in, YET AGAIN, where it wasn't wanted or needed and allowed the ROC to escape from the PRC doesn't suddenly change the ownership of the island ... or are you saying the US has the right to chop bits off one country in order to create another country?
...or less 'accurate' for that matter.
Your point is that it depends on the meta-data they lay on top of the satellite images that is at issue here, right?
Google doesn't help (~) anyone here (in China) because (~) no one uses it. They (~) all use a Chinese equivalent (baidu).
(~) Only foreigners use it, and, personally, I find myself using other search engines more and more because Google (or ISP, perhaps) cock it up and present us with Chinese results when we want English.
I think the joke was based on the use of 'thought' instead of 'though'.
/. posters only really do that 'in their minds', the concept of "hurting thought" is surprisingly apt.
A common enough mistake, I think.
Often, it will make the sentence incorrect, but that is not the case with the sentence you used.
In this case, it implies it hurts your thought (ie what you are thinking about) - and since the post you were replying to was refering to 'copulate' and
Not funny anymore? Didn't think so. Perhaps it wasn't to start with.
I've no idea what "vid nÃfrmare eftertanke" means. Sorry.
This is my supposition based on talking (BJ residents) and listening (BBC) to people in BJ at the time. While I can't claim it's fact, it could be and it's at least plausible (IMO).
I've seen (BBC) video footage of protesters burning soldiers alive.
What isn't plausible to me is that the army opened fire on defenceless students.
Maybe you'll find that funny, but no one in China will know.
It'll be yourself, like a little girl, giggling to yourself.
Though, I guess on
That's what I thought too.
Wikipedia's article on itself says it has "over 10 million articles", but I haven't counted them personally, and I'm told we can't really trust what's in Wikipedia. Strangely enough, they have an article on that too.
> Pinta is expected to sail for three months at a maximum speed of four knots (about 7.4 kph).
Why always at maximum speed? Does the switch only have two positions - 0, and maximum?
...or do they mean that they can't send images much?
In the words of Jeff, "Well, yeah. That'd work.".
...and from that I guess the university is heriot watt.
Ever considered offering money, or are you only after a free (beer) help?
I expect there's some kind of clearing house for jobs people want done. I forget, but didn't Yahoo!, AOL or someone like that have some system for this sort of thing?
Does this ring any bells for anyone?
I'm curious...do you have an alternative suggestion which is better in your eyes?
I wonder if one could sue SCO for crappy code?
I mean, a burglar can sue the owner of the property they're burgling for leaving it in a dangerous condition, so why not this too?
That's if it were true, of course.
I'm confused...do *they* have to accept patches? Why doesn't someone fork it onto sourceforge or something so you can easily fix it?
IIRC, SGI did this back in the mid-90s. There had been many repeated computer thefts from the building and surrounding buildings, so they put some motion detection s/w onto an SGI Indy to record anything that moved. All Indy's shipped with a webcam - I think they were one of the first to do so.
Worked like a charm, apparently.
This was at their HQ in Reading, UK. I heard about this second hand, so I don't know the details.
Why do people keep saying this and then stating the opposite (in this case, linking to a story that says the opposite); to quote the referenced story :
"
the fact remains that CCTVs only help with 3% of all street robberies"
Hello people!!!! 3% is not equal to 0%!!!!
I don't trust them either. But if you mean to claim that China's - or any country's - actions are justified simply because they're not unique, then I fail to see how you can have any respect for human rights at all.
Clearly it doesn't justify anything.What it *does* do is cause them to ignore your opinion and attempts to make them change. A hypocrite has little power to encourage change, unfortunately.
I'm a Christian - I get that sort of thing all the time