...the end result does put the Chinese government in a bad light in my opinion. For instance, the choice to send an armored column instead of riot police. I don't think anyone could argue with that, but that *is* very different thing to shooting a load of them.
Also, you know an important senior Russian was visiting at the time. I wonder if they had planned to give him one of those parade things and that's why the tanks had all come into Beijing. Not out of the question, IMO. I have no evidence on that - it was just me trying to think of any good reason for tanks to be in Beijing. It seemed such a stupid thing to do...they would clearly be of no use (IMO).
So you're saying that money is more important to you too? I think he's saying that his 401k doesn't have options that let him easily vote with his dollars. His only option would be to withdraw his funds completely from the 401k, thus taking a financial penalty and possibly endangering his ability to support himself when he's old. So, you agree with me. Money *is* more important to him....or is it only money we can afford to throw away that counts here.
...unless you've done all that, you're in the same glass house as the rest of us. Well, *that* was my point, wasn't it?
Give the guilt-trip a rest. I wasn't putting anyone on a guilt trip. On the contrary - the poster was doing that to the reader.
I was just pointing out that he really isn't any different, when it comes down to it. We all place different values on different things. We may choose to sacrifice some of it, but rarely will we sacrifice all of it.
In the real world, people have to make trade-offs between conflicting but deeply-held principles. Choosing to feed your kids doesn't mean you don't care greatly about the hungry in Africa, or censorship in China. When you have limited resources you have to choose. There's nothing wrong or hypocritical about that. I think you are just agreeing with me, but using a disagreeing 'tone'.
In my case, my negative opinion comes more from watching TV coverage of the "People's Army" rolling nonviolent protesters with tanks. Am I the only one who remembers Tiananmen Square? I don't recall any such TV coverage. In fact, the coverage I *did* see (BBC covered by Kate Aidy) was of tanks trying desperately to *avoid* a protester who was attempting to get in it's way.
Other (BBC) video footage I saw was of protesters burning soldiers alive. Audio commentary I heard recently by John Simpson (BBC), who was there at the time, talked of the soldiers laying down their weapons. Ever wonder how the shooting started - sounds like a plausible explanation, if you ask me. What *doesn't* sound plausible is that the command to open fire came from 'on high'....and, yes, I've talked to people who were in Beijing at the time.
I also note that the Chinese authorities blame western radicals and I personally find that wholly plausible - certainly worthy of consideration and further investigation.
...but, no, I wasn't there personally, so I don't know exactly what happened. I doubt even if I were there I would have known exactly what had happened. I am trying to keep an open mind on the issue and come to some conclusion based on real evidence.
BTW, the incident in question all happened *after* I'd finished school. I certainly wouldn't mind going back to school to learn more, but it's somewhat unrealistic. I would entertain the idea of night classes though - that might be interesting. I'm in Beijing right now, so doubt if I'll find any in English (I don't understand much Chinese).
I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.
I think you do understand what I was getting at. I'm really asking, 'What does it take to release something completely?'. I guess my natural inclination is to assume that this is the default state and that it only changes when I am informed otherwise. If I were to publish something on the web, I would assume anyone could use it for whatever purpose they wanted - if I didn't want that, I would put some license up with it.
However, it seems I am incorrect, and that to release something completely, I need to declare it to be in the 'public domain'.
It doesn't seem quite right somehow...almost greedy to have the default be completely free. On the other hand, I expect someone will come up with a car analogy or something to show how I would expect otherwise in some circumstance or other:)
Right. They think that the government have done wonders for their country, and I find little evidence with which to argue.
I'm with Ron Paul on this issue - I don't agree with his negative opinion of China, but I agree with his 'attitude'. I don't agree with his 'desire' to see the government 'collapse' so much as see it change for the better. If you want to influence another country's future, you need to work from a place of cooperation, not by attempting to bully them.
"Free trade cannot be enforced through threats or by resorting to international protectionist organizations such as the WTO. Even if the Chinese are recalcitrant in opening up their markets, it is not the role of the United States government to lecture the Chinese government on what it should or should not do in its own economy."
Every time you or I make a decision to buy a product made in China we are voting against human rights. Every time you buy a product from *anywhere*, including the USA, you vote against human rights. I might even say *particularly* the USA.
I might also note your use of 'track record' - your use of this term assumes that nothing has changed. Even someone who is reformed has a 'track record', but might be considered totally trustworthy. China is changing at an amazingly fast rate, and it *is* getting better - I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. Most of the negative opinion of China comes from being brought up in the cold war with the anti-communist propaganda spread throughout that era (A result of McCarthyism? I wish I'd done more history at school).
Having been brought up in 'the west', I find it in myself constantly. I encourage other westerners to look for it in themselves too and counter it. It's a form of fear and it only leads to conflict (IMO).
I would sell the shares but it's my 401k and all of the available funds are managed by the same company. So you're saying that money is more important to you too?
Absolutely not. Such a move would likely not even be noticed by much of the population. I expect it might get a news item of some sort, but would receive the usual 'stupid ignorant Americans' reaction from much of the populous; and rightly so, IMO.
China doesn't *need* Google. Not even in the slightest. They have much more popular alternatives already.
What you say is true for Google, since it's a publicly traded company, but that's not true for all companies. Some exist purely 'to save the world or something'. I'd also posit that, in this day and age, considering ethics in the way your company makes money is a sound long term profitable strategy.
I don't think either is of much concern to China. In my experience, almost no one uses Google in China - really only foreigners such as myself. Chinese people generally use a Chinese equivalent.
In the US, Ok, interesting, but what about the rest of the world.
Are the rules at least similar to what you describe?
I mean, it does kind of sound like there is no such thing as 'unlicensed software' from your description.
Ah, perhaps the previous poster meant something along the lines of 'unlicensed use' of software, or 'use of the software that is not compliant with the license'.
Similar issues in electricity generation too. They have big (coal/nucular) power stations to satisfy the base demand in electricity and then less efficient gas turbine stations that can fire up (and down) quickly to meet the peak demands.
It just seems too obvious for there to not be a solution to this in computing already, let alone it requiring a study to come to this conclusion.
This being so suggests there's more to the story than the summary itself suggests; but to test that I'd have to follow all the links...na...I'll just post my opinion and be on my way.
It seemed that they were actually offering to distribute the code they had changed, so I don't think the code is all that interesting. This ruling is more about how the code was offered - kind of petty in an important kind of way.
Is compliance the only outcome, or is some fine involved (other than lawyer's fees)? If so, where does the money go?
Indeed. I've noticed this in China, though it's a little bit inconsistent.
Almost all the TVs you can buy now are HD-capable to some degree, but try getting some HD DVDs...none. I don't think there's any HD TV either (not 100% sure about that).
The (fake) DVDs seem to be going the other way. You can get DVD-9s (ie 9GB disks), but they are usually either for longer content that doesn't fit well on the smaller disks, or they cram them full of multiple highly compressed films.
I recently bought a pack of war movies. Three DVD9 disks for a total of 4RMB (USD 0.50) containing about 20 different movies. Quality was what I'm sure many would call completely crap, but they're still quite watchable - good enough.
It also reminds me of my ReplayTV (when I lived in the US - it's still working, so I'm told) - we always opted for higher compression/lower resolution in order to up the capacity of our storage. I think this is the normal choice rather than storing fewer shows at higher quality.
If you look at the trends, whatever is adopted by the Enterprise is usually adopted by the single consumer in due time. I always thought it was the other way around. They push their product to the consumer (or school/etc) for next to nothing so that people get used to it and when those same people get the chance to choose a product at work they will choose what they know.
I pretty much only use my iPod Shuffle (the coin-sized one) to listen to podcasts, and iTunes is really quite poor at doing this. I think it works fairly well with other iPods, just not the shuffle.
My shuffle is a swim-man shuffle, so I swim with it.
I have Ubuntu 8.04 and so would love to ditch OS X completely - what's the s/w you use?
the bet is that *someone* will be willing to hack and share. In practice, that's usually a good bet. Especially if you provide them some motivation - money for example.
Furthermore, with Linux you can always opt to *pay* someone to do the hacking for you - there are a myriad of options. With Apple and Microsoft, although anyone might be able to do a shell-script level fix, only Apple or Microsoft can do any significant fixes.
I am English and I would still be confused and ask for clarification.
I was especially confused when I moved to the US 10 years ago...so the term has still some way to go before it is truly dead, IMO, though *I* would concede that the US version has pretty much taken over and the 'writing is on the wall' for the English version.
I would guess that English teenagers and those in their twenties would probably not know about the English version.
I had noticed that an English billionaire was substantially more wealthy than an American, and not just due to the poor exchange rate:)
nicely leaving off the following line:
Although some residual long-scale usage still continues, the terms "British" and "American" no longer represent accurate terminology. which flatly contradicts your statement (although it confirms it *in the context of this story*).
Reminds me of Shallow Hal:
Following the advice of his dying father, Hal dates only women who are physically beautiful. One day, however, he runs into self-help guru Tony Robbins, who hypnotizes him into recognizing only the inner beauty of women. Hal thereafter meets Rosemary, a grossly obese woman whom only he can see as a vision of loveliness. But will their relationship survive when Hal's equally shallow friend undoes the hypnosis?
Slashdot Mirror
...the end result does put the Chinese government in a bad light in my opinion. For instance, the choice to send an armored column instead of riot police. I don't think anyone could argue with that, but that *is* very different thing to shooting a load of them.Also, you know an important senior Russian was visiting at the time. I wonder if they had planned to give him one of those parade things and that's why the tanks had all come into Beijing. Not out of the question, IMO. I have no evidence on that - it was just me trying to think of any good reason for tanks to be in Beijing. It seemed such a stupid thing to do...they would clearly be of no use (IMO).
...unless you've done all that, you're in the same glass house as the rest of us. Well, *that* was my point, wasn't it? Give the guilt-trip a rest. I wasn't putting anyone on a guilt trip. On the contrary - the poster was doing that to the reader.I was just pointing out that he really isn't any different, when it comes down to it. We all place different values on different things. We may choose to sacrifice some of it, but rarely will we sacrifice all of it. In the real world, people have to make trade-offs between conflicting but deeply-held principles. Choosing to feed your kids doesn't mean you don't care greatly about the hungry in Africa, or censorship in China. When you have limited resources you have to choose. There's nothing wrong or hypocritical about that. I think you are just agreeing with me, but using a disagreeing 'tone'.
Other (BBC) video footage I saw was of protesters burning soldiers alive. Audio commentary I heard recently by John Simpson (BBC), who was there at the time, talked of the soldiers laying down their weapons. Ever wonder how the shooting started - sounds like a plausible explanation, if you ask me. What *doesn't* sound plausible is that the command to open fire came from 'on high'.
I also note that the Chinese authorities blame western radicals and I personally find that wholly plausible - certainly worthy of consideration and further investigation.
BTW, the incident in question all happened *after* I'd finished school. I certainly wouldn't mind going back to school to learn more, but it's somewhat unrealistic. I would entertain the idea of night classes though - that might be interesting. I'm in Beijing right now, so doubt if I'll find any in English (I don't understand much Chinese).
However, it seems I am incorrect, and that to release something completely, I need to declare it to be in the 'public domain'.
It doesn't seem quite right somehow...almost greedy to have the default be completely free. On the other hand, I expect someone will come up with a car analogy or something to show how I would expect otherwise in some circumstance or other
I see, yes. I misunderstood.
I wonder what happens to software published in countries that don't have software patents. I guess copyright still applies?
What about countries that don't even have copyright? Can people from countries that *do* still use it?
Right. They think that the government have done wonders for their country, and I find little evidence with which to argue.
I'm with Ron Paul on this issue - I don't agree with his negative opinion of China, but I agree with his 'attitude'. I don't agree with his 'desire' to see the government 'collapse' so much as see it change for the better.
If you want to influence another country's future, you need to work from a place of cooperation, not by attempting to bully them.
"Free trade cannot be enforced through threats or by resorting to international protectionist organizations such as the WTO. Even if the Chinese are recalcitrant in opening up their markets, it is not the role of the United States government to lecture the Chinese government on what it should or should not do in its own economy."
I might also note your use of 'track record' - your use of this term assumes that nothing has changed. Even someone who is reformed has a 'track record', but might be considered totally trustworthy. China is changing at an amazingly fast rate, and it *is* getting better - I don't think anyone would argue otherwise.
Most of the negative opinion of China comes from being brought up in the cold war with the anti-communist propaganda spread throughout that era (A result of McCarthyism? I wish I'd done more history at school).
Having been brought up in 'the west', I find it in myself constantly. I encourage other westerners to look for it in themselves too and counter it. It's a form of fear and it only leads to conflict (IMO).
Absolutely not. Such a move would likely not even be noticed by much of the population. I expect it might get a news item of some sort, but would receive the usual 'stupid ignorant Americans' reaction from much of the populous; and rightly so, IMO.
China doesn't *need* Google. Not even in the slightest. They have much more popular alternatives already.
Always good to know your enemy, IMO.
What you say is true for Google, since it's a publicly traded company, but that's not true for all companies. Some exist purely 'to save the world or something'.
I'd also posit that, in this day and age, considering ethics in the way your company makes money is a sound long term profitable strategy.
I don't think either is of much concern to China. In my experience, almost no one uses Google in China - really only foreigners such as myself. Chinese people generally use a Chinese equivalent.
Are the rules at least similar to what you describe?
I mean, it does kind of sound like there is no such thing as 'unlicensed software' from your description.
Ah, perhaps the previous poster meant something along the lines of 'unlicensed use' of software, or 'use of the software that is not compliant with the license'.
Am I right?
Similar issues in electricity generation too. They have big (coal/nucular) power stations to satisfy the base demand in electricity and then less efficient gas turbine stations that can fire up (and down) quickly to meet the peak demands.
It just seems too obvious for there to not be a solution to this in computing already, let alone it requiring a study to come to this conclusion.
This being so suggests there's more to the story than the summary itself suggests; but to test that I'd have to follow all the links...na...I'll just post my opinion and be on my way.
I'm wondering what happens now too.
It seemed that they were actually offering to distribute the code they had changed, so I don't think the code is all that interesting. This ruling is more about how the code was offered - kind of petty in an important kind of way.
Is compliance the only outcome, or is some fine involved (other than lawyer's fees)? If so, where does the money go?
...but if I write some software and post it on a web site, it doesn't have any license, does that mean no one can use it?
Does all code have to have a license now?
Just curious...
Indeed. I've noticed this in China, though it's a little bit inconsistent.
Almost all the TVs you can buy now are HD-capable to some degree, but try getting some HD DVDs...none. I don't think there's any HD TV either (not 100% sure about that).
The (fake) DVDs seem to be going the other way. You can get DVD-9s (ie 9GB disks), but they are usually either for longer content that doesn't fit well on the smaller disks, or they cram them full of multiple highly compressed films.
I recently bought a pack of war movies. Three DVD9 disks for a total of 4RMB (USD 0.50) containing about 20 different movies. Quality was what I'm sure many would call completely crap, but they're still quite watchable - good enough.
It also reminds me of my ReplayTV (when I lived in the US - it's still working, so I'm told) - we always opted for higher compression/lower resolution in order to up the capacity of our storage. I think this is the normal choice rather than storing fewer shows at higher quality.
Does it work well for podcasts?
I pretty much only use my iPod Shuffle (the coin-sized one) to listen to podcasts, and iTunes is really quite poor at doing this. I think it works fairly well with other iPods, just not the shuffle.
My shuffle is a swim-man shuffle, so I swim with it.
I have Ubuntu 8.04 and so would love to ditch OS X completely - what's the s/w you use?
Furthermore, with Linux you can always opt to *pay* someone to do the hacking for you - there are a myriad of options. With Apple and Microsoft, although anyone might be able to do a shell-script level fix, only Apple or Microsoft can do any significant fixes.
perhaps i should have said 'would be' :p
I am English and I would still be confused and ask for clarification.
:)
I was especially confused when I moved to the US 10 years ago...so the term has still some way to go before it is truly dead, IMO, though *I* would concede that the US version has pretty much taken over and the 'writing is on the wall' for the English version.
I would guess that English teenagers and those in their twenties would probably not know about the English version.
I had noticed that an English billionaire was substantially more wealthy than an American, and not just due to the poor exchange rate