No, the primary purpose of the routers is not to act as censorship. The primary purpose of the routers is to redirect packets of information across networks, and to provide chokepoints of access where the information flow can be controlled. Censorship is the "control" that the Chinese government is applying. This is in fact not unique at all. Many companies and schools restrict heavily the internet that their users are allowed to access.
Saying that Cisco is supporting censorship is like saying that Bram Cohen is a pirate.
Have you forgotten that the terrorists have used senior citizens and children as suicide bombers? What prevents them from sending them onto the airplane to cause mayhem?
You make an interesting point with Haliburton, but I think the TSA won't be privatized while the War on Terror lasts. Possibly afterwards. Right now Bush has no way to convince anyone that a private company would do a better job of security.
No, they expect him to live on the generous severance package they no doubt gave him. Agreements like this usually invove monetary compensation for the person being fired.
If you don't give real information to websites, that means you don't buy anything online. Personally I find online purchases useful and convenient. Your attitude is admirable but unfortunately it restricts you from taking full advantage from the web. I'm sure there are other legitimate applications that need real information.
Unfortunately the "sorry bunch of wankers" is having a negative effect on Linux's reputation. Founded or not, their claims just add to the FUD that Microsoft puts out to combat Linux's spread, and it's having a significant effect.
UC Berkeley is a public school, by the way, funded by the State of California. Don't embarass yourself by not knowing the facts.
Private schools are not guaranteed to work either. Many of the students who go to private schools would succeed anyway in public school. The effect of the private school itself is not as significant as some make it out to be. There is anecdotal evidence for sure, but we all know how worthless anecdotal evidence is. Personally, I would say that it is not worth the big bucks (as much as a private college - $30-40k per year) to go to private school.
Certainly, that's a problem, but it isn't one that is insurmountable. Honestly, I think the best way to deal with the problem is for each person to individually overcome it. There is no reasonable way to eliminate the attitude itself. However, each person could simply ignore the harassing. Personally, I ignore it because I know that the people harassing me do not matter and that all I need to do is keep the people that matter (friends, family, work group, etc.) happy. Also, training in self-defense helps, because people are usually not willing to harass someone if they know that person will defend themselves effectively.
I am not saying that the problem doesn't exist; it certainly does, however, I think that each person can take steps to greatly mitigate its effects and thus cause it to not be really a problem.
The problem with letting kids have calculators from an early age is that they start thinking that math problems are just button punching instead of learning what adding, subtracting, etc. actually are, even up to say finding basic integrals and derivatives using Mathematica or a TI-89/TI-92. If they are allowed to think that it is button punching they will never learn math at all, and then when they are asked to extend their knowledge slightly to derive consequences (the core of mathematics) they can't do it, because all they know is how to punch buttons to solve the specific problems that they've been trained in. Unfortunately, this is how kids will think if they're fed calculators. We can't expect everyone to have the mathematical ability to say, qualify for USAMO/whatever mathematical olympiad is in your country, and if they don't have exceptional ability, it needs to be trained. And calculators will prevent the training b/c their concept of math will reduce to button punching.
Lenin once said: "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." This is the sentiment that the Chinese government is taking. This is the theoretical justification for what the government is doing now, and their control over the internet is merely a part of it. They are using the capitalist tools which were sold/given to them for their own uses, which will eventually not be what the capitalists want. So yes, I agree, the socialists wish to use the capitalists against themselves.
You aren't suckering 1.3 billion people. Maybe about 50 million. The vast majority don't have a computer, in fact, they may not know what a computer is. Honestly, the poor countryside is nothing like the cities.
The one child policy has been relaxed since the mid 1990's. Now, certain groups can have more than one child, and the law was never airtight to begin with. People had multiple children and nothing really bad happened to them. The point of the policy was to convince enough people to have only one child so the population explosion would stop. And it has. So now the policy is being rolled back.
They are not exactly neocons. Neocons are the people who want to abandon the traditional conservative stance of isolationism. Old-school Republicans would have opposed the war in Iraq/Afghanistan. Note World War I, and the isolationist sentiment before WW2. Both were generated by the Republicans. Neocons like Cheney and Rumsfeld turn that on its head and say, yes we should intervene in other places. Hence, we have the "war on terror". The neocons don't particularly care about social issues.
What you're referring to are the Christian fundamentalists, like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. They are the ones who believe the Bible is God's word, we should have prayer in schools, etc. They also claim that abstinence is the only foolproof cure to STD's, which is technically true, but they ignore the fact that abstinence is almost possible to realize. They care a lot about domestic social policy, but not foreign policy. Bush happens to be in both categories, however, as we can see by his fundamentalist leanings and his neocon advisors (Cheney/Rumsfeld).
Not necessarily true. This is the sort of logic that in the 19th century was used to fire people after they were disabled, say working in a factory, or in mines and was used to create "yellow dog" contracts, or contracts that binded employees to not join unions. Thankfully the government has intervened and banned such unfair employment practices. Therefore, your statement is not completely acceptable even in a capitalist country like the USA.
Traditionally, the behavior of judges is hard to predict based on who nominated them. For example, John Paul Stevens was nominated by Ford, and may be the most liberal member of the Supreme Court.
It is not really surprising that the conservatives would dissent, because conservatives value the sanctity of private property, and thus would oppose any sort of government seizing of that property (eminent domain) for any reason.
that's actually a good point. Chinese characters work totally differently than Roman letters. Words consist of usually two characters, and slight changes in any character can drastically vary the meaning of the word. It is not easy at all to create chinese words that are designed to be like another except not the same i.e. like "dmeocarcy".
Not only Israel, but also India and Pakistan. Their justification for having nukes essentially is b/c they need to protect themselves against each other. It is also fairly well documented that North Korea has made a nuclear weapon. In addition, South Africa and Iran are rumored to be working on or already possess them.
China could be developing their own operating system b/c they essentially suspect that Windows has backdoor code which would allow the US Army/CIA access to the Chinese computers, which would be very disadvantageous to China should a war start. In China policymakers always have fighting the Americans in the back of their heads.
If Taiwan declares independence China would invade, no matter what the rest of the world does. I'm not sure most Americans realize this. And are you saying that Taiwan can beat our army? We outnumber them ten to one and even if they have a slight technological advantage we can just overrun them or failing that we can hit them will any of our ballistic missiles.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the primary purpose of the routers is not to act as censorship. The primary purpose of the routers is to redirect packets of information across networks, and to provide chokepoints of access where the information flow can be controlled. Censorship is the "control" that the Chinese government is applying. This is in fact not unique at all. Many companies and schools restrict heavily the internet that their users are allowed to access.
Saying that Cisco is supporting censorship is like saying that Bram Cohen is a pirate.
Have you forgotten that the terrorists have used senior citizens and children as suicide bombers? What prevents them from sending them onto the airplane to cause mayhem?
You make an interesting point with Haliburton, but I think the TSA won't be privatized while the War on Terror lasts. Possibly afterwards. Right now Bush has no way to convince anyone that a private company would do a better job of security.
No, they expect him to live on the generous severance package they no doubt gave him. Agreements like this usually invove monetary compensation for the person being fired.
If you don't give real information to websites, that means you don't buy anything online. Personally I find online purchases useful and convenient. Your attitude is admirable but unfortunately it restricts you from taking full advantage from the web. I'm sure there are other legitimate applications that need real information.
Unfortunately the "sorry bunch of wankers" is having a negative effect on Linux's reputation. Founded or not, their claims just add to the FUD that Microsoft puts out to combat Linux's spread, and it's having a significant effect.
UC Berkeley is a public school, by the way, funded by the State of California. Don't embarass yourself by not knowing the facts.
Private schools are not guaranteed to work either. Many of the students who go to private schools would succeed anyway in public school. The effect of the private school itself is not as significant as some make it out to be. There is anecdotal evidence for sure, but we all know how worthless anecdotal evidence is. Personally, I would say that it is not worth the big bucks (as much as a private college - $30-40k per year) to go to private school.
Certainly, that's a problem, but it isn't one that is insurmountable. Honestly, I think the best way to deal with the problem is for each person to individually overcome it. There is no reasonable way to eliminate the attitude itself. However, each person could simply ignore the harassing. Personally, I ignore it because I know that the people harassing me do not matter and that all I need to do is keep the people that matter (friends, family, work group, etc.) happy. Also, training in self-defense helps, because people are usually not willing to harass someone if they know that person will defend themselves effectively.
I am not saying that the problem doesn't exist; it certainly does, however, I think that each person can take steps to greatly mitigate its effects and thus cause it to not be really a problem.
The problem with letting kids have calculators from an early age is that they start thinking that math problems are just button punching instead of learning what adding, subtracting, etc. actually are, even up to say finding basic integrals and derivatives using Mathematica or a TI-89/TI-92. If they are allowed to think that it is button punching they will never learn math at all, and then when they are asked to extend their knowledge slightly to derive consequences (the core of mathematics) they can't do it, because all they know is how to punch buttons to solve the specific problems that they've been trained in. Unfortunately, this is how kids will think if they're fed calculators. We can't expect everyone to have the mathematical ability to say, qualify for USAMO/whatever mathematical olympiad is in your country, and if they don't have exceptional ability, it needs to be trained. And calculators will prevent the training b/c their concept of math will reduce to button punching.
Lenin once said: "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." This is the sentiment that the Chinese government is taking. This is the theoretical justification for what the government is doing now, and their control over the internet is merely a part of it. They are using the capitalist tools which were sold/given to them for their own uses, which will eventually not be what the capitalists want. So yes, I agree, the socialists wish to use the capitalists against themselves.
You aren't suckering 1.3 billion people. Maybe about 50 million. The vast majority don't have a computer, in fact, they may not know what a computer is. Honestly, the poor countryside is nothing like the cities. The one child policy has been relaxed since the mid 1990's. Now, certain groups can have more than one child, and the law was never airtight to begin with. People had multiple children and nothing really bad happened to them. The point of the policy was to convince enough people to have only one child so the population explosion would stop. And it has. So now the policy is being rolled back.
They are not exactly neocons. Neocons are the people who want to abandon the traditional conservative stance of isolationism. Old-school Republicans would have opposed the war in Iraq/Afghanistan. Note World War I, and the isolationist sentiment before WW2. Both were generated by the Republicans. Neocons like Cheney and Rumsfeld turn that on its head and say, yes we should intervene in other places. Hence, we have the "war on terror". The neocons don't particularly care about social issues. What you're referring to are the Christian fundamentalists, like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. They are the ones who believe the Bible is God's word, we should have prayer in schools, etc. They also claim that abstinence is the only foolproof cure to STD's, which is technically true, but they ignore the fact that abstinence is almost possible to realize. They care a lot about domestic social policy, but not foreign policy. Bush happens to be in both categories, however, as we can see by his fundamentalist leanings and his neocon advisors (Cheney/Rumsfeld).
Not necessarily true. This is the sort of logic that in the 19th century was used to fire people after they were disabled, say working in a factory, or in mines and was used to create "yellow dog" contracts, or contracts that binded employees to not join unions. Thankfully the government has intervened and banned such unfair employment practices. Therefore, your statement is not completely acceptable even in a capitalist country like the USA.
Traditionally, the behavior of judges is hard to predict based on who nominated them. For example, John Paul Stevens was nominated by Ford, and may be the most liberal member of the Supreme Court. It is not really surprising that the conservatives would dissent, because conservatives value the sanctity of private property, and thus would oppose any sort of government seizing of that property (eminent domain) for any reason.
that's actually a good point. Chinese characters work totally differently than Roman letters. Words consist of usually two characters, and slight changes in any character can drastically vary the meaning of the word. It is not easy at all to create chinese words that are designed to be like another except not the same i.e. like "dmeocarcy".
Not only Israel, but also India and Pakistan. Their justification for having nukes essentially is b/c they need to protect themselves against each other. It is also fairly well documented that North Korea has made a nuclear weapon. In addition, South Africa and Iran are rumored to be working on or already possess them.
China could be developing their own operating system b/c they essentially suspect that Windows has backdoor code which would allow the US Army/CIA access to the Chinese computers, which would be very disadvantageous to China should a war start. In China policymakers always have fighting the Americans in the back of their heads.
If Taiwan declares independence China would invade, no matter what the rest of the world does. I'm not sure most Americans realize this. And are you saying that Taiwan can beat our army? We outnumber them ten to one and even if they have a slight technological advantage we can just overrun them or failing that we can hit them will any of our ballistic missiles.