Lived in Beijing for a few years now and it's scary how the government controls and spins information. I also live in Beijing now, and I don't find it scary at all. The media present various stories of what's happening around the world and within China, both positive and negative are shown. The Tibetan protests *are* shown on the news for example. Actually, I recently took a look at the wikileaks web site (yes, from within China), and a *lot* of the images pertaining to be censored are taken from Chinese TV (CCTV), and while some of the images were a little shocking, NONE of them showed any evidence of violence by the authorities.
They allow protests when convenient Of course they do. They don't allow protests that inconvenience people, and why should they?!? Need I say, "Don't taze me bro!" - other countries also have similar rules about protesting and don't allow it at various times/places.
Nationalism is borderline crazy around here lately... Indeed, almost to the point of being more 'crazy' than in the US[1]..but that's what happens when you're attacked; you rally around and join forces.
...but in China the government controls the people so it all boils down to one suspect. Oh, what a crock of shit. You're just fear mongering. Just because people share an opinion doesn't mean that they are all controlled by one person...and I use 'person' deliberately because people (including you) seem to talk about 'the government' like it's a single person, which it isn't. It's a group of people, actually quite a large group of people (I wonder how it compares in numbers to the US congress), and they do seek to represent the best interests of China and the Chinese people. Furthermore, they're doing rather well at it. Perhaps its success is why the west is being so aggressive - China is still perceived as communist and we're all taught that communism doesn't work.
Anyway, all this anti-China bias is just brain-numbing. I recently visited England, and it was just amazing what bias people 'read over' without even noticing (talking about my mother, specifically).
I find it *really* good to see some of the opposition to the Tibet protest, finally. Nice to see peaceful protests for a change (unlike the separatists).
[1] I see that you're Canadian, so some of my comments
The Chinese people and government need to realize that they're faced with an enormous public-relations problem. They do. People who bring a bad name on their country are severely dealt with as a matter of law.
However, IMO, a *lot* of the trouble has to be laid squarely at the feet of the westerners who want to take advantage of the Chinese since they are willing to make cheap goods. It is up to the western companies to ensure the quality of good sold in the country, no matter where they're made. You don't see people complaining about the quality of their iPods or Macbooks, do you? No, it's primarily greed that is at the root of this, and it's is both westerners and Chinese that are to blame. It is certainly very difficult to blame the government as a group of people. Perhaps you could blame a lack of enforcement/policing/corruption, but these things take a long time to change, and it is clear that they are certainly trying.
...and maybe someday the Chinese *people* will realize that Tibetans just want the same thing as the Chinese: run their own affairs, be left alone, and live in peace with their neighbors The trouble is that people in 'the west' have been educated to think that Tibet is independent (or should be), and so any argument or commentary starts with that assumption. I have yet to see any commentary in the western media that isn't dripping with blatant bias. This mostly has come about due to the anti-communist attitude of various US presidents and their attempts to work against communism, whether directly or surreptitiously.
I also have yet to see any reference to the historical involvement of Britain and the US in Tibet, and especially in inciting Tibetan leaders to push for independence with promises of support and actual supplies of weapons.
Furthermore, the 'peaceful' Tibetan culture that existed until fairly recently was, iinm, based on the cast system and extraordinarily 'unfair' (to put it mildly) to the majority of the population, in favour of the ruling religious leaders. It is only right that China should want to change such a system in one of it's own provinces - just like it's trying to remove corruption from all of China.
The recent protests in Tibet are only taking advantage of the olympics - if their were no olympics, then there would be no violent protest. Furthermore, I posit that it is the protesters that are causing violence and deaths, not the army/police/etc. as portrayed/suggested by the western media.
it doesn't need encryption specifically; just some username/password - actually, *anything* to give the user some idea it isn't deliberately being offered for free.
...FTP connection wide open... It still does not make it right for someone to go in an do bad things. ..but it's ok to go in an do *good* things; like uploading or downloading some files.
The same things as applies when using someone else's wifi - ok for legal purposes; not ok for illegal purposes.
Unfortunately, according to this whole story, although it's legal for you to share your wifi, it is illegal for someone to take advantage of your generous offer.
IE, this whole law is assuming that people don't want to share their connection, and so makes it pointless for people who do want to share their bandwidth to do so.
...and it'll also mean that people who *want* to have people using their network can do so without. It'll also mean that people can use open wifi networks without being branded a criminal.
Those are two good reasons for setting up WEP, irrespective of it's security - it's letting people know that they're not supposed to be using it. Having an open network is *not* doing that and in fact does the opposite.
Indeed, and that's the purpose. It is something that says, "Don't use this unless you're authorised.", just like any username/password system.
That's the whole point. That's why it's there. If you want/don't mind people using your network, then don't set a username/password.
I don't believe this is an issue. It's plainly stupid to claim that using an open wifi network is stealing because there's no way to know they don't intend it that way.
I leave my wifi network open so that others can use it - is someone who then uses it somehow stealing from me?
How am I suppose to be able to make it known that people are welcome to use it?...and don't say by naming it something stupid like 'Free' or whatever - why should I be restricted in how I name my network just because some people are ignorant?
because he's explicitly said that he will not give up fighting irrespective of whether it makes financial sense or not- it is a personal character issue for him.
It only makes sense if he is 1) right, 2) successful, and 3) his company survives.
" Price? Ariel is aiming to keep the Atom 500 'below six figures' but admits that won't be easy when even the car's sequential paddle-shift gearbox costs £15,000 on its own. A production run of some 20 cars is planned, with the first 500s arriving in the late spring ('when the roads get a bit drier', according to Saunders)."
"Six figured would start at 10,000ukp, so that might make the cut for my bike race, and, it has to be said, win it...easily, probably.
It's 2008. I think the idea that educational institutions are anything but commercial meat-grinders has expired. You sound like the CEO of a well known UK-based ISP. All you missed out were the bollocks.
Well, I will anyway....if the litigation costs the company so much that it goes 'bust', then that is a problem that the share holders might well be interested in, I think.
It's almost a pity that he is no longer a lawyer. I thought that too.
While reading the letter, I was confused. It seems like he wanted it to go to trial/court/whatever, but he does such a good job of rebuttal, that it would almost certainly never happen.
That statement made me wonder if Blue Jeans is a public company, or a private one - I have to assume the latter, else it would seem he's opened himself up to share holder action.
Slashdot Mirror
...but in China the government controls the people so it all boils down to one suspect. Oh, what a crock of shit. You're just fear mongering. Just because people share an opinion doesn't mean that they are all controlled by one personAnyway, all this anti-China bias is just brain-numbing. I recently visited England, and it was just amazing what bias people 'read over' without even noticing (talking about my mother, specifically).
I find it *really* good to see some of the opposition to the Tibet protest, finally. Nice to see peaceful protests for a change (unlike the separatists).
[1] I see that you're Canadian, so some of my comments
Mod parent, "balanced", "unbiased".
However, IMO, a *lot* of the trouble has to be laid squarely at the feet of the westerners who want to take advantage of the Chinese since they are willing to make cheap goods. It is up to the western companies to ensure the quality of good sold in the country, no matter where they're made. You don't see people complaining about the quality of their iPods or Macbooks, do you? No, it's primarily greed that is at the root of this, and it's is both westerners and Chinese that are to blame. It is certainly very difficult to blame the government as a group of people. Perhaps you could blame a lack of enforcement/policing/corruption, but these things take a long time to change, and it is clear that they are certainly trying.
...and maybe someday the Chinese *people* will realize that Tibetans just want the same thing as the Chinese: run their own affairs, be left alone, and live in peace with their neighbors The trouble is that people in 'the west' have been educated to think that Tibet is independent (or should be), and so any argument or commentary starts with that assumption. I have yet to see any commentary in the western media that isn't dripping with blatant bias. This mostly has come about due to the anti-communist attitude of various US presidents and their attempts to work against communism, whether directly or surreptitiously.I also have yet to see any reference to the historical involvement of Britain and the US in Tibet, and especially in inciting Tibetan leaders to push for independence with promises of support and actual supplies of weapons.
Furthermore, the 'peaceful' Tibetan culture that existed until fairly recently was, iinm, based on the cast system and extraordinarily 'unfair' (to put it mildly) to the majority of the population, in favour of the ruling religious leaders. It is only right that China should want to change such a system in one of it's own provinces - just like it's trying to remove corruption from all of China.
The recent protests in Tibet are only taking advantage of the olympics - if their were no olympics, then there would be no violent protest. Furthermore, I posit that it is the protesters that are causing violence and deaths, not the army/police/etc. as portrayed/suggested by the western media.
it doesn't need encryption specifically; just some username/password - actually, *anything* to give the user some idea it isn't deliberately being offered for free.
but what do more sociable people do - ie people who *want to* (or even just 'don't mind') sharing?
...and it doesn't mean it *isn't* right either. The thing is, no one knows if it is right or not...only the owner.
Of course, the whole point in the username/password is that it's supposed to make it clear that you need authorisation to use it.
...FTP connection wide open... It still does not make it right for someone to go in an do bad things. ..but it's ok to go in an do *good* things; like uploading or downloading some files.The same things as applies when using someone else's wifi - ok for legal purposes; not ok for illegal purposes.
Unfortunately, according to this whole story, although it's legal for you to share your wifi, it is il legal for someone to take advantage of your generous offer.
IE, this whole law is assuming that people don't want to share their connection, and so makes it pointless for people who do want to share their bandwidth to do so.
Ignorance rules, in this case.
I think he was saying he has a friend who has a girlfriend who, when visiting, becomes 'available'.
You have a friend, right?
Don't forget wallet at this persons house or let my girlfriend visit it alone.
So, you broke the law?
Stupid law.
ok, great.
Now, tell me. What that easier to do than setting up WEP?
I'd guess it's a lot harder to lock your computer to a single network than to set up WEP.
Why, then, is it expected that everyone should lock their computer to networks than require people to set up WEP???
I would hazzard a guess that there are many more laptops with wifi than access points.
...and it'll also mean that people who *want* to have people using their network can do so without. It'll also mean that people can use open wifi networks without being branded a criminal.
Those are two good reasons for setting up WEP, irrespective of it's security - it's letting people know that they're not supposed to be using it. Having an open network is *not* doing that and in fact does the opposite.
Indeed, and that's the purpose. It is something that says, "Don't use this unless you're authorised.", just like any username/password system.
...and don't say by naming it something stupid like 'Free' or whatever - why should I be restricted in how I name my network just because some people are ignorant?
That's the whole point. That's why it's there. If you want/don't mind people using your network, then don't set a username/password.
I don't believe this is an issue. It's plainly stupid to claim that using an open wifi network is stealing because there's no way to know they don't intend it that way.
I leave my wifi network open so that others can use it - is someone who then uses it somehow stealing from me?
How am I suppose to be able to make it known that people are welcome to use it?
I'm curious; what is your definition of 'brick'?
glad you agree with me then
because he's explicitly said that he will not give up fighting irrespective of whether it makes financial sense or not- it is a personal character issue for him.
It only makes sense if he is 1) right, 2) successful, and 3) his company survives.
oops, off-by-one error detected :)
:(
100,000ukp - well out of the ball park then...oh well, nice dream
I want one of those Ariel Atom....though :
:D
"
Price? Ariel is aiming to keep the Atom 500 'below six figures' but admits that won't be easy when even the car's sequential paddle-shift gearbox costs £15,000 on its own. A production run of some 20 cars is planned, with the first 500s arriving in the late spring ('when the roads get a bit drier', according to Saunders)."
"Six figured would start at 10,000ukp, so that might make the cut for my bike race, and, it has to be said, win it...easily, probably.
0-60 in 2.5 seconds is quite nice
> if the shareholders have any brains
Need I say more?
Well, I will anyway....if the litigation costs the company so much that it goes 'bust', then that is a problem that the share holders might well be interested in, I think.
While reading the letter, I was confused. It seems like he wanted it to go to trial/court/whatever, but he does such a good job of rebuttal, that it would almost certainly never happen.
Does he want them to go forward with this or not?
That statement made me wonder if Blue Jeans is a public company, or a private one - I have to assume the latter, else it would seem he's opened himself up to share holder action.