Believe it or not, that image of the Chinese government is a part of US propaganda. I know there have been many instances in the past where many lives have been lost because of their philosophy, but government killing people is not something new, even the US does it also. If you study Asian and South American histories, you'll know that US screwed bad. Pinochet for example is an American product, how many people died because of that? OK, back to the Chinese government. You might know it or not, the Chinese government is different now, they are accepting changes, behaving differently and they do care about the people. Do you know how difficult it is to govern 1+ Billion people? Well, the Chinese government does it, and does it good. I see their vision of making China prosper, be a major power in the world so other people can't kick them around. Their way is harsh, I know, but let them.
The image of Chinese government isn't propaganda. It is the truth, unless you believe the Chinese government propaganda, then the truth is propaganda. And, it's all about success to you, even if their people become slaves in the process.
Let me tell you something. As a staunch free market supporter, I can easily place Pinochet in a very positive light, just like you are placing the Chinese government in a positive light. I can easily start spewing stuff about how Pinochet destroyed the advancement of socialism in Chile, and led a grand vision to bring free markets to Chile. (He actually did achieve the latter goal). I can talk about how great of a leader Pinochet was, who made Chile much better. I can make Pinochet look like an angel. However, I know much better than to spew propaganda, and Pinochet's torture and killing is uncalled for.
Yes, the Chinese government has become much better compared to the old Maoist days. Ironically, they are using Pinochet's strategies to help improve their economy. However, it still has a very long way to go before it ever becomes a free country.
Being assertive, saying things whatever you want is actually a western culture where individualism is the way of life. In many other cultures, it is not the individual that matters, it is the community. In such cultures, being assertive is often not beneficial to the group, since that may break the harmony. So in such groups, you don't be a rebel and do what they told you to do; after a while and usually a long while you'll have a turn to say. That scenario might be excruciating for you and me, but it is their way, it is not bad, it is different. So do not use Western standards to judge other cultures.
Yes, I am aware of China's collectivist culture. However, collectivism and freedom do not cancel each other out. You are free to speak what you want (nobody is controlling your mouth but yourself), but you must deal with the consequences of your speech. Your speech may go against cultural norms. However, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the government telling you want you can and cannot say. I'm not judging your culture (I have no problem with your culture); I'm judging China's government, which I have a major problem with. Culture and government are two different things. Don't come back saying "it's the Chinese way"; there is a strong difference between cultural norms and the law. It's not just a Western idea (what's so bad about Western ideas, anyways?). I still maintain that people from all cultures are born with natural rights. There is a major problem when governments restrict these natural rights.
Yeah, different countries do have different opinions about how to run things. However, those different opinions cross moral boundaries when they start restricting the rights of humans down to nothingness. I don't believe in cultural superiority, and democracies are the least bad form of government, IMO. (I am a libertarian, so I'm not to fond of government to begi
Some people actually do not need freedom of speech [...] Eastern countries have different cultures than the Wests'. Differences in social structures, values, religions etc. Openness is good for improvement I think, but it should not happen immidiately. Their societies work that way for ages, asserting foreign (Western) values in an instant may break those societies. Besides, some of Western cultures are bad btw. So if China wants to set their own rules, stop bickering. It is none of your business.
WTF?
What does the totalitarian Chinese government have to do with the Chinese culture? So you think Chinese culture supports running people over with tanker trucks and bulldozers? So you think Chinese culture supports killing millions of people just because they don't believe in communism? So you think Chinese culture is about exploiting workers? So you think Chinese culture is about spewing propaganda? That remark that you made is an insult to the Chinese culture. Government is not culture.
And what's Western about the values of freedom? "Some people don't need free speech;" take that sentence and shove it up a place where it rightfully belongs. Basic freedom of speech is respected in all cultures in the world. Freedom of speech is a natural right that no culture or government provides you; you are born with it. If you can't even speak, then why do you exist?
You should like a totalitarian apologist who probably grew up in a totalitarian country and believe everything that The All-Mighty Imperial State told you. You believe that freedom is a Western conspiracy and an attack on local values. You believe that promoting freedoms is disrespectful to the culture. Shame on you, apologist. Go read some real books, like 1984, read about the real Chinese culture, and read some philosophy, too. Then you can come back here and post something with real insight.
I disagree. I believe that no Google is better than some Google. It is much better to have no information that to have your brain filled with propaganda. The citizens won't be able to distinguish government propaganda from fact.
Personally, China needs to change its totalitarian policies. The government is evil, and its people will be oppressed as long as that government operates under its current methods. The free world should also do a better job developing and competing, before totalitarian China starts controlling everything. All of our goods already comes from there, and they are getting much more powerful each year. A powerful totalitarian government is dangerous to any free society in the world. What will happen if ultra-powerful China gets more evil and start attacking other countries?
if you want to play in China, you must obey Chinese law.
But the Chinese government didn't stick a gun up to Google and tell it to censor its servers, or be nuked. Google voluntarily decided to censor its servers without any orders from China, instead of having China censor it for them.
That is what makes me mad about the Google thing, as Google voluntarily censored themselves. Geez, for a company that is supposed to "do no evil," they have done the most evil thing yet: suck up to a evil totalitarian government.
Moreover, Google didn't have to censor its results. The Chinese government could have censored its results for them, as the Chinese government does with other web sites. But instead of Google letting the Chinese government do its thing, Google has volunteered to censor its own servers.
That's why we're so mad. It isn't that Google is censored; it is that Google volunteered to censor itself, without any coercion from China at all.
My hero would be somebody like Donald Knuth. He is a true computer scientist and wrote TAOCP and TeX singlehandedly, amongst many other accomplishments.
As a future computer scientist, I would rather be in Knuth's shoes than in Gates's shoes or Jobs's shoes (even though I like Jobs a lot).
leaving the feds out is an interesting idea. also, its a viewpoint i'm unfamiliar with. however, what if there was more federal funding? part of the reason why some districts are poor and others are rich is because of the tax base. it would be great to figure out a way to even this out.
It's not the federal money itself that is necessarily the issue; it is the strings attached and bureaucracy associated with the funding. Since the federal government has gotten into the business of funding education, community and state control of the schools have slipped. No longer are students' curricula, teaching qualifications, testing requirements, and other issues are dealt with at a local level; they are now federal issues. Whenever the federal government is involved with anything, that means it is applied nationwide. Certain things best belong in federal hands, such as interstate highways and defense. However, school administration should be done at a more local level, between school districts, cities/counties, and states.
About funding, the funding will be done at a state level. Since everybody in the state will get an equal amount of money, it is best to implement vouchers at a statewide level. This helps level the playing field with poorer communities and wealthy communities.
the thing that makes me uneasy about vouchers is that it can funnel money out of the public school system. further, they largely benefit the rich - the voucher isn't enough to cover private schooling, only give a price break for those that can already afford it.
Well, yes, the public schools will now have to compete with the private schools for students. Since they are now on equal footing, they now have to compete with each other for students and teachers. This will help raise standards across the board, both with public and private schools. Yes, some of the bad schools (both public and private) will close down due to either lack of demand and/or lack of good teachers, but that is how the market works. Vouchers will give students who currently can't go to a good school because of living in a low-income boundary a chance to enter a better school, either public or private. In the long run, what is more important: government ownership of schools or government funding of schools?
Oh, and about the rich. Good point you brought up; we don't want to be subsidizing Paris Hilton's future children to go to Stanford College Preparatory School. Well, there can be a cutoff point for families who can afford to send all of their children to school without government assistance (e.g., families making $200,000 per year and have two kids, for example). Vouchers are really meant to help the poor and middle class have some choice with their school options.
I am a free market libertarian who believes that the free market is very efficient for solving many problems and that many things should be privatized, but education isn't one of them.
To begin, I do support the viewpoint that the federal government should stay out of K-12 education. Ever since they have gotten very powerful beginning in the 1960s-70s, the quality of our education has gotten down the tubes. Federal involvement in education takes the community out of education and makes it into this one-size-fits-all type of thing.
However, public schools aren't all bad. Even though I didn't have too great of a public school experience (I grew up in low-income neighborhoods, where the facilities and quality of education are bad), there are many public schools out there that are top-notch. The only problem is that you have to live in a high-income neighborhood to get access to good schools; if you live in a low-income neighborhood, you either have to go to the crumbling neighborhood school, pay about $7000 per year for tuition at a private school (but you've already paid for schooling at a public school through tax dollars), or pray that you do an inter-district transfer or go to a charter school (which is how I got through high school).
I believe that the public school situation can be fixed with two steps; returning control and funding of the schools back to cities and states, and a school voucher program that pays for a child's schooling up to a certain amount. How will the vouchers work? Well, let's say it costs $5000 a year to attend any public school in the state of California. (I'm making numbers up, just bear with me.) Let's assume that we have a household of three school-age children. The state of California gives the parents a $5000 voucher for each child ($15000 in all). This will be similar to the grants that state governments and the federal government award to college students. That voucher can not only be used at the public schools, but can also be applied to private schools and even home schools. For example, if the parents want to send the kids to Stanford College Preparatory School, which costs $12,000 per year, then the government will cover $5,000 of the tuition, and the parents will cover the rest. It will also cover the funding for home-school students and students wishing to go to charter schools, too. What about Catholic and other religious schools, somebody will ask. Well, since the funding is going toward the student, not the school itself, everything will still be okay. Some restrictions for private schools may apply (e.g., no racial discrimination, schools must meet or exceed educational standards, etc.), but other than that, private schools are part of the voucher plan too.
What are the benefits of this voucher plan? Well, everybody gets a free public education or partly subsidized private education. People from poor neighborhoods are no longer pigeonholed to their crumbling neighborhood schools; they now have access to other public schools, private schools, and even home schooling. With the feds out of the way, and with communities stepping up, there will finally be a local voice in the teaching of the children. More importantly, this leads to market competition toward education. Parents will be able to choose schools based on their child's needs. Those with special needs can go to schools that cater to those special needs, for example. No more "one-size-fits-all" mess.
I have some other ideas coming out of me where some libertarians will balk at, such as a negative income tax to replace welfare/social security and "health care vouchers" managed by communities and states. A minimal, community-based safety net is a good thing and can actually be compatible with libertarian ideas, such as free markets and federalism (i.e., restoring such power to communities and states instead of nationalizing it). Public education shouldn't be fully privatized unless there were a guaranteed minimum income; poor people wouldn't be able to afford education without massive loans, otherwise. Just don't get the feds involved.
I argue that correct information is better than getting propaganda. I'd rather them with no information than to be filled with propaganda.
It's much easier to learn new things from scratch when the information becomes available than it is to learn a bunch of propaganda (Eurasia has always been at war with Oceania, for instance), and have to unlearn it when it has been falsified. Plus, people brought up with propaganda won't believe the truth and will believe their false beliefs until they carry them to the grave.
No information is better than false information. At least it won't turn people into propaganda zombies.
What is the "right thing"? By whose terms? We're arrogantly acting like American values of free speech are the only possible meaningful set of values. Don't get me wrong; from my perspective, free speech is vital, and China is only hurting itself by being totalitarian. But by the standards of the Chinese government and many Chinese people, Google is most CERTAINLY doing the "right thing" by censoring content.
Oh please! So now we have to respect totalitarian standards and slavery now, just because it is of a different country. Totalitarianism is not part of the Chinese culture, it is a part of the Chinese government. There is a huge difference between culture and government. The Chinese didn't democratically elect their totalitarian government, so this is not to the standards of the Chinese people at all.
Humans are born with natural rights; one of those rights is the freedom of speech. The government doesn't grant humans rights; they are born with specific rights. How dare you call us Americans arrogant for being angry about China's lack of free speech and about Google's willingness to bend over and take it from them. Don't get me wrong, I am a firm believer in Milton Friedman's quote "The only social responsibility of a corporation is to deliver a profit to its shareholders." However, I am also a firm believer in freedom, too. Freedom is the only meaningful set of values. It's not Google's policy that I'm very mad about. It's about China's evil, totalitarian government.
I am worried about the future. If China gets more powerful yet retains its totalitarian government, then we Americans have a lot to worry about. We already depend on China for nearly all of our goods, just like we depend on the Middle East for nearly all of our oil. This is dangerous. This country needs to get back up on its feet and reduce its dependence on unstable and totalitarian nations if we don't expect to be taken over by totalitarians.
Relax. Calm down. Apple's entire G4 and G5 lineup is still intact, so you can still buy one and have all of that PowerPC and AltiVec goodness while it's still available.
When that is over with, you can do what other x86 haters (like myself) would do if they won the lottery and treat yourself to a Sun notebook, or Sun Blade 2500, which I'm pretty sure will get your soul back. Unless you're not a x86 hater and just don't like poor people with Macs, that is....
This line does not appear in all search results. At least Google is letting people know which search terms are being censored. That to me has to be better than simply removing all traces of the event, a la real censorship.
So? What's the difference? The English page shows the truth of what happened in 1989, while the Chinese page shows Tiananmen Square as some sort of turist attraction or something, as if nothing happened there. All traces of the event were removed, and even if there are some traces left, it is still mostly censored.
Totalitarian governments like the Chinese government are evil. A government is considered evil when it completely strips away your freedoms. How dare a country restrict its citizens from reading certain books or websites just because it might get a few too many people angry about the current conditions that they live in? In China, muchofwhatIread is (or is probably) banned in China, as well as books of any political philosophy that is considered one step more free than communism (even socialist literature is banned, because of the ideas of democratic socialism and social democracy). Why? These books don't preach of that communism stuff that China claims that they follow (but doesn't practice; they have actually read the last book and adopted free market policies, the only good thing that they done over the past few years), and it promotes freedom of not only the market, but also freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of association, and other individual freedoms. It is in the best interest of the Chinese government to keep its citizens oppressed and suppressed. That is pure evil.
Now, I'm not saying that our (American) way is the right way, just because we are Americans. Our country isn't a bastion of freedom, either. However, I still feel that I am much more free in this country than any other country in the world, both politically and economically. Freedom is very important for a society to survive. Take away all levels of freedom, and you end up with a society of slaves. China has created a society of slaves who have been indoctrinated into their totalitarian philosophy, and has sealed off any access to literature and people who have any ideas of freedom. China knows that once people see the light, then there will be a huge revolution, just like the incident in 1989.
Yes, there are other countries with completely different values than ours. Many EU nations are big on social democracy, for instance, which is very different than our emphasis on free markets and individualism. However, even though they have different values, they have just as much respect for human rights as we do. However, when those values start restricting the rights of humans to the point that they must answer to the State for everything, then those values are evil. Totalitarianism is evil, simply put.
Rather than blame video games, we should simply prohibit kids from driving. Sixteen is simply way too young. Twenty-one would be more like it, though maybe yet still too young...
Err, read the article again. These were two eighteen year olds, not sixteen. 18, by definition, is an adult. When you are 18, you should be expected to be mature enough to think on your own. 18 year olds are expected to have common sense and are expected to have "grown up." These were two immature adults who decided to street race each other, and did not consider the consequences of their actions until it was too late. They should now be punished as adults.
Why should adults be banned from driving, or even 16 year olds from learning how to drive? Granted, 16 and 17 year olds probably shouldn't have full driving privileges, but they should use that time to at least properly learn how to drive. The only reason why accidents are higher for 16-18 year olds is because they are just beginning to learn how to drive. If driving became considered as bad as alcohol and you had to be 21 or older to drive, then the highest accident range will be from ages 21 to 23, as they are just beginning to learn how to drive, as well.
These were two adults who have made the wrong decision, and they should face stiff consequences. Just don't blame it on them being 18; not all 16, 17, and 18 year olds are immature brats.
For two, Google, after all, is a business. They are not a NGO, charity, or some other organization that's in existance to make this planet a better World (TM). They are here to make their shareholders (and themselves) a return on their investment.
To quote Milton Friedman:
"The only social responsibility of a corporation is to deliver a profit to its shareholders"
Corporations don't exist to be humanitarian organizations. Their job is to make as much money as possible, while remaining within the law.
The problem with alternate OSes is that drivers for more complex devices (such as certain USB devices and wireless cards) are hard to make. Manufacturers won't give up any specifications, nor provide drivers for alternate OSes (manufacturers will complain "Why should we spend $$$ developing drivers that only 2% of the market will use?"). Not every Linux user is an electrical engineer or computer engineer who knows enough about hardware to create a device driver. And even the most talented electrical/computer engineer can't reverse engineer everything.
When you run an operating system that only 2-3% of the world uses, getting driver support for all of your hardware can be difficult, especially if you have devices such as digital cameras and wireless devices. This isn't the fault of Linux itself; if manufacturers at least provided specifications, then the developers that know C and C++ and electrical/computer engineering can create device drivers.
But, yeah, *nix does a lot of complex things very well because it is *nix, after all. However, things that are easy or should be easy for users (installing software, drivers, user interfaces, etc.) are very difficult to implement for programmers, because of all of the abstractions they have to create, the UI theory that they have to learn, and sometimes even political issues (manufacturers and drivers, for instance. And there is a small segment of *nix users who only want FOSS drivers, which can make things even more political). What is much easier to design, a typical Unix command line application (they aren't cryptic, either, unless you're talking about regular expressions, which I don't use too often), or a GUI application. The Unix command is much easier to implement, you just use console I/O (very easy to do with C and C++). Want to implement a GUI? Well, first you have to design the core program, then you have to write GUI wrapper classes using some GUI toolkit that doesn't fit with the language, then you have to design the UI of the program (which should have been done first).... Not all programmers are Steve Jobs, you know.
The problem is that Microsoft has the PC market by the stranglehold. You can't buy a new PC from Dell or HP without paying Microsoft. Most users still don't want to install Linux on their machines (and there is a lack of companies selling Linux or BSD machines ready to use out of the box), and we can forget about Apple releasing OS X for vanilla PCs (which will improve the OS situation on vanilla PCs, but may hurt the sales of Apple PCs).
And even if you make it past the operating system hurdle, remember that Microsoft has a stronghold on applications (through software developers only releasing applications for Windows), document formats and the Internet. Wine, OpenOffice, and (insert your favorite alternate browser here) are still not perfect. Finally, remember DRM. Vista has a lot of DRM (first, not being able to use certain monitors; next, not being able to install certain drivers), and even Apple is using DRM (but it is only to prevent OS X from being installed on vanilla x86s; the DRM isn't used for other things). All of the major processor companies now are part of the Trusted Computing Group. Intel and IBM has already came out with processors and motherboards with DRM chips, and AMD, Sun, ARM, and even Motorola/Freescale are also on the list. You can get the whole list here. Where are you going to buy your processors now when all of the processor manufacturers produce "trusted chips"? Finally, most of the media formats encountered when buying media online have DRM, which sucks for Linux and BSD users who don't have a player to play those files on. (They can create one, but then they'll have to deal with RIAA/MPAA/Apple/Google/Microsoft/etc. lawyers due to the DMCA; even though you don't intend on infringing copyrights (you just want to play your iTunes music on your Linux box), you broke the encryption method, so a few years of Bubba for you....). Imagine if every file made by every application (even documents) had DRM? Then Linux and BSD users will be breaking the law just to read their own documents.
So, no, Microsoft isn't dying. In fact, legal Linux and BSD might die if certain steps aren't taken now. The next few years are crucial in getting open source on the desktop if we don't want to deal with trusted computing and all of that crap.
Hardly a big deal. Nobody is going to run Vista unless they want to shell out for an HDCP compatable monitor anyway
But what about those people at the middle or end of this year running out and buying brand new Dells and HPs for school or for Christmas loaded with....Windows Vista? These users don't have a choice, unless they build their own machines or buy a Mac.
Agreed. I'm glad to see that there is some competition amongst the processor companies, even if that competition is just x86s and all of the other architectures are dead (some of us are still a bit bitter over the loss of MIPS, ALPHA, PowerPC, etc.). AMD has done a great job with the x86-64 extensions (so great, the Intel adopted them to design their own x86-64 chips), and AMD is committed to raw performance per dollar. Intel, as you stated, has done an outstanding job with chips for laptops and other low-power computers, and are committed to performance per watts. If I had the money, I'd buy myself a nice dual-core Athlon 64 desktop and a nice MacBook Pro or Dell Inspiron 9400. I have a desktop that burns through heavy tasks, and a laptop that is powerful yet doesn't roast my organs. The competiton helps drive improvements in both performance and in power consumption in PCs, and also drives prices down (especially their low end stuff).
Personally, my definition of right wing is based on this political chart. I define a right-winger to be a person who believes in free-market capitalism. A left-winger is somebody who believes in either modern liberalism (not classical liberalism or neoliberalism; those are right-wing ideologies), social democracy, socialism or communism. Most Republicans are center-right, and most Democrats lie somewhere in the center-left. This political chart takes care of things such as individual freedoms in an authoritarian vs. libertarian axis.
I am a libertarian (when libertarian is used alone outside of this axis, it is primarily assumed to be of the free-market variety), and I classify myself as right-wing because of my firm beliefs in free-markets based on the beliefs of Chicago economics and Austrian economics. However, not everybody follows this political chart, and some libertarians refuse to be classified as right-wing because of its connontation with social conservatives and the Religious Right.
I agree with you. I was thinking about Reagan's gubernatorial term and theoretical economic policies (which, as you pointed out, led to huge budget deficits. Tax cuts + huge military increases = huge budget deficits), but forgot about his social and war policies. The Religious Right did start moving into the party during the Reagan administration, and Reagan did support some issues that libertarians and other small-government conservatives wouldn't (expansion of the War on Drugs, for example). Margaret Thatcher might have been a bit more true to small government conservatism than Reagan was, but that can be disputed, too. But neither are libertarians.
And, yes, I'm just a college freshman, so I don't remember much about Reagan (or even Bush Sr.) at all.
Slashdot Mirror
The image of Chinese government isn't propaganda. It is the truth, unless you believe the Chinese government propaganda, then the truth is propaganda. And, it's all about success to you, even if their people become slaves in the process.
Let me tell you something. As a staunch free market supporter, I can easily place Pinochet in a very positive light, just like you are placing the Chinese government in a positive light. I can easily start spewing stuff about how Pinochet destroyed the advancement of socialism in Chile, and led a grand vision to bring free markets to Chile. (He actually did achieve the latter goal). I can talk about how great of a leader Pinochet was, who made Chile much better. I can make Pinochet look like an angel. However, I know much better than to spew propaganda, and Pinochet's torture and killing is uncalled for.
Yes, the Chinese government has become much better compared to the old Maoist days. Ironically, they are using Pinochet's strategies to help improve their economy. However, it still has a very long way to go before it ever becomes a free country.
Yes, I am aware of China's collectivist culture. However, collectivism and freedom do not cancel each other out. You are free to speak what you want (nobody is controlling your mouth but yourself), but you must deal with the consequences of your speech. Your speech may go against cultural norms. However, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the government telling you want you can and cannot say. I'm not judging your culture (I have no problem with your culture); I'm judging China's government, which I have a major problem with. Culture and government are two different things. Don't come back saying "it's the Chinese way"; there is a strong difference between cultural norms and the law. It's not just a Western idea (what's so bad about Western ideas, anyways?). I still maintain that people from all cultures are born with natural rights. There is a major problem when governments restrict these natural rights.
Yeah, different countries do have different opinions about how to run things. However, those different opinions cross moral boundaries when they start restricting the rights of humans down to nothingness. I don't believe in cultural superiority, and democracies are the least bad form of government, IMO. (I am a libertarian, so I'm not to fond of government to begi
See, you have proven my point. It's all about the dollar. Google doesn't give a flying bat about "doing no evil," all they see is green.
WTF?
What does the totalitarian Chinese government have to do with the Chinese culture? So you think Chinese culture supports running people over with tanker trucks and bulldozers? So you think Chinese culture supports killing millions of people just because they don't believe in communism? So you think Chinese culture is about exploiting workers? So you think Chinese culture is about spewing propaganda? That remark that you made is an insult to the Chinese culture. Government is not culture.
And what's Western about the values of freedom? "Some people don't need free speech;" take that sentence and shove it up a place where it rightfully belongs. Basic freedom of speech is respected in all cultures in the world. Freedom of speech is a natural right that no culture or government provides you; you are born with it. If you can't even speak, then why do you exist?
You should like a totalitarian apologist who probably grew up in a totalitarian country and believe everything that The All-Mighty Imperial State told you. You believe that freedom is a Western conspiracy and an attack on local values. You believe that promoting freedoms is disrespectful to the culture. Shame on you, apologist. Go read some real books, like 1984, read about the real Chinese culture, and read some philosophy, too. Then you can come back here and post something with real insight.
I disagree. I believe that no Google is better than some Google. It is much better to have no information that to have your brain filled with propaganda. The citizens won't be able to distinguish government propaganda from fact.
Personally, China needs to change its totalitarian policies. The government is evil, and its people will be oppressed as long as that government operates under its current methods. The free world should also do a better job developing and competing, before totalitarian China starts controlling everything. All of our goods already comes from there, and they are getting much more powerful each year. A powerful totalitarian government is dangerous to any free society in the world. What will happen if ultra-powerful China gets more evil and start attacking other countries?
But the Chinese government didn't stick a gun up to Google and tell it to censor its servers, or be nuked. Google voluntarily decided to censor its servers without any orders from China, instead of having China censor it for them.
That is what makes me mad about the Google thing, as Google voluntarily censored themselves. Geez, for a company that is supposed to "do no evil," they have done the most evil thing yet: suck up to a evil totalitarian government.
Moreover, Google didn't have to censor its results. The Chinese government could have censored its results for them, as the Chinese government does with other web sites. But instead of Google letting the Chinese government do its thing, Google has volunteered to censor its own servers.
That's why we're so mad. It isn't that Google is censored; it is that Google volunteered to censor itself, without any coercion from China at all.
My hero would be somebody like Donald Knuth. He is a true computer scientist and wrote TAOCP and TeX singlehandedly, amongst many other accomplishments.
As a future computer scientist, I would rather be in Knuth's shoes than in Gates's shoes or Jobs's shoes (even though I like Jobs a lot).
Well, you won't have to worry about being cold in the winter....
It's not the federal money itself that is necessarily the issue; it is the strings attached and bureaucracy associated with the funding. Since the federal government has gotten into the business of funding education, community and state control of the schools have slipped. No longer are students' curricula, teaching qualifications, testing requirements, and other issues are dealt with at a local level; they are now federal issues. Whenever the federal government is involved with anything, that means it is applied nationwide. Certain things best belong in federal hands, such as interstate highways and defense. However, school administration should be done at a more local level, between school districts, cities/counties, and states.
About funding, the funding will be done at a state level. Since everybody in the state will get an equal amount of money, it is best to implement vouchers at a statewide level. This helps level the playing field with poorer communities and wealthy communities.
Well, yes, the public schools will now have to compete with the private schools for students. Since they are now on equal footing, they now have to compete with each other for students and teachers. This will help raise standards across the board, both with public and private schools. Yes, some of the bad schools (both public and private) will close down due to either lack of demand and/or lack of good teachers, but that is how the market works. Vouchers will give students who currently can't go to a good school because of living in a low-income boundary a chance to enter a better school, either public or private. In the long run, what is more important: government ownership of schools or government funding of schools?
Oh, and about the rich. Good point you brought up; we don't want to be subsidizing Paris Hilton's future children to go to Stanford College Preparatory School. Well, there can be a cutoff point for families who can afford to send all of their children to school without government assistance (e.g., families making $200,000 per year and have two kids, for example). Vouchers are really meant to help the poor and middle class have some choice with their school options.
Good points you brought up.
Too bad HP won't spend $$$ to bring back the Alpha.
I miss architecture diversity....
Let me chime in on this debate.
I am a free market libertarian who believes that the free market is very efficient for solving many problems and that many things should be privatized, but education isn't one of them.
To begin, I do support the viewpoint that the federal government should stay out of K-12 education. Ever since they have gotten very powerful beginning in the 1960s-70s, the quality of our education has gotten down the tubes. Federal involvement in education takes the community out of education and makes it into this one-size-fits-all type of thing.
However, public schools aren't all bad. Even though I didn't have too great of a public school experience (I grew up in low-income neighborhoods, where the facilities and quality of education are bad), there are many public schools out there that are top-notch. The only problem is that you have to live in a high-income neighborhood to get access to good schools; if you live in a low-income neighborhood, you either have to go to the crumbling neighborhood school, pay about $7000 per year for tuition at a private school (but you've already paid for schooling at a public school through tax dollars), or pray that you do an inter-district transfer or go to a charter school (which is how I got through high school).
I believe that the public school situation can be fixed with two steps; returning control and funding of the schools back to cities and states, and a school voucher program that pays for a child's schooling up to a certain amount. How will the vouchers work? Well, let's say it costs $5000 a year to attend any public school in the state of California. (I'm making numbers up, just bear with me.) Let's assume that we have a household of three school-age children. The state of California gives the parents a $5000 voucher for each child ($15000 in all). This will be similar to the grants that state governments and the federal government award to college students. That voucher can not only be used at the public schools, but can also be applied to private schools and even home schools. For example, if the parents want to send the kids to Stanford College Preparatory School, which costs $12,000 per year, then the government will cover $5,000 of the tuition, and the parents will cover the rest. It will also cover the funding for home-school students and students wishing to go to charter schools, too. What about Catholic and other religious schools, somebody will ask. Well, since the funding is going toward the student, not the school itself, everything will still be okay. Some restrictions for private schools may apply (e.g., no racial discrimination, schools must meet or exceed educational standards, etc.), but other than that, private schools are part of the voucher plan too.
What are the benefits of this voucher plan? Well, everybody gets a free public education or partly subsidized private education. People from poor neighborhoods are no longer pigeonholed to their crumbling neighborhood schools; they now have access to other public schools, private schools, and even home schooling. With the feds out of the way, and with communities stepping up, there will finally be a local voice in the teaching of the children. More importantly, this leads to market competition toward education. Parents will be able to choose schools based on their child's needs. Those with special needs can go to schools that cater to those special needs, for example. No more "one-size-fits-all" mess.
I have some other ideas coming out of me where some libertarians will balk at, such as a negative income tax to replace welfare/social security and "health care vouchers" managed by communities and states. A minimal, community-based safety net is a good thing and can actually be compatible with libertarian ideas, such as free markets and federalism (i.e., restoring such power to communities and states instead of nationalizing it). Public education shouldn't be fully privatized unless there were a guaranteed minimum income; poor people wouldn't be able to afford education without massive loans, otherwise. Just don't get the feds involved.
I argue that correct information is better than getting propaganda. I'd rather them with no information than to be filled with propaganda.
It's much easier to learn new things from scratch when the information becomes available than it is to learn a bunch of propaganda (Eurasia has always been at war with Oceania, for instance), and have to unlearn it when it has been falsified. Plus, people brought up with propaganda won't believe the truth and will believe their false beliefs until they carry them to the grave.
No information is better than false information. At least it won't turn people into propaganda zombies.
Oh please! So now we have to respect totalitarian standards and slavery now, just because it is of a different country. Totalitarianism is not part of the Chinese culture, it is a part of the Chinese government. There is a huge difference between culture and government. The Chinese didn't democratically elect their totalitarian government, so this is not to the standards of the Chinese people at all.
Humans are born with natural rights; one of those rights is the freedom of speech. The government doesn't grant humans rights; they are born with specific rights. How dare you call us Americans arrogant for being angry about China's lack of free speech and about Google's willingness to bend over and take it from them. Don't get me wrong, I am a firm believer in Milton Friedman's quote "The only social responsibility of a corporation is to deliver a profit to its shareholders." However, I am also a firm believer in freedom, too. Freedom is the only meaningful set of values. It's not Google's policy that I'm very mad about. It's about China's evil, totalitarian government.
I am worried about the future. If China gets more powerful yet retains its totalitarian government, then we Americans have a lot to worry about. We already depend on China for nearly all of our goods, just like we depend on the Middle East for nearly all of our oil. This is dangerous. This country needs to get back up on its feet and reduce its dependence on unstable and totalitarian nations if we don't expect to be taken over by totalitarians.
Relax. Calm down. Apple's entire G4 and G5 lineup is still intact, so you can still buy one and have all of that PowerPC and AltiVec goodness while it's still available.
When that is over with, you can do what other x86 haters (like myself) would do if they won the lottery and treat yourself to a Sun notebook, or Sun Blade 2500, which I'm pretty sure will get your soul back. Unless you're not a x86 hater and just don't like poor people with Macs, that is....
So? What's the difference? The English page shows the truth of what happened in 1989, while the Chinese page shows Tiananmen Square as some sort of turist attraction or something, as if nothing happened there. All traces of the event were removed, and even if there are some traces left, it is still mostly censored.
Totalitarian governments like the Chinese government are evil. A government is considered evil when it completely strips away your freedoms. How dare a country restrict its citizens from reading certain books or websites just because it might get a few too many people angry about the current conditions that they live in? In China, much of what I read is (or is probably) banned in China, as well as books of any political philosophy that is considered one step more free than communism (even socialist literature is banned, because of the ideas of democratic socialism and social democracy). Why? These books don't preach of that communism stuff that China claims that they follow (but doesn't practice; they have actually read the last book and adopted free market policies, the only good thing that they done over the past few years), and it promotes freedom of not only the market, but also freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of association, and other individual freedoms. It is in the best interest of the Chinese government to keep its citizens oppressed and suppressed. That is pure evil.
Now, I'm not saying that our (American) way is the right way, just because we are Americans. Our country isn't a bastion of freedom, either. However, I still feel that I am much more free in this country than any other country in the world, both politically and economically. Freedom is very important for a society to survive. Take away all levels of freedom, and you end up with a society of slaves. China has created a society of slaves who have been indoctrinated into their totalitarian philosophy, and has sealed off any access to literature and people who have any ideas of freedom. China knows that once people see the light, then there will be a huge revolution, just like the incident in 1989.
Yes, there are other countries with completely different values than ours. Many EU nations are big on social democracy, for instance, which is very different than our emphasis on free markets and individualism. However, even though they have different values, they have just as much respect for human rights as we do. However, when those values start restricting the rights of humans to the point that they must answer to the State for everything, then those values are evil. Totalitarianism is evil, simply put.
Err, read the article again. These were two eighteen year olds, not sixteen. 18, by definition, is an adult. When you are 18, you should be expected to be mature enough to think on your own. 18 year olds are expected to have common sense and are expected to have "grown up." These were two immature adults who decided to street race each other, and did not consider the consequences of their actions until it was too late. They should now be punished as adults.
Why should adults be banned from driving, or even 16 year olds from learning how to drive? Granted, 16 and 17 year olds probably shouldn't have full driving privileges, but they should use that time to at least properly learn how to drive. The only reason why accidents are higher for 16-18 year olds is because they are just beginning to learn how to drive. If driving became considered as bad as alcohol and you had to be 21 or older to drive, then the highest accident range will be from ages 21 to 23, as they are just beginning to learn how to drive, as well.
These were two adults who have made the wrong decision, and they should face stiff consequences. Just don't blame it on them being 18; not all 16, 17, and 18 year olds are immature brats.
To quote Milton Friedman:
Corporations don't exist to be humanitarian organizations. Their job is to make as much money as possible, while remaining within the law.
The problem with alternate OSes is that drivers for more complex devices (such as certain USB devices and wireless cards) are hard to make. Manufacturers won't give up any specifications, nor provide drivers for alternate OSes (manufacturers will complain "Why should we spend $$$ developing drivers that only 2% of the market will use?"). Not every Linux user is an electrical engineer or computer engineer who knows enough about hardware to create a device driver. And even the most talented electrical/computer engineer can't reverse engineer everything.
When you run an operating system that only 2-3% of the world uses, getting driver support for all of your hardware can be difficult, especially if you have devices such as digital cameras and wireless devices. This isn't the fault of Linux itself; if manufacturers at least provided specifications, then the developers that know C and C++ and electrical/computer engineering can create device drivers.
But, yeah, *nix does a lot of complex things very well because it is *nix, after all. However, things that are easy or should be easy for users (installing software, drivers, user interfaces, etc.) are very difficult to implement for programmers, because of all of the abstractions they have to create, the UI theory that they have to learn, and sometimes even political issues (manufacturers and drivers, for instance. And there is a small segment of *nix users who only want FOSS drivers, which can make things even more political). What is much easier to design, a typical Unix command line application (they aren't cryptic, either, unless you're talking about regular expressions, which I don't use too often), or a GUI application. The Unix command is much easier to implement, you just use console I/O (very easy to do with C and C++). Want to implement a GUI? Well, first you have to design the core program, then you have to write GUI wrapper classes using some GUI toolkit that doesn't fit with the language, then you have to design the UI of the program (which should have been done first).... Not all programmers are Steve Jobs, you know.
The problem is that Microsoft has the PC market by the stranglehold. You can't buy a new PC from Dell or HP without paying Microsoft. Most users still don't want to install Linux on their machines (and there is a lack of companies selling Linux or BSD machines ready to use out of the box), and we can forget about Apple releasing OS X for vanilla PCs (which will improve the OS situation on vanilla PCs, but may hurt the sales of Apple PCs).
And even if you make it past the operating system hurdle, remember that Microsoft has a stronghold on applications (through software developers only releasing applications for Windows), document formats and the Internet. Wine, OpenOffice, and (insert your favorite alternate browser here) are still not perfect. Finally, remember DRM. Vista has a lot of DRM (first, not being able to use certain monitors; next, not being able to install certain drivers), and even Apple is using DRM (but it is only to prevent OS X from being installed on vanilla x86s; the DRM isn't used for other things). All of the major processor companies now are part of the Trusted Computing Group. Intel and IBM has already came out with processors and motherboards with DRM chips, and AMD, Sun, ARM, and even Motorola/Freescale are also on the list. You can get the whole list here. Where are you going to buy your processors now when all of the processor manufacturers produce "trusted chips"? Finally, most of the media formats encountered when buying media online have DRM, which sucks for Linux and BSD users who don't have a player to play those files on. (They can create one, but then they'll have to deal with RIAA/MPAA/Apple/Google/Microsoft/etc. lawyers due to the DMCA; even though you don't intend on infringing copyrights (you just want to play your iTunes music on your Linux box), you broke the encryption method, so a few years of Bubba for you....). Imagine if every file made by every application (even documents) had DRM? Then Linux and BSD users will be breaking the law just to read their own documents.
So, no, Microsoft isn't dying. In fact, legal Linux and BSD might die if certain steps aren't taken now. The next few years are crucial in getting open source on the desktop if we don't want to deal with trusted computing and all of that crap.
But what about those people at the middle or end of this year running out and buying brand new Dells and HPs for school or for Christmas loaded with....Windows Vista? These users don't have a choice, unless they build their own machines or buy a Mac.
Agreed. I'm glad to see that there is some competition amongst the processor companies, even if that competition is just x86s and all of the other architectures are dead (some of us are still a bit bitter over the loss of MIPS, ALPHA, PowerPC, etc.). AMD has done a great job with the x86-64 extensions (so great, the Intel adopted them to design their own x86-64 chips), and AMD is committed to raw performance per dollar. Intel, as you stated, has done an outstanding job with chips for laptops and other low-power computers, and are committed to performance per watts. If I had the money, I'd buy myself a nice dual-core Athlon 64 desktop and a nice MacBook Pro or Dell Inspiron 9400. I have a desktop that burns through heavy tasks, and a laptop that is powerful yet doesn't roast my organs. The competiton helps drive improvements in both performance and in power consumption in PCs, and also drives prices down (especially their low end stuff).
Read my response to MsGeek's post saying the same thing.
Personally, my definition of right wing is based on this political chart. I define a right-winger to be a person who believes in free-market capitalism. A left-winger is somebody who believes in either modern liberalism (not classical liberalism or neoliberalism; those are right-wing ideologies), social democracy, socialism or communism. Most Republicans are center-right, and most Democrats lie somewhere in the center-left. This political chart takes care of things such as individual freedoms in an authoritarian vs. libertarian axis.
I am a libertarian (when libertarian is used alone outside of this axis, it is primarily assumed to be of the free-market variety), and I classify myself as right-wing because of my firm beliefs in free-markets based on the beliefs of Chicago economics and Austrian economics. However, not everybody follows this political chart, and some libertarians refuse to be classified as right-wing because of its connontation with social conservatives and the Religious Right.
I agree with you. I was thinking about Reagan's gubernatorial term and theoretical economic policies (which, as you pointed out, led to huge budget deficits. Tax cuts + huge military increases = huge budget deficits), but forgot about his social and war policies. The Religious Right did start moving into the party during the Reagan administration, and Reagan did support some issues that libertarians and other small-government conservatives wouldn't (expansion of the War on Drugs, for example). Margaret Thatcher might have been a bit more true to small government conservatism than Reagan was, but that can be disputed, too. But neither are libertarians.
And, yes, I'm just a college freshman, so I don't remember much about Reagan (or even Bush Sr.) at all.