Actually supporters of the Ming dynasty (after it fell to Qing) took Taiwan from the Dutch. Those supporters dreamed of using Taiwan as a base to one day defeat the Qing and restore the Ming dynasty, but eventually the Qing defeated them and got control over Taiwan.
Prior to the Dutch control, settlers from China has crossed over to Taiwan too, as early as the "Three Kingdoms Period" if I recall correctly. The Taiwanese aboriginies used to be called the "mountain folks" a few decades ago, because Chinese settlers has long took over the plains, which I guess (ie I don't have any source to back me up) was way before when the Dutch came.
Anyways your point is taken. Only one dynasty has had direct rule over Taiwan. Thanks for the correction (-:
In PROC the view is that historically Taiwan was part of the PROC
To be technical, in "PRC" the view is that historically Taiwan was part of "China" (as opposed to "PRC" specifically). And because "PRC" is now the one and only "China", Taiwan should reunite with mother "China".
Taiwan is as much "historically part of PRC" as it is currently is part of PRC. The PRC government never ruled Taiwan. Various Chinese dynasties, as well as the ROC government, did/does. The rights PRC claim over Taiwan is only under the One China Principle, not because they thought Taiwan used to be part of the PRC.
You got everything else pretty much right though (-:
Technically, Ultima was about ethicality. In various interviews, Richard Garriott has stressed his idea that ethicality can exist separately from morality.
Ethicality is secular, morality is religous.
In Ultima, becoming the Avatar is just becoming the shining example of maxing out each of the 8 virtues, which in turn were picked by the effectively-immortal king of the realm. No God, no religion.
But yeah, the techniques used in Ultima can be successfully transferred to a game about religion.
Um, while true, not sure what is the counter-point or supplementary-point you are trying to make.
Any extradiction treaty with "China" (P.R.C.) still does nothing to criminals in "Taiwan" (R.O.C.). Vice versa with any extradition "agreements" with Taiwan (since the US does not officially recognize R.O.C., can't have a "treaty"). My grandparent post (your parent post) established the point sufficiently well. I don't see how Taiwanese who take advantage of being Chinese and owning plans in China affect the situation.
I find some of the points on your linked article to be grossly rather misleading.
When referencing "The Constitution of Taiwan", one must realize that the name of the document should technically be "The Constitution of the Republic of China".
When that document insist that "Tibet is part of China", it meant "Tibet is part of the Republic of China."
Thus when saying the constitution of Taiwan says Tibet is part of China when the Chinese army are killing Tibetan nuns, the first reference to China and the second reference are pointing to different entities.
The referenced link makes it sound like Taiwan believe Tibet belongs to a murderous government, when in fact that very document (the "Constitution of Taiwan") deny the legatimacy of the Bejing government to whom the nun-raping Chinese Liberation Army belongs to.
Because the "Constitution of Taiwan" still think R.O.C. is the rightful ruler of mainland China, any reference in it that talks about "mainland China" also means the R.O.C. government, which in fact no longer rules the mainland.
The misleading nature of your reference makes me doubt the validity of the other information on that page (even if the numbers or the quote are true, the context might have given completely different meaning).
Remember, when the "Taiwanese" government say that anything is "Chinese" or "belongs to China", they mean their little government located in Taipei that only has effect soverignity over a few island. More often than not, it is more accurate to replace what they are saying to "Taiwanese" or "belongs to Taiwan", where Taiwan technically means the Republic of China.
Numerous American groups were and are engaged in a boycott of Chinese products and have demonstrated loudly and vociferously against the occupation of Tibet.
Numerous Taiwanese groups have done the same thing too.
If the actions of many captalist corporations of a certain nationality/ethinicity is sufficient to charactize a people, as you have done using Taiwanese companies to characterize the Taiwanese people, then I can also say the American are no better than mercenary pigs. Slashdotters should be all too famaliar with a few examples.
The majority of the Taiwanese population would be outraged to find any Taiwanese company profiting from China in the aftermath of Tiananmen Square. Realize, most Americans actually don't know how Starbucks exploit the environment and coffee workers, about the Nike sweat shopts, etc.
This response has the biase of an individual who identifies himself as being a "Republic of China" Chinese who was born and mostly raised in Taiwan. Individuals who identify with the R.O.C. are actually closer to being the minority in Taiwan, compared to the people who identify themselves as strictly "Taiwanese". The referenced link stated Eighty-five percent (85%) of the people of Taiwan are Chinese. Only fifteen percent (15%) are Taiwanese. without any reference, and probably uses some biological ancestry demographic data instead of using what the people actually identify themselves with.
This flaw permits local information disclosure, including allowing an unprivileged user to steal an RSA private key being used on the same machine
There are NO unprivileged user on my Windows XP box, you insensitive clod!
* non-medically related technological innovations check (it's definitly technological, think of all the research that has gone into avoiding anti-spam technology!)
* that have become widely used since 1980 check
* are readily recognizable by most Americans check
* have had a direct and perceptible impact on our everyday lives check
* and/or could dramatically affect our lives in the future double check (how else are we going to find p0rn, vi@gra, or r0llex watches?)
Remember, "TOP" innovation could be evil ones too!
does it go in "Audience" with the AIM group, or does it go in "Europe" with the foreigners group???
I hope they had split into FIVE groups, the fifth being "Mirabilis Ltd"... the good old OLD days... sigh.
Slashdot Mirror
The King ought to be offended by the politicians using his position as a tool to rally the populace's emotions around.
Problem solved
maybe the Chinese departments do... at least for the advanced level of language courses?
Actually supporters of the Ming dynasty (after it fell to Qing) took Taiwan from the Dutch. Those supporters dreamed of using Taiwan as a base to one day defeat the Qing and restore the Ming dynasty, but eventually the Qing defeated them and got control over Taiwan.
Prior to the Dutch control, settlers from China has crossed over to Taiwan too, as early as the "Three Kingdoms Period" if I recall correctly. The Taiwanese aboriginies used to be called the "mountain folks" a few decades ago, because Chinese settlers has long took over the plains, which I guess (ie I don't have any source to back me up) was way before when the Dutch came.
Anyways your point is taken. Only one dynasty has had direct rule over Taiwan. Thanks for the correction (-:
In PROC the view is that historically Taiwan was part of the PROC
To be technical, in "PRC" the view is that historically Taiwan was part of "China" (as opposed to "PRC" specifically). And because "PRC" is now the one and only "China", Taiwan should reunite with mother "China".
Taiwan is as much "historically part of PRC" as it is currently is part of PRC. The PRC government never ruled Taiwan. Various Chinese dynasties, as well as the ROC government, did/does. The rights PRC claim over Taiwan is only under the One China Principle, not because they thought Taiwan used to be part of the PRC.
You got everything else pretty much right though (-:
Technically, Ultima was about ethicality. In various interviews, Richard Garriott has stressed his idea that ethicality can exist separately from morality.
Ethicality is secular, morality is religous.
In Ultima, becoming the Avatar is just becoming the shining example of maxing out each of the 8 virtues, which in turn were picked by the effectively-immortal king of the realm. No God, no religion.
But yeah, the techniques used in Ultima can be successfully transferred to a game about religion.
Um, while true, not sure what is the counter-point or supplementary-point you are trying to make.
Any extradiction treaty with "China" (P.R.C.) still does nothing to criminals in "Taiwan" (R.O.C.). Vice versa with any extradition "agreements" with Taiwan (since the US does not officially recognize R.O.C., can't have a "treaty"). My grandparent post (your parent post) established the point sufficiently well. I don't see how Taiwanese who take advantage of being Chinese and owning plans in China affect the situation.
keeps the FF shorthand, and hopefully original d-:
or Fire Frog, Fire Fetish, Fire Your Boss...
First of all, the game itself is not being ported to PSP, that is just a demo movie.
Second, the biggest problem for that game, as far as players were concerned, was that the game had absolutely no rape content, despite its name.
I find some of the points on your linked article to be grossly rather misleading.
When referencing "The Constitution of Taiwan", one must realize that the name of the document should technically be "The Constitution of the Republic of China".
When that document insist that "Tibet is part of China", it meant "Tibet is part of the Republic of China."
Thus when saying the constitution of Taiwan says Tibet is part of China when the Chinese army are killing Tibetan nuns, the first reference to China and the second reference are pointing to different entities.
The referenced link makes it sound like Taiwan believe Tibet belongs to a murderous government, when in fact that very document (the "Constitution of Taiwan") deny the legatimacy of the Bejing government to whom the nun-raping Chinese Liberation Army belongs to.
Because the "Constitution of Taiwan" still think R.O.C. is the rightful ruler of mainland China, any reference in it that talks about "mainland China" also means the R.O.C. government, which in fact no longer rules the mainland.
The misleading nature of your reference makes me doubt the validity of the other information on that page (even if the numbers or the quote are true, the context might have given completely different meaning).
Remember, when the "Taiwanese" government say that anything is "Chinese" or "belongs to China", they mean their little government located in Taipei that only has effect soverignity over a few island. More often than not, it is more accurate to replace what they are saying to "Taiwanese" or "belongs to Taiwan", where Taiwan technically means the Republic of China.
Numerous American groups were and are engaged in a boycott of Chinese products and have demonstrated loudly and vociferously against the occupation of Tibet.
Numerous Taiwanese groups have done the same thing too.
If the actions of many captalist corporations of a certain nationality/ethinicity is sufficient to charactize a people, as you have done using Taiwanese companies to characterize the Taiwanese people, then I can also say the American are no better than mercenary pigs. Slashdotters should be all too famaliar with a few examples.
The majority of the Taiwanese population would be outraged to find any Taiwanese company profiting from China in the aftermath of Tiananmen Square. Realize, most Americans actually don't know how Starbucks exploit the environment and coffee workers, about the Nike sweat shopts, etc.
This response has the biase of an individual who identifies himself as being a "Republic of China" Chinese who was born and mostly raised in Taiwan. Individuals who identify with the R.O.C. are actually closer to being the minority in Taiwan, compared to the people who identify themselves as strictly "Taiwanese". The referenced link stated Eighty-five percent (85%) of the people of Taiwan are Chinese. Only fifteen percent (15%) are Taiwanese. without any reference, and probably uses some biological ancestry demographic data instead of using what the people actually identify themselves with.
This flaw permits local information disclosure, including allowing an unprivileged user to steal an RSA private key being used on the same machine There are NO unprivileged user on my Windows XP box, you insensitive clod!
I remember, about 10 years ago (give or take - 12 maybe?) ten years ago tive or take 12 years could be two years into the future! d-:
mod parent up as either insightful or funny. Or "he stole what I wanted to post!" (-:
* non-medically related technological innovations
check (it's definitly technological, think of all the research that has gone into avoiding anti-spam technology!)
* that have become widely used since 1980
check
* are readily recognizable by most Americans
check
* have had a direct and perceptible impact on our everyday lives
check
* and/or could dramatically affect our lives in the future
double check (how else are we going to find p0rn, vi@gra, or r0llex watches?)
Remember, "TOP" innovation could be evil ones too!
does it go in "Audience" with the AIM group, or does it go in "Europe" with the foreigners group??? I hope they had split into FIVE groups, the fifth being "Mirabilis Ltd"... the good old OLD days... sigh.