Your summary, which explains how this is a dispute about the use of data which was provided by a Chinese source, is much too focused and accurate, and prevents people from the ceremonial outrage which constitute their 2 minute hate against China. You should be ashamed of yourself.
There is, however, some dispute over the status of Hawaii and Puerto Rico.
Very little of the world considers Tibet separate from China: not even the Dalai Lama thinks of them as separate, and accepts Chinese sovereignty. The issue is cultural autonomy and identity, which makes the issue more complicated. If it was felt that too many white people moving to Hawaii was diluting the cultural identity of that region and driving locals out of jobs and homes by economic pressure, would we feel comfortable with some legislation that set aside Hawaii for ethnic Hawaiians? Because that is much of what is at stake here, after all is said and done.
"Joe Sixpack" is not entirely the guy defining the language, not as long as people in universities and members of the upper-middle and upper classes get to exercise preferential treatment toward people who speak like them. If Joe Sixpack wants little Joey Sixpack to get into a good college and improve his status, he'll make sure that Joey lurns to tawk purty.
There are many institutional gatekeepers in this world, and we use the mastery of standard English as a basis for making distinctions about who gets to pass those gates.
I am old enough to have a kid, and I do have one. I'm also old enough to be killed in a war, or shot by a murderer, and I still distinguish between the commission of those events and the representations or records of them. There are all sorts of horrible things that can happen to our children - that doesn't mean I want to censor the representations of those things.
I still find your definition of censorship far too narrow.
What can be said is that the US doesn't use any technological mechanisms to make websites inaccessible. As far as ones that are censored? I think retroactively punishing someone from publishing or accessing information is censorship. If your point is that the US doesn't have a "great firewall," fair enough. I think censorship is more than simply making certain material immediately inaccessible: it also includes the silencing effect of penalizing those expressions after the fact.
Are you feeling secure enough in your safety from the US government to click on the links associated with this article?
Rather than explicit censorship, there are sites that, if loaded into your browser (even by pre-caching), will send red flags to the FBI and trigger investigations.
Most, not all, are child porn (or at least links claiming to be child porn.) But I fully expect that if you click enough links to Islamicist sites, you'll have eyeballs following you. That's half the work of censorship there: being afraid to read something because the act of reading itself is incriminatory.
In other words, countries that don't let the US propagandize to them.
Replace "US" with "Arab nations", "network technology" with "oil," and "US-supported sites" with "Islamist propaganda," and how comfortable are we with it?
No. Because both are various shades of gray for reasons that are held to be distinct to the countries at hand. "Protecting our cherished American family values in the face of encroaching decadence," "protecting Chinese national morale while it is developing into a modern country," etc.
The US has had moments of extraordinary exceptionalism: excusing itself from war crime treaties, landmine treaties, bucking the trend on Kyoto, etc. If the basis for this exceptionalism is "sovereignty," well, that cuts both ways.
By "catch up," I don't mean in terms of offering Wi-Fi. I mean in terms of making money. Starbucks has cleared away a lot of indie coffee houses, who have to differentiate themselves to survive.
Most indie cafes actually serve crap coffee, in my opinion. Starbucks is generally "safely mediocre" - outside of a certain cities and neighborhoods, I'm more likely to go to a Starbucks than some ramshackle indie cafe the serves bad coffee created by bored art students who know nothing about coffee. A Cafe Greco, a Trieste (in SF), a Highland or Eagle Park coffee (LA) or a Borgia (NY) is another story. Outside the US, the patterns are different.
That's because the small shops are trying to catch up with Starbucks, and are willing to fill up their tables with people who aren't buying anything to do it.
Having gone to some indie cafes, bought a coffee, looked for a table to sit at, and found nothing but tables full of people sitting at their laptops, not drinking or eating anything, the wisdom of "free wifi for all!" started to seem a little dubious.
You don't want an emergency service to run as a business. If business gets slow, they may decide to create emergencies. That's been the business plan at half the consultancies I've ever known.
The proper response is to stop funding them and let them run themselves like a business, then. I'm no libertarian, but when they try to be both a tax-supported service and a business enterprise - well, screw them.
I was just talking about the blind spot a lot of programmers and engineers have about computing. It also explains the gap between unix-thinking and Mac/PC-thinking.
Old techs still think of computers as tools. For much of the world, the computer is a meta-media. The former is interested in well-defined problems solved by small tools that work perfectly. The latter are interested in emergent affordances and new/interesting experiences.
It also depends on the corporate/organizational culture you're in. Some businesses look within to fill the middle and upper tiers, or even for lateral career mobility. Others almost exclusively look outward, and your job title is your destiny.
A good clue: find out who has the positions that you aspire to in a company in which you either work or are considering working at. Then, find out if they came up from the ranks, or came from elsewhere. If it looks like no one came up from below, keep looking elsewhere.
Economic slumps are good times to go back to school: you would want to be able to be back on the market, with a grad degree or such, when the market starts improving again.
As long as basic material needs are being met, I don't really care that much about the margins. I'm not so heavily invested in the trappings of wealth and status (and Yale is about status) that the fluctuations of the global economy are going to overdetermine my identity.
I've lost jobs, family members of mine have lost jobs both in the US and Latin America, and we bounced back. It's not that big a deal. We have networks of family and friends that help us out. Maybe this is what Americans need to learn: the importance of social capital. You earlier accused me of being a "liberal" who trusts the government. I think you're actually an old-school post-war self-alienating American who trusts the government to keep things safe and stable and the market to keep you employed, and so you don't bother to make a network of familiars and mutual support.
I have to ask: why are you alive? Why bother? Are you so instrumentalized, so completely in the thrall of the ethics of production and accumulation? Really, if I had your view of the world, I'd probably kill myself and save myself the misery.
Dude, my family is from Latin America, and I worked there for a while. My wife is from Europe, and lived there for a while. I travel to Japan for research. I'm pretty up on the whole global thing. I get the feeling you aren't, really.
You know, you definitely should have kids. Your combination of resentment, martyrdom, pessimism, and complete failure of imagination is just what makes for a joyful childhood and a healthy outlook on life.
Slashdot Mirror
Your summary, which explains how this is a dispute about the use of data which was provided by a Chinese source, is much too focused and accurate, and prevents people from the ceremonial outrage which constitute their 2 minute hate against China. You should be ashamed of yourself.
There is, however, some dispute over the status of Hawaii and Puerto Rico.
Very little of the world considers Tibet separate from China: not even the Dalai Lama thinks of them as separate, and accepts Chinese sovereignty. The issue is cultural autonomy and identity, which makes the issue more complicated. If it was felt that too many white people moving to Hawaii was diluting the cultural identity of that region and driving locals out of jobs and homes by economic pressure, would we feel comfortable with some legislation that set aside Hawaii for ethnic Hawaiians? Because that is much of what is at stake here, after all is said and done.
The point is how ridiculously inflated the award is, not how meager aid to Myanmar is, you bilious twat.
"Joe Sixpack" is not entirely the guy defining the language, not as long as people in universities and members of the upper-middle and upper classes get to exercise preferential treatment toward people who speak like them. If Joe Sixpack wants little Joey Sixpack to get into a good college and improve his status, he'll make sure that Joey lurns to tawk purty.
There are many institutional gatekeepers in this world, and we use the mastery of standard English as a basis for making distinctions about who gets to pass those gates.
I am old enough to have a kid, and I do have one. I'm also old enough to be killed in a war, or shot by a murderer, and I still distinguish between the commission of those events and the representations or records of them. There are all sorts of horrible things that can happen to our children - that doesn't mean I want to censor the representations of those things.
I still find your definition of censorship far too narrow.
What can be said is that the US doesn't use any technological mechanisms to make websites inaccessible. As far as ones that are censored? I think retroactively punishing someone from publishing or accessing information is censorship. If your point is that the US doesn't have a "great firewall," fair enough. I think censorship is more than simply making certain material immediately inaccessible: it also includes the silencing effect of penalizing those expressions after the fact.
Are you feeling secure enough in your safety from the US government to click on the links associated with this article?
Rather than explicit censorship, there are sites that, if loaded into your browser (even by pre-caching), will send red flags to the FBI and trigger investigations.
Most, not all, are child porn (or at least links claiming to be child porn.) But I fully expect that if you click enough links to Islamicist sites, you'll have eyeballs following you. That's half the work of censorship there: being afraid to read something because the act of reading itself is incriminatory.
In other words, countries that don't let the US propagandize to them.
Replace "US" with "Arab nations", "network technology" with "oil," and "US-supported sites" with "Islamist propaganda," and how comfortable are we with it?
And men having children now have very, very clear memories of it. 20 years ago is less than nothing.
Anyway: the Saudi regime. Definitely not 20 years ago.
No. Because both are various shades of gray for reasons that are held to be distinct to the countries at hand. "Protecting our cherished American family values in the face of encroaching decadence," "protecting Chinese national morale while it is developing into a modern country," etc.
The US has had moments of extraordinary exceptionalism: excusing itself from war crime treaties, landmine treaties, bucking the trend on Kyoto, etc. If the basis for this exceptionalism is "sovereignty," well, that cuts both ways.
By "catch up," I don't mean in terms of offering Wi-Fi. I mean in terms of making money. Starbucks has cleared away a lot of indie coffee houses, who have to differentiate themselves to survive.
Most indie cafes actually serve crap coffee, in my opinion. Starbucks is generally "safely mediocre" - outside of a certain cities and neighborhoods, I'm more likely to go to a Starbucks than some ramshackle indie cafe the serves bad coffee created by bored art students who know nothing about coffee. A Cafe Greco, a Trieste (in SF), a Highland or Eagle Park coffee (LA) or a Borgia (NY) is another story. Outside the US, the patterns are different.
That's because the small shops are trying to catch up with Starbucks, and are willing to fill up their tables with people who aren't buying anything to do it.
Having gone to some indie cafes, bought a coffee, looked for a table to sit at, and found nothing but tables full of people sitting at their laptops, not drinking or eating anything, the wisdom of "free wifi for all!" started to seem a little dubious.
How much will it cost me for my mother-in-law to go missing? I'm willing to take out a loan.
Funny you should say that. Last time I got lost on the way to the market for some cheese and broccoli, the city launched a $50,000 search effort.
The proper response is to stop funding them and let them run themselves like a business, then. I'm no libertarian, but when they try to be both a tax-supported service and a business enterprise - well, screw them.
I was just talking about the blind spot a lot of programmers and engineers have about computing. It also explains the gap between unix-thinking and Mac/PC-thinking.
Old techs still think of computers as tools. For much of the world, the computer is a meta-media. The former is interested in well-defined problems solved by small tools that work perfectly. The latter are interested in emergent affordances and new/interesting experiences.
It also depends on the corporate/organizational culture you're in. Some businesses look within to fill the middle and upper tiers, or even for lateral career mobility. Others almost exclusively look outward, and your job title is your destiny.
A good clue: find out who has the positions that you aspire to in a company in which you either work or are considering working at. Then, find out if they came up from the ranks, or came from elsewhere. If it looks like no one came up from below, keep looking elsewhere.
Economic slumps are good times to go back to school: you would want to be able to be back on the market, with a grad degree or such, when the market starts improving again.
You don't seem to get it.
As long as basic material needs are being met, I don't really care that much about the margins. I'm not so heavily invested in the trappings of wealth and status (and Yale is about status) that the fluctuations of the global economy are going to overdetermine my identity.
I've lost jobs, family members of mine have lost jobs both in the US and Latin America, and we bounced back. It's not that big a deal. We have networks of family and friends that help us out. Maybe this is what Americans need to learn: the importance of social capital. You earlier accused me of being a "liberal" who trusts the government. I think you're actually an old-school post-war self-alienating American who trusts the government to keep things safe and stable and the market to keep you employed, and so you don't bother to make a network of familiars and mutual support.
I have to ask: why are you alive? Why bother? Are you so instrumentalized, so completely in the thrall of the ethics of production and accumulation? Really, if I had your view of the world, I'd probably kill myself and save myself the misery.
No, to elucido, definitely.
Dude, my family is from Latin America, and I worked there for a while. My wife is from Europe, and lived there for a while. I travel to Japan for research. I'm pretty up on the whole global thing. I get the feeling you aren't, really.
You know, you definitely should have kids. Your combination of resentment, martyrdom, pessimism, and complete failure of imagination is just what makes for a joyful childhood and a healthy outlook on life.
You really have no idea what you're talking about, and you have a grotesquely blinkered view of the possibilities of existence, even in the U.S.