The following is part of a short text I wrote partly in response to Lokman Tsui's (Leiden University, the Netherlands) thesis "Internet in China: Big Mama is Watching You". (Lokman Tsui, Internet in China: Big Mama is Watching You, University of Leiden, July 2001)
In his thesis Lokman compares the internet censorship in China to the Panopticon, a concept of a prison invented in 1791 in which the prisoners do not know whether or not they are being watched, and thus always behave in a proper manner. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon)
If you like I can send you my full text, if you're interested in this subject you might find it an interesting overview.
The new phenomenon of blogging is beginning to ?upturn? the traditional Western media1. Newspapers and TV channels now have to deal with bloggers spreading news and information themselves they do not cover, and discussing topics traditionally left ignored. The same can be said to be happening in China, although there the difference between the traditional media and the bloggers is of course much larger. However, although the Chinese government is not, maybe not yet, capable of dealing with the blogs, censorship is still strict and punishment severe, and as all Chinese are aware of this, only those who want to deliberately act against the censorship will do so. This also applies to proxy-use. Using a proxy server to look at blocked content is punishable, so only those who really want to, will.
As Lokman Tsui says, views on the possibility of censoring the Internet in China differ, but the most prevalent view among "Western" journalists is that the Internet cannot be censored. Tsui however, is of the opinion that, contrary to what most Western journalists say, even though the control of the Internet by China's government is not a hundred percent, it is effective nonetheless. The threat itself, he concludes, is enough and makes it possible for the Chinese authorities to control the Internet.
Indeed, barriers, self-censorship and fear of being monitored make for strong control. Not only in the case of Internet censorship, this is the basic functionality of every law. However, what Tsui does not do is distinguish between different kinds of Internet users. He deals with the group of Internet users as if it were homogenous, all motivated and scared by the same things. Yet here too it is the same as with every other law: those who want to break a law will. A distinction should be made; the group that is being controlled by a law should be divided into three groups. The first group are those who have no intention of breakinghte law and who would not do so if possible. The law does not affect this group, as they never come in contact with it. The second group are those who will break the law, for whatever reason they have. Even though they might have to suffer the consequences of breaking it, the law does not affect this group, as they will not be stopped by it. The third group are those who do not break the law, but might if given the opportunity. This third group is the group affected by laws. As long as the laws are there and being enforced, they will not break it. However, when breaking it is made easy and the risk of getting caught becomes very small, this group might do so. The grouping, of course, varies for every different law.
The censorship of the Chinese government of the Internet is one of these laws. Most of the Chinese Internet users only use the Internet for "allowed" activities. On the other hand there are certainly Chinese who use the Internet for illegal purposes. These users are motivated to learn what they need to know in order to be able to, and because the use of proxy servers has become very easy, as they have increased in number and availability, the knowledge barrier has become smaller. This shrinking of the knowledge barrier, in combination with a very fast growing number of bloggers, who are obviously much less controlled and censo
A point of interest might be that a large part of the Chinese pollution is caused by factories that produce for the American and European market. Whether these products are made in China, Europe, or anywhere else doesn't really matter, pollution is still pollution. And as you rightly pointed out, it doesn't stay put. But since many products are produced for the European and American market, whose polution is it really? Can we really claim it's not our problem because the pollution comes from Chinese factories?
Honestly, I do not know real figures or statistics (didn't even try to find them). I do know something about the Chinese economy though (I study Sinology at Leiden University) and think that our outsourcing of production to low-cost countries is also an outsourcing of our pollution.
That we have succeeded in outsourcing the problem doesn't mean it's not our problem anymore.
Hm, wasn't really finished with the comment (parent), but misclicked and hit Submit instead of Preview.
Doesn't really matter. I noticed Slashdot doesn't support Chinese characters. Why is this? Shouldn't be too hard to implement? (Easy for me to say, I have no clue)
The last thing I wanted to add to parent: The person who wrote the Reuters article (presumably Chinese because of his typical mistake in translating Internet Cafe) didn't know a "Wangba" shouldn't be translated with "Internet Bar". That's all.
An "internet bar" isn't different from an "internet cafe", this is purely a translation issue. Although Chinese internet cafe's are mostly used for playing video games (CS and Korean RPG's mostly), they didn't name it differently because of this.
Most likely, this article was written by a Chinese. Chinese for internet cafe is "wangba". Litteraly it means "netbar". Notice that "ba" is a loan-word. ("wang", of course, meaning "net").
"cafe" in Chinese is a loan-word as well. It is compromised of "kafei" and "guan". But here, kafei isn't a chinese way of saying "cafe", but "coffee". Ergo, "cafe" in Chinese is "coffee establishment" (cofeehouse). Something in China called "kafeiguan" tries very hard to be "western" (whatever that is).
Now, and I suppose you can see it coming, if they would have named an intenet cafe a "wangkafeiguan" this would really have ment that this is a place with a very western atmosphere where you can get coffee and surf the net.
But an internet cafe usually is just a place where you rent a terminal, do your thing and leave again. You might be able to get a drink at a bar, but unless you're in a Starbucks it usually doesn't try to be a place to relax, have a cup, and also check your mail.
Thus, "wangkafeiguan" doesn't mean "internet cafe", and they had no other option than to call it "wangba" instead.
But, I would like to note that 'the Maglev sucks, because it doesn't go into the city and you have to transfer to a subway and ride another 6 stops just to get on the Puxi side of the river. (not a direct quote)' is a bit short sighted.
The Shangai Subway is very modern, spacious and six stops can not be a problem. I'm not sure if you've ever been to Shanghai, but if you have you are probably familiar with the Airport Express; The bus service that stops at hotels before going to the airport. Before the opening of the Maglev, it was the only reliable and affordable way to get to the airport. Taking a taxi is another option, but can be quite a hassle if you can't speak Chinese and is much more expensive.
The bus ride, depending on the traffic, can take more than an hour and a half (30 km!).
Eventhough the bus will leave from the frontdoor of your hotel, wouldn't you rather take the subway six stops and the maglev?
Besides, I can imagine it being impossible to build a high-speed train-track into the heart of Shanghai. Heck, there isn't even enough space to drive your bike into the heart of Shanghai.
In short, having to take the subway isn't that big a deal, compared to the alternative.
The Maglev might suck (I don't know), but it won't be because of this.
Slashdot Mirror
The following is part of a short text I wrote partly in response to Lokman Tsui's (Leiden University, the Netherlands) thesis "Internet in China: Big Mama is Watching You". (Lokman Tsui, Internet in China: Big Mama is Watching You, University of Leiden, July 2001)
In his thesis Lokman compares the internet censorship in China to the Panopticon, a concept of a prison invented in 1791 in which the prisoners do not know whether or not they are being watched, and thus always behave in a proper manner. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon)
If you like I can send you my full text, if you're interested in this subject you might find it an interesting overview.
The new phenomenon of blogging is beginning to ?upturn? the traditional Western media1. Newspapers and TV channels now have to deal with bloggers spreading news and information themselves they do not cover, and discussing topics traditionally left ignored. The same can be said to be happening in China, although there the difference between the traditional media and the bloggers is of course much larger. However, although the Chinese government is not, maybe not yet, capable of dealing with the blogs, censorship is still strict and punishment severe, and as all Chinese are aware of this, only those who want to deliberately act against the censorship will do so. This also applies to proxy-use. Using a proxy server to look at blocked content is punishable, so only those who really want to, will.
As Lokman Tsui says, views on the possibility of censoring the Internet in China differ, but the most prevalent view among "Western" journalists is that the Internet cannot be censored. Tsui however, is of the opinion that, contrary to what most Western journalists say, even though the control of the Internet by China's government is not a hundred percent, it is effective nonetheless. The threat itself, he concludes, is enough and makes it possible for the Chinese authorities to control the Internet.
Indeed, barriers, self-censorship and fear of being monitored make for strong control. Not only in the case of Internet censorship, this is the basic functionality of every law. However, what Tsui does not do is distinguish between different kinds of Internet users. He deals with the group of Internet users as if it were homogenous, all motivated and scared by the same things. Yet here too it is the same as with every other law: those who want to break a law will. A distinction should be made; the group that is being controlled by a law should be divided into three groups. The first group are those who have no intention of breakinghte law and who would not do so if possible. The law does not affect this group, as they never come in contact with it. The second group are those who will break the law, for whatever reason they have. Even though they might have to suffer the consequences of breaking it, the law does not affect this group, as they will not be stopped by it. The third group are those who do not break the law, but might if given the opportunity. This third group is the group affected by laws. As long as the laws are there and being enforced, they will not break it. However, when breaking it is made easy and the risk of getting caught becomes very small, this group might do so. The grouping, of course, varies for every different law.
The censorship of the Chinese government of the Internet is one of these laws. Most of the Chinese Internet users only use the Internet for "allowed" activities. On the other hand there are certainly Chinese who use the Internet for illegal purposes. These users are motivated to learn what they need to know in order to be able to, and because the use of proxy servers has become very easy, as they have increased in number and availability, the knowledge barrier has become smaller. This shrinking of the knowledge barrier, in combination with a very fast growing number of bloggers, who are obviously much less controlled and censo
The releasedate of this mouse was October 18, 2004 according to Cnet.
t ebook_Mouse/4505-3148_7-31144953.html
Hey look! It's that new Gameboy Color!
http://reviews.cnet.com/Logitech_V500_Cordless_No
A point of interest might be that a large part of the Chinese pollution is caused by factories that produce for the American and European market. Whether these products are made in China, Europe, or anywhere else doesn't really matter, pollution is still pollution. And as you rightly pointed out, it doesn't stay put. But since many products are produced for the European and American market, whose polution is it really? Can we really claim it's not our problem because the pollution comes from Chinese factories?
Honestly, I do not know real figures or statistics (didn't even try to find them). I do know something about the Chinese economy though (I study Sinology at Leiden University) and think that our outsourcing of production to low-cost countries is also an outsourcing of our pollution.
That we have succeeded in outsourcing the problem doesn't mean it's not our problem anymore.
Hm, wasn't really finished with the comment (parent), but misclicked and hit Submit instead of Preview.
Doesn't really matter. I noticed Slashdot doesn't support Chinese characters. Why is this? Shouldn't be too hard to implement? (Easy for me to say, I have no clue)
The last thing I wanted to add to parent: The person who wrote the Reuters article (presumably Chinese because of his typical mistake in translating Internet Cafe) didn't know a "Wangba" shouldn't be translated with "Internet Bar". That's all.
An "internet bar" isn't different from an "internet cafe", this is purely a translation issue. Although Chinese internet cafe's are mostly used for playing video games (CS and Korean RPG's mostly), they didn't name it differently because of this.
Most likely, this article was written by a Chinese. Chinese for internet cafe is "wangba". Litteraly it means "netbar". Notice that "ba" is a loan-word. ("wang", of course, meaning "net").
"cafe" in Chinese is a loan-word as well. It is compromised of "kafei" and "guan". But here, kafei isn't a chinese way of saying "cafe", but "coffee". Ergo, "cafe" in Chinese is "coffee establishment" (cofeehouse). Something in China called "kafeiguan" tries very hard to be "western" (whatever that is).
Now, and I suppose you can see it coming, if they would have named an intenet cafe a "wangkafeiguan" this would really have ment that this is a place with a very western atmosphere where you can get coffee and surf the net.
But an internet cafe usually is just a place where you rent a terminal, do your thing and leave again. You might be able to get a drink at a bar, but unless you're in a Starbucks it usually doesn't try to be a place to relax, have a cup, and also check your mail.
Thus, "wangkafeiguan" doesn't mean "internet cafe", and they had no other option than to call it "wangba" instead.
Thanks for the info!
But, I would like to note that 'the Maglev sucks, because it doesn't go into the city and you have to transfer to a subway and ride another 6 stops just to get on the Puxi side of the river. (not a direct quote)' is a bit short sighted.
The Shangai Subway is very modern, spacious and six stops can not be a problem. I'm not sure if you've ever been to Shanghai, but if you have you are probably familiar with the Airport Express; The bus service that stops at hotels before going to the airport. Before the opening of the Maglev, it was the only reliable and affordable way to get to the airport. Taking a taxi is another option, but can be quite a hassle if you can't speak Chinese and is much more expensive.
The bus ride, depending on the traffic, can take more than an hour and a half (30 km!).
Eventhough the bus will leave from the frontdoor of your hotel, wouldn't you rather take the subway six stops and the maglev?
Besides, I can imagine it being impossible to build a high-speed train-track into the heart of Shanghai. Heck, there isn't even enough space to drive your bike into the heart of Shanghai.
In short, having to take the subway isn't that big a deal, compared to the alternative.
The Maglev might suck (I don't know), but it won't be because of this.