They want our jobs, our way of life, etc, and they'll do everything they can to get there. And they DON"T CARE if it takes the way we currently live away from us.
Let me get this straight, you think that you are entitled to the "western lifestyle" and that no one is allowed to take that away from you even if they worked to get it? Are you racist by any chance or just psychotic?
Also, everyone else in the world wants the "western lifestyle" (which isn't even a strictly limited resource; there are reource limitations that come into play in very limited aspects but it is generally worked around by, and even promotes innovation, like right now what is going on with electric cars and alternative energy; improvements in quality of living over there will also allow more minds to work on the problems in society, but i digress). That is why people immigrate here. Do you hate all non americans?
Why are we helping a direct competitor?
I take it you don't understand economics. US does hundreds of billions of dollars of trade with China both ways. They sell stuff to us, we sell stuff to them. By buying stuff from them, we not only get inexpensively produced items, we increase the buying power there, allowing them to buy more of our products (esp high end products like Apple), and hence increases revenues of US corporations and jobs over here. Similarily, the Chinese also want us to have jobs and more spending power as it increases the amount of stuff we would buy from them. Trade increases the standards of living for both parties involved.
I agree with you. I'm not saying that because Google had an ulterior motive that we shouldn't support it. I think Google's tactic here is brilliant. Would be nice if they had more leverage in this situation (but of course that would have meant they would be less likely to make this kind of risk).
And in a way, walking away from China as a whole, send a bit of a wake up call to the Chinese that, "O by the way, we care about how people are treated. We care about freedom."
Haha, that funny. When American companies don't even care about the Americans they are screwing over, what makes you think that they will care about the Chinese? I'm all for what Google is doing, but in the end, this is a marketing ploy. Google, is not doing very well gaining marketshare; only ~30% while baidu has about 60%, and it only makes about 1.5% of its profits from China. By threatening to removing censorship, it can differentiate its product (search engine) from competitors and get A LOT of media attention over there. Google will still offer censored search in other countries that requires it.
This whole censorship thing is mainly a marketing ploy. Google is making a gamble that this will help them gain market share in China.
Don't get me wrong I'm in favor of what Google is doing and I hope this leads to the end of censorship in China. But from a business persepctive, Google is threatening to pull out because it's not making much headway in gaining marketshare, while Baidu consistently have 60% marketshare. They are earning only about 1.5% of their profit from China. This recent strategy to threaten to drop censorship not only differentiate Google's search engine product from others in China, but also generates alot of news over there and over here. As much I would like to believe that a company is putting ethics above profit, the reality is giving uncensored search access to China is the last of Google's concerns (esp. since they still offer censored search to numerous other countries). But since Google's goals and my hopes coincide, go Google!
The grandparent's post appears to have a distorted view of the situation. The reaction against the Japanese are not just from Koreans. The Japanese did far worst atrocities (both in terms of numbers of people affected and the seriousness of the crimes) than the Germans did. Can you imagine the reaction in the western world if Germany started honoring they WW2 veterans along with Hitler and erected a monument? (I know I'm hitting Godwin's law on this, but it's the truth) Why is it unfair for Non-Japanese Asians to criticize Japan for having a monument dedicated to war criminals?
Actually, PRC has grown increasingly more liberal in the last few decades. Yes, there are a lot of reforms it still needs to go through but it has made progress since the 60s, 70s and early 80s. Just as a few examples, currently, in the PRC, single issue protests (protests on a specific topic) are allowed, there has been reforms in legal system in 90s and 2000s making it much more fair, and there are local elections with candidates nominated by the people of the area rather than by the party. With its citizens gaining more wealth and hence could care more about politics (and other topics like human rights, environmentalism, etc), I think PRC is making progress towards democratization like ROC. To say F-it now, I think would be a big mistake like with the Chinese Civil War.
I don't see how this will transform into a Soviet Union when we did completely the opposite. Instead of investing in the Soviet Union economically, we isolated contact with them and all countries associated with them, resulting in that cold war. The Soviet Union is a bad example of "The belief that doing business with a country creates a democracy has proven to be horsewash." Unless you have proof, it's not a "hit-and-miss," that statement is just bullshit.
Tibet has been part of China since the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368), Ming Dynasty (1368-1644)(though being debated), Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) and the Republic of China (1911-)(Not to mention to this day, Tibet is considered part of the Republic of China in the constitution). You can claim that PRC stole it from the ROC during the Chinese Civil War, but it's hardly an annexation. Based on the time period in which Tibet has been part of China, I would say that China has a more legitimate claim over that area than the US does over the majority of its land.
>If China truly wanted raise the quality of life of its people, they'd concentrate on cleaning up that noxious cloud hanging over Beijing, building more waste treatment plants and having more strict environmental controls for manufacturers.
When people are only making very little money per day, I'm pretty sure the environment is the least of their concerns. You seem to be critizing one aspect of the Chinese governement that actually is doing the right thing. To raise the quality of life in China right now is to get people higher paying employment.
Environmentalism is a luxury. Look at history if you don't believe this. The poor won't care about the environment if they can't get enough resources to survive.
> The MAXIMUM radius of the universe can be calculated from c multiplied by the time since the Big Bang.
The rate of expansion of the universe is not limited by the speed of light. In fact, very distant galaxies are are moving away from us at faster than the speed of light.
That's simply different ways of counting age. When this system was invented, they didn't have a better understanding of conception or something.
In East Asia, babies start at age one because they are on their first year as a person, whereas in the West, age refers to the number of years that have already passed. It has nothing to do with conception, esp in the past, since it's very hard to determine the date that the person is conceived, pregnancy is not a full calender year, and date of birth in Asia is still date of birth, not date of conception.
If the cause is simply religion, then why don't they hate other non-Islamic nations like countries in South America and East Asia? We don't see them carrying out terrorist acts in those regions. They probably don't like (esp. Western) Europe due to past history in it's involvement in the Middle East (Crusades, Isreal, Iraq), and unfortunately, Finlind is assocated with Western Europe.
> For the bungee-cord analogy, if you LET GO for a bit, the bungee cord will jump more quickly and cover more ground than if your grip just wasn't really enough.
And if you tie the cord to a post, it will eventually snap, imagine the catastrophic disaster of that./sarcasm
No, immunities are not permanently transferred. Antibodies can be transferred through the umbilical cord or breast milk but that only provides temporary immunity (lasting a few days, I think). Permanent immunity results from the existance of memory B and T cells which requires B/T cell activation through the body actually encountering the antigen.
Except that clause in Apple's agreement with Itunes users will not give Apple the right to do so. Apple needs an agreement with the record labels for that right, and I suspect they may not be as generous.
[in reference to the Tibetan population in Lhasa]It used to be 100%. That's sort of the problem.
When was this exactly? 12th century or something?
from Wikipedia:
The 11th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica published between 1910-1911 noted the total population of Lhasa, including the lamas in the city and vicinity is about 30,000[5]; a census in 1854 made the figure 42,000, but it is known to have greatly decreased since. Britannica noted that within Lhasa, there were about a total of 1,500 resident Tibetan laymen and about 5,500 Tibetan women.[5] The permanent population also includes Chinese families (about 2,000).[5] The city's residence also includes people from Nepal and Ladak (about 800), and a few from Bhotan and Mongolia and other places.[5] The Britannica noted with interest that the Chinese have a crowded burial-ground at Lhasa, tended carefully after their manner and the Nepalese supply the mechanics and metal-workers.[5]
And Tibet before that time has been a part of China at least for the Yuan and Qing Dynasty.
Forgive me for trusting the news. I forgot I was dealing with someone who doesn't believe the news should have any integrity.
Where did I say we should blindly believe what the media outlets tell us? I have only been pointing out that the dialog is consistent with an accidental posting of a pre-written announcement.
Geez, you're the one who brought up the fireworks in the first place! And did so, purely as a way of mocking people who care about faked news as being too stupid to realize that a flying person would have to be faked. And you seem far more interested in that than the real issue here. Can we please get back to that instead of focusing on your ludicrous attempt to paint people as only getting upset because they're gullible?
No I didn't. I joined the conversation after your reply http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=976455&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=25159869#25160389. You were already on this topic before my reply. Also it was brought up in the summary of this slashdot article. And you should also note in your reply, you assigned blame on China about the fireworks in an attempt to emphasize your argument of propaganda for this current event.
I think the preponderance of evidence leads to the belief that the text was meant to go out as is. There is a cohesive narrative, dialog, and descriptions of the timing of events as if they had already happened.
Where is this preponderance of evidence? And have you seen the Chinese press release in question? If so please provide me a link because it might help me understand your argument better. If not, aren't you just repeating what AP said. If I remember correctly, that didn't turn out so well the last time around.
The AP report (on Yahoo) only provided 6 excerpts. That is clearly not the whole article and provided no context on when it was used.
This isn't the kind of stuff you'd normally prep ahead of time if you expected to fill it in with the real events later. This is a puff piece meant to tell a stirring story to brag about how awesome they are. This is PR -- and truth is often sacrificed there.
What is your explanation for the way the piece was written up? A reporter just exercising some creative talent only to wipe it all away later when the real story came in?
Again unfortunately, based on the only source I have (Yahoo/AP), I cannot jump to this conclusion. Without seeing the actual accidental posting, I don't see how anyone can jump to that conclusion, unless they are just blindly believing in the AP story. Those excerpts could easily be small parts of the whole press release made up to give an idea what kind of dialog should really go there. In which case, when the event occurs, 10 lines or so will be replaced with the actual events rather than writing a whole article. Please share with us your source, since you seem pretty confident in you position despite the lack of information from the AP story.
You're presupposing now (in contrast to previous posts) that the release must be deliberate.
No, my argument was that it would not make sense for the Chinese to release it early in order to intentionally deceive people.
The puff, propaganda piece painting a story of rousing success in space flight is prepped ahead of time. The events of the launch will probably be very much *like* what is in the piece, but the authors don't care about what actually will happen unless there's a disaster. No one cares what the astronauts actually *say* as long as the story is good. In fact, they probably have alternate pieces ready in case something bad does happen.
Then, unexpectedly, the prepared piece gets released early.
I didn't actually watch the opening ceremonies. I'm not a big pageantry fan. If they made a comment that that's what was being done, then I don't see what the fuss was about, but all the articles I read in the news gave the impression that that wasn't mentioned.
So you're saying you were presenting arguments on this topic when you had no clue what was reality and were just repeating what others were saying because "All the cool kids do it too!"
However, if those were the words spoken, then that's not very clear at all. A "cinematic device" could mean practically anything -- from an admission of computer-edited broadcast to a description of "real, live" special effects on the ground like one would use in making a non-CGFX movie to a commentary on the way he was telling the story in the pageant, and "actually almost animation" makes it seems like it's not actually animation. Do you see how ambiguous those words are and why people might've been confused?
So China is to blame because NBC didn't choose better words. Also, adding special effects to a video doesn't fit most definitions of animation.
A) Because being "filler" or "scripted" dialog in no way makes this not deception -- in fact that makes it explicitly deception.
Sure, the press release was misleading because it was accidentally posted early. But you were making the original argument that the Chinese were intentionally trying to deceive everyone, because of the filler/scripted dialog. If it were filler/scripted dialog, and the pre-written announcement was accidentally posted early, that would negate your original argument, which is what I was replying to.
B) "All the cool kids do it too!" is no defense for any kind of wrongdoing.
Accidentally posting pre-written announcements isn't wrongdoing. Having pre-written announcement isn't wrongdoing. Pre-written announcement also are not holy documents that cannot be updated when the real event occurs, since they are suppose to be posted after the event.
C) Maybe it hasn't dawned on you that we don't *like* the practice of faking dialog and presenting it to the public as real, no matter the motivations behind it.
Maybe it hasn't dawned on you that the filler/scripted dialog does not prove that it was intentional deception. And I take it that you have done a study that shows the general public in the US (or else where) don't like the practice of pre-written press announcements because of the the possibility of accidentally posting it early. Are you planning to organize a boycott to make this opinion clear to the media outlets?
Why are you so quick to jump to defend the practice of pulling the wool over the public's eyes with scripted, PR spin of a historical event? Is this something you support the media doing (state-run or not)?
I'm not, I'm just pointing out flaws in your incorrect assertion that China is intentionally deceiving the everyone, because of filler/scripted dialog in a pre-written announcement. The people in China obviously are not dumb. If they really want to deceive everyone, they would release the press announcement after the scheduled launch. Releasing it before doesn't help them deceive people. By Occam's razor, it's most logical that this is the accidental posting of a pre-written announcement. Nothing points to the need to jump to the conclusion of intentional deception.
Would Apollo 11 have been better if NASA had actually recorded the conversations with Neil Armstrong on a sound-stage?
This had nothing to do with faking video. A video can be provided live whereas a press release cannot be written and edited withing seconds of the actual event, so your analogy is simply incorrect.
Doing a little prep-work for a final article is one thing. Putting the words into the mouths of real people co
Slashdot Mirror
they tried but we had prior art
They want our jobs, our way of life, etc, and they'll do everything they can to get there. And they DON"T CARE if it takes the way we currently live away from us.
Let me get this straight, you think that you are entitled to the "western lifestyle" and that no one is allowed to take that away from you even if they worked to get it? Are you racist by any chance or just psychotic?
Also, everyone else in the world wants the "western lifestyle" (which isn't even a strictly limited resource; there are reource limitations that come into play in very limited aspects but it is generally worked around by, and even promotes innovation, like right now what is going on with electric cars and alternative energy; improvements in quality of living over there will also allow more minds to work on the problems in society, but i digress). That is why people immigrate here. Do you hate all non americans?
Why are we helping a direct competitor?
I take it you don't understand economics. US does hundreds of billions of dollars of trade with China both ways. They sell stuff to us, we sell stuff to them. By buying stuff from them, we not only get inexpensively produced items, we increase the buying power there, allowing them to buy more of our products (esp high end products like Apple), and hence increases revenues of US corporations and jobs over here. Similarily, the Chinese also want us to have jobs and more spending power as it increases the amount of stuff we would buy from them. Trade increases the standards of living for both parties involved.
They haven't really sold out in stores though. I can go to the nearest Apple or Best Buy to pick one up, and I'm in NYC.
I agree with you. I'm not saying that because Google had an ulterior motive that we shouldn't support it. I think Google's tactic here is brilliant. Would be nice if they had more leverage in this situation (but of course that would have meant they would be less likely to make this kind of risk).
And in a way, walking away from China as a whole, send a bit of a wake up call to the Chinese that, "O by the way, we care about how people are treated. We care about freedom."
Haha, that funny. When American companies don't even care about the Americans they are screwing over, what makes you think that they will care about the Chinese? I'm all for what Google is doing, but in the end, this is a marketing ploy. Google, is not doing very well gaining marketshare; only ~30% while baidu has about 60%, and it only makes about 1.5% of its profits from China. By threatening to removing censorship, it can differentiate its product (search engine) from competitors and get A LOT of media attention over there. Google will still offer censored search in other countries that requires it.
This whole censorship thing is mainly a marketing ploy. Google is making a gamble that this will help them gain market share in China.
Don't get me wrong I'm in favor of what Google is doing and I hope this leads to the end of censorship in China. But from a business persepctive, Google is threatening to pull out because it's not making much headway in gaining marketshare, while Baidu consistently have 60% marketshare. They are earning only about 1.5% of their profit from China. This recent strategy to threaten to drop censorship not only differentiate Google's search engine product from others in China, but also generates alot of news over there and over here. As much I would like to believe that a company is putting ethics above profit, the reality is giving uncensored search access to China is the last of Google's concerns (esp. since they still offer censored search to numerous other countries). But since Google's goals and my hopes coincide, go Google!
Or they realized that in order for resale to occur, there must be a sale of that item in the first place.
The grandparent's post appears to have a distorted view of the situation. The reaction against the Japanese are not just from Koreans. The Japanese did far worst atrocities (both in terms of numbers of people affected and the seriousness of the crimes) than the Germans did. Can you imagine the reaction in the western world if Germany started honoring they WW2 veterans along with Hitler and erected a monument? (I know I'm hitting Godwin's law on this, but it's the truth) Why is it unfair for Non-Japanese Asians to criticize Japan for having a monument dedicated to war criminals?
yeah, tell me about it. If only people would vote for the most evil like they should, use libertarians would be in office by now.
Actually, PRC has grown increasingly more liberal in the last few decades. Yes, there are a lot of reforms it still needs to go through but it has made progress since the 60s, 70s and early 80s. Just as a few examples, currently, in the PRC, single issue protests (protests on a specific topic) are allowed, there has been reforms in legal system in 90s and 2000s making it much more fair, and there are local elections with candidates nominated by the people of the area rather than by the party. With its citizens gaining more wealth and hence could care more about politics (and other topics like human rights, environmentalism, etc), I think PRC is making progress towards democratization like ROC. To say F-it now, I think would be a big mistake like with the Chinese Civil War.
I don't see how this will transform into a Soviet Union when we did completely the opposite. Instead of investing in the Soviet Union economically, we isolated contact with them and all countries associated with them, resulting in that cold war. The Soviet Union is a bad example of "The belief that doing business with a country creates a democracy has proven to be horsewash." Unless you have proof, it's not a "hit-and-miss," that statement is just bullshit.
And do you have proof of your statements or are you just rewriting history?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qing_dynasty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_divisions_of_the_Republic_of_China
Where is your evidence that during these period of history where Chinese cartographers where just making up stuff? And I take it that it is these same cartographers who helped write the ROC constitution?
Tibet has been part of China since the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368), Ming Dynasty (1368-1644)(though being debated), Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) and the Republic of China (1911-)(Not to mention to this day, Tibet is considered part of the Republic of China in the constitution). You can claim that PRC stole it from the ROC during the Chinese Civil War, but it's hardly an annexation. Based on the time period in which Tibet has been part of China, I would say that China has a more legitimate claim over that area than the US does over the majority of its land.
>If China truly wanted raise the quality of life of its people, they'd concentrate on cleaning up that noxious cloud hanging over Beijing, building more waste treatment plants and having more strict environmental controls for manufacturers.
When people are only making very little money per day, I'm pretty sure the environment is the least of their concerns. You seem to be critizing one aspect of the Chinese governement that actually is doing the right thing. To raise the quality of life in China right now is to get people higher paying employment.
Environmentalism is a luxury. Look at history if you don't believe this. The poor won't care about the environment if they can't get enough resources to survive.
Let's not forget Native Americans? When the hell are they going to get their land back and what about the genocide that was commited on them?
> The belief that doing business with a country creates a democracy has proven to be horsewash.
Where is this proof you are referring to? And I take it you also believe what happened in ROC/Taiwan was just a fluke, right?
> The MAXIMUM radius of the universe can be calculated from c multiplied by the time since the Big Bang.
The rate of expansion of the universe is not limited by the speed of light. In fact, very distant galaxies are are moving away from us at faster than the speed of light.
That's simply different ways of counting age. When this system was invented, they didn't have a better understanding of conception or something.
In East Asia, babies start at age one because they are on their first year as a person, whereas in the West, age refers to the number of years that have already passed. It has nothing to do with conception, esp in the past, since it's very hard to determine the date that the person is conceived, pregnancy is not a full calender year, and date of birth in Asia is still date of birth, not date of conception.
And I thought it was hard to use a two button mouse.
If the cause is simply religion, then why don't they hate other non-Islamic nations like countries in South America and East Asia? We don't see them carrying out terrorist acts in those regions. They probably don't like (esp. Western) Europe due to past history in it's involvement in the Middle East (Crusades, Isreal, Iraq), and unfortunately, Finlind is assocated with Western Europe.
> For the bungee-cord analogy, if you LET GO for a bit, the bungee cord will jump more quickly and cover more ground than if your grip just wasn't really enough.
And if you tie the cord to a post, it will eventually snap, imagine the catastrophic disaster of that. /sarcasm
It's an analogy, not a scientific model!
No, immunities are not permanently transferred. Antibodies can be transferred through the umbilical cord or breast milk but that only provides temporary immunity (lasting a few days, I think). Permanent immunity results from the existance of memory B and T cells which requires B/T cell activation through the body actually encountering the antigen.
Except that clause in Apple's agreement with Itunes users will not give Apple the right to do so. Apple needs an agreement with the record labels for that right, and I suspect they may not be as generous.
[in reference to the Tibetan population in Lhasa]It used to be 100%. That's sort of the problem.
When was this exactly? 12th century or something?
from Wikipedia:
The 11th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica published between 1910-1911 noted the total population of Lhasa, including the lamas in the city and vicinity is about 30,000[5]; a census in 1854 made the figure 42,000, but it is known to have greatly decreased since. Britannica noted that within Lhasa, there were about a total of 1,500 resident Tibetan laymen and about 5,500 Tibetan women.[5] The permanent population also includes Chinese families (about 2,000).[5] The city's residence also includes people from Nepal and Ladak (about 800), and a few from Bhotan and Mongolia and other places.[5] The Britannica noted with interest that the Chinese have a crowded burial-ground at Lhasa, tended carefully after their manner and the Nepalese supply the mechanics and metal-workers.[5]
And Tibet before that time has been a part of China at least for the Yuan and Qing Dynasty.
Forgive me for trusting the news. I forgot I was dealing with someone who doesn't believe the news should have any integrity.
Where did I say we should blindly believe what the media outlets tell us? I have only been pointing out that the dialog is consistent with an accidental posting of a pre-written announcement.
Geez, you're the one who brought up the fireworks in the first place! And did so, purely as a way of mocking people who care about faked news as being too stupid to realize that a flying person would have to be faked. And you seem far more interested in that than the real issue here. Can we please get back to that instead of focusing on your ludicrous attempt to paint people as only getting upset because they're gullible?
No I didn't. I joined the conversation after your reply http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=976455&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=25159869#25160389. You were already on this topic before my reply. Also it was brought up in the summary of this slashdot article. And you should also note in your reply, you assigned blame on China about the fireworks in an attempt to emphasize your argument of propaganda for this current event.
I think the preponderance of evidence leads to the belief that the text was meant to go out as is. There is a cohesive narrative, dialog, and descriptions of the timing of events as if they had already happened.
Where is this preponderance of evidence? And have you seen the Chinese press release in question? If so please provide me a link because it might help me understand your argument better. If not, aren't you just repeating what AP said. If I remember correctly, that didn't turn out so well the last time around.
The AP report (on Yahoo) only provided 6 excerpts. That is clearly not the whole article and provided no context on when it was used.
This isn't the kind of stuff you'd normally prep ahead of time if you expected to fill it in with the real events later. This is a puff piece meant to tell a stirring story to brag about how awesome they are. This is PR -- and truth is often sacrificed there.
What is your explanation for the way the piece was written up? A reporter just exercising some creative talent only to wipe it all away later when the real story came in?
Again unfortunately, based on the only source I have (Yahoo/AP), I cannot jump to this conclusion. Without seeing the actual accidental posting, I don't see how anyone can jump to that conclusion, unless they are just blindly believing in the AP story. Those excerpts could easily be small parts of the whole press release made up to give an idea what kind of dialog should really go there. In which case, when the event occurs, 10 lines or so will be replaced with the actual events rather than writing a whole article. Please share with us your source, since you seem pretty confident in you position despite the lack of information from the AP story.
You're presupposing now (in contrast to previous posts) that the release must be deliberate.
No, my argument was that it would not make sense for the Chinese to release it early in order to intentionally deceive people.
The puff, propaganda piece painting a story of rousing success in space flight is prepped ahead of time. The events of the launch will probably be very much *like* what is in the piece, but the authors don't care about what actually will happen unless there's a disaster. No one cares what the astronauts actually *say* as long as the story is good. In fact, they probably have alternate pieces ready in case something bad does happen.
Then, unexpectedly, the prepared piece gets released early.
The real controversy
I didn't actually watch the opening ceremonies. I'm not a big pageantry fan. If they made a comment that that's what was being done, then I don't see what the fuss was about, but all the articles I read in the news gave the impression that that wasn't mentioned.
So you're saying you were presenting arguments on this topic when you had no clue what was reality and were just repeating what others were saying because "All the cool kids do it too!"
However, if those were the words spoken, then that's not very clear at all. A "cinematic device" could mean practically anything -- from an admission of computer-edited broadcast to a description of "real, live" special effects on the ground like one would use in making a non-CGFX movie to a commentary on the way he was telling the story in the pageant, and "actually almost animation" makes it seems like it's not actually animation. Do you see how ambiguous those words are and why people might've been confused?
So China is to blame because NBC didn't choose better words. Also, adding special effects to a video doesn't fit most definitions of animation.
A) Because being "filler" or "scripted" dialog in no way makes this not deception -- in fact that makes it explicitly deception.
Sure, the press release was misleading because it was accidentally posted early. But you were making the original argument that the Chinese were intentionally trying to deceive everyone, because of the filler/scripted dialog. If it were filler/scripted dialog, and the pre-written announcement was accidentally posted early, that would negate your original argument, which is what I was replying to.
B) "All the cool kids do it too!" is no defense for any kind of wrongdoing.
Accidentally posting pre-written announcements isn't wrongdoing. Having pre-written announcement isn't wrongdoing. Pre-written announcement also are not holy documents that cannot be updated when the real event occurs, since they are suppose to be posted after the event.
C) Maybe it hasn't dawned on you that we don't *like* the practice of faking dialog and presenting it to the public as real, no matter the motivations behind it.
Maybe it hasn't dawned on you that the filler/scripted dialog does not prove that it was intentional deception. And I take it that you have done a study that shows the general public in the US (or else where) don't like the practice of pre-written press announcements because of the the possibility of accidentally posting it early. Are you planning to organize a boycott to make this opinion clear to the media outlets?
Why are you so quick to jump to defend the practice of pulling the wool over the public's eyes with scripted, PR spin of a historical event? Is this something you support the media doing (state-run or not)?
I'm not, I'm just pointing out flaws in your incorrect assertion that China is intentionally deceiving the everyone, because of filler/scripted dialog in a pre-written announcement. The people in China obviously are not dumb. If they really want to deceive everyone, they would release the press announcement after the scheduled launch. Releasing it before doesn't help them deceive people. By Occam's razor, it's most logical that this is the accidental posting of a pre-written announcement. Nothing points to the need to jump to the conclusion of intentional deception.
Would Apollo 11 have been better if NASA had actually recorded the conversations with Neil Armstrong on a sound-stage?
This had nothing to do with faking video. A video can be provided live whereas a press release cannot be written and edited withing seconds of the actual event, so your analogy is simply incorrect.
Doing a little prep-work for a final article is one thing. Putting the words into the mouths of real people co