Yes, You're right. The US did something good for democracy in Europe. But since the sixties, your government has been taken in control of some people who give your country a very bad name, these people are a bunch of self-serving greedy bastards. I hope we can keep them out in Europe for a while longer.
Not a bad idea. I wouldn't mind if the U.S. pulled out of most of Europe. There are some countries that appreciate our presence there, but a lot of others don't.
Maybe you can give an example of this good influence the US had anywhere?
Anything the US has done has had good and bad. We ended the Japanese occupation of China, and now we're branded as the only country that has ever use atomic weapons. We protected Western Europe from being overrun by Communists at the end of WWII, and I actually heard a fellow student claim that the U.S. bombing of Dresden was "the single greatest atrocity of WWII" (fortunately another student quickly replied "next to the slaughter of 6 million Jews").
I don't think I can say a single thing that you would be willing to consider a positive, because whatever negative you could find would be what you would focus on.
Wait, how about this? It's small, but maybe by being small it can squeeze through. In the 1970s and 80s, the US gave sanctuary to some Russian Pentacostals. Reagan did some dealing and managed to get the Russian government to let them go. Find something wrong with that! Oh? Oh yes, you're right. The flew out of Russia in airplanes and contributed to global warming. Pure evil that was. Should have kept them locked away where their carbon footprint would have been smaller.
Try "our efforts are directed by our need for oil"
More like, our efforts influenced in part by our need for oil. The U.S. way of government is far to complex to have oil control everything. Yes, there is recognition of the strategic and economic importance of oil. But there is also the simple niceness and decency of the majority of the American voters. Both are considered when U.S. foreign policy is made. In general, the more visibility an issue has, the more it is influenced by the niceness and decency of Americans. The less visibility an issue has, the more likely it is to be influenced by selfishness and special interests.
It's also good enough to fly the plane into the nearest skyscraper, once you disable/disrupt/jam/take over the legitimate transmitter and know the protocol and encryption keys.
1. The pilot has a switch that allows the plane to be controlled from the ground. Without the switch (a physical switch, not a logical one), the tower can't do anything.
2. The switch, once thrown, is protected by a combination lock. Yes, locks can be picked/broken, but that takes time. Or maybe once thrown, the switch is locked in place with no way for pilot or crew to change back to pilot control.
So in the event of hijackign or pilot death, the switch is thrown (by pilot, stewardess, anyone who has a couple seconds to act). Unless the hijackers are smart enough to overcome the locks or have managed to simultaneously take over plane and tower, have guaranteed landing. Even if the hijackers overcome the locks, it may be so difficult that all they do is disable tower control. They'll crash the plane, but not into any buildings.
This system could also be used in an emergency where the pilot and co-pilot become incapacitated for other reasons.
you're still not focusing on the disease, and that's fundamental inequality and slavery in this world.
The problem is, there is very little the U.S. can do about the inequality and slavery in the world. Our efforts are generally ineffective and condemned by the rest of the world. We've tried sanctions. We've tried throwing money at the problem in grants, foreign aid, and the IMF. But the leaders who control the guns in many countries don't care about the welfare of the people, they like the inequality and slavery. But military hasn't been very successful either.
I wrote: With Texas the question was secession. With Taiwan the question is forced annexation. They are related but different topics.
SLi wrote: You mean like the indian lands that were annexed into the US?
Yes. Let's hope that Taiwan is not also forcibly annexed. If China thinks that US crimes wrong 100 years ago make it OK for China to commit crimes today, when will such behavior end? Can the US then justify more crimes because China committed some?
In ancient times, China expanded its empire, and it is the largest (in population) on Earth. In more recent times, European powers expanded their empires, most of which they lost. But hopefully the age of imperialism is over. Neither China, Japan nor western nations should be trying to expand their empires, or even trying to reconquer areas that were once part of their empires.
The fact is that the country from which it split up does not recognize the split to be legal. Let us get another example, if for some reason alaska were to be split from the US for a long period of time, I doubt seriously that the US would recognize its independence because of the strategic value of Alaska. Any plot of land with big strategic value will be "forced into the rank".
Alaska has been a U.S. State, a full participating part of the country, for almost 50 years. Taiwan was a province of China for 5 years way back in the 1800s. Taiwan was again a province of China for an entire five years in the 1940s. For 105 of the past 110 years, Taiwan and China have been separate countries.
And while Alaskans voted to join the U.S., the Taiwanese never agreed to be ruled by China. Now that they have free and fair elections, they are making it quite clear that they don't want to join China.
Just freaking look at what happenned to Panama, and it wasn't even a US province.
What happened the last time Texas tried to secede? How about the right of Texas to secede that was explicitly written in its agreement to join the Union, IIRC?
With Texas the question was secession. With Taiwan the question is forced annexation. They are related but different topics.
Maybe your "Taiwanese" language is so Taiwanized that you have some Taiwanese character? Or maybe you want to declare all the millions people lived in Southern Fujian, China mainland, speaking the same dialect of Chinese, as "Taiwanese".
So all those English speaking Americans are really "Europeans" because they speak a European dialect?
I think that the invasion/retreat of the previous Chinese government to Taiwan has confused issues. Neither the Chinese in Taiwan nor the Chinese in China seem very interested in the native Taiwanese population. They just want to do what China has done for thousands of years... unify all the Chinese (of course, each side wants it unified under themselves).
But the difference is that now (for the last 12 years) Taiwan is a democracy, so the minority Chinese population doesn't have control anymore. The majority Taiwanese are not interested in unifying with China, and after 43 years of oppression, finally have the ability to make their will known.
However, they are in a difficult position. Their threatening neighbor puts pressure on the U.S., which in turn puts pressure on Taiwan, to pay lip service to the idea of eventual annexation. So what you see is the Taiwanese continuing to use the official name "Republic of China" or "Chinese Taipei" in foreign relations, but internally they are replacing "China" (left over from the dictatorship) with "Taiwan" as their identifier.
well the UK gave up any claim to Ireland when they signed the anglo-ireland treaty. so Ireland is really a separate country. No such thing happened between Taiwan (Republic of China) and the PRC.
You are right that the primary weakness in the analogy is the PRC's failure to recognized reality. China prefers to live in a dangerous fantasy world.
And the governing body of Taiwan(ROC) wants to be part of the mainland, but they want to be in control of the mainland.
Your information is about 20 years out of date. The dictators from China who ruled Taiwan from 1949 to 1988 did claim to want to control China. But a Taiwanese leader took over in 1988 and started democratic reforms. The government of Taiwan, reflecting the will of the people of Taiwan, does not want to take over China.
So the only way your Ireland/UK analogy would fit is if, the queen got ousted by a communist rebellion, to escape she successfully invades and annexes Ireland. Then Ireland would be part of the UK.
You didn't finish. The queen would then have to die. Her heir would have to appoint an unrelated Irish heir and then die. The Irish leader would have to initiate democratic reforms, lift marshal law, allow the use of the Irish language, put himself up for a fair election, and the Irish would need to state over and over that they want nothing to do with the UK. All the while, the UK would need to keep threatening to invade while France, the only friend the Irish have, tells the Irish that if they want French help to repel an invasion, they need to keep paying lip service to the idea that Ireland is part of the UK.
They have different governments, but they are (and always have been) one country, like Ireland or Korea. Taiwan calls (called?) itself the Republic of China, for fucks sake.
How many legs does a dog have if we call the tail a "leg"? 4, because calling a tail a "leg" doesn't make it a leg.
You have to know a little history to understand the name "Republic of China".
From 1949 until the late 1980s, Taiwan was ruled by a dictatorship of exiled Chinese. The Taiwanese language was forbidden on TV and radio. Children were punished for speaking Taiwanese in school. The dictator wanted to return to China and capture it, so he claimed Taiwan was part of China. When the Taiwanese finally were able to speak for themselves, China had become strong again, and the Taiwanese had to rely on the United States for protection. The U.S., as the protector of Taiwan, tells the Taiwanese that they must call themselves "Republic of China" because the U.S. is willing to sacrifice truth to avoid war. So one could argue that because Taiwan takes marching orders from the U.S. in keeping the obsolete name, Taiwan is really part of the U.S.. But it makes no sense to claim that Taiwan is part of China simply because of the misnomer. Indians (the early Americans) aren't from India just because they're called "Indians".
I think saying Taiwan is part of China, is much like saying Israel is part of Palestine.
But while China is a, Palestine is really a geographic area - so the comparison doesn't really fit.
A better analogy would be to say that "saying Taiwan is part of China is like saying Ireland is part of the UK". Taiwan was ruled by China for a while, just as Ireland was ruled by UK. China and UK both left huge cultural footprints (Chinese and English are spoken in Taiwan and Ireland, respectively). Taiwan and Ireland are both now separated from their former rulers and are independent.
While I support independence for Taiwan, you do realize what happened the last time Texas & friends tried to gain independence, right?
Yes, the U.S. prevented the secession. Whether that was justified is debatable. The secessions were done only partially democratically. A huge portion of the population (the slaves) were unable to vote on the question. But you're way off topic. Secession and conquest are different things.
And IIRC Texas had the right to secede explicitly written in their agreement to join the Union. There are no such agreements between China and Taiwan.
There is no need for such an agreement. Taiwan is already independent.
Tibet is part of china only because China invaded and occupied it. That's like saying Lebanon is part of Syria.
Or like saying California is part of the U.S.A, or saying southern Spain is part of Spain. For most parts of the world, you'll find they got to be the country they are in part through invasion. The invasion of Tibet was successful nearly 50 years ago. It seems to me like an accomplished fact, whether we like it or not.
[Taiwan] is also technically a apart of China, even if it is practically separate.
Whether or not a country exists independently or is part of another country is established by the facts on the ground. It is not a "technical" matter. I suppose that "technically" the status of Cuba is unresolved because dead aborigines who were enslaved and killed by the Spanish invaders left no heirs nor wills, and the matter has never been adjudicated by a court with proper jurisdiction; does it matter? The reality is that Cuba belongs to Fidel Castro.
The reality also remains that Taiwan is not part of China.
As you pointed out yourself, Taiwan's government spent years in exile... and it wasn't because springtime in Japan is so lovely
Not sure what you're talking about here. From 1895 to 1945, the government of Taiwan wasn't in exile in Japan, it was Japan. From 1949, the occupying Chinese were in exile from China, and they were in Taiwan, not in Japan. From 1995, when Taiwan finally began to be run by the Taiwanese as a democracy instead of by the occupying dictatorship, the Taiwanese rulers have never been in exile.
Taiwan is part of China. Just because the British held onto it for a little longer than other former possessions does not make it an independent country since it was part of China that was taken by foreign powers, and now China is free from them. Cultural differences from longer occupation do not mean anything except that it is two systems in one country. At least the Chinese are honest in their descriptions of things.
You seem very confused. Taiwan was never held by the British. Perhaps you are thinking of Hong Kong, which is in fact part of China unlike Taiwan, which is not part of China.
Also, China historically is mostly interested in China.
In recent years China has expressed interested in conquering and annexing its neighbor Taiwan (RTFA). It has even held missile tests in Taiwanese waters near major Taiwenese ports to disrupt commercial shipping in an attempt to intimidate Taiwanese voters during a Taiwanese presidential election.
Tibet is part of China, so that's ok.
The Spratly's are disputed.
Taiwan is not part of China.
For more than 50 years, the following have all been true.
* Taiwan and China are controlled by different governments.
* The government in Taiwan does not answer in any way shape or form to the government in China.
* The government in China does not answer in any way shape or form to the government in Taiwan.
* Taiwan and China independently make agreements and treaties with other nations.
* Taiwan and China each print their own money.
* Taiwan and China each operate their own military.
* Taiwan and China each have their own head of state.
* Taiwan and China each issue their own travel documents, and do not accept each other's documents as domestically valid.
* No laws written in Taiwan are enforced in China.
* No laws written in China are enforced in Taiwan.
* No taxes collected in China are spent by Taiwan.
* No taxes collected in Taiwan are spent by China.
* China has a judiciary for which the highest level of appeal is in China and part of the government of China.
* Taiwan has a judiciary for which the highest level of appeal is in Taiwan and part of the government of Taiwan.
* All of these have been true for more than 50 years.
For 105 of the last 110 years, the following have all been true.
* Taiwan and China are controlled by different governments.
* The government in Taiwan does not answer in any way shape or form to the government in China.
* The government in China does not answer in any way shape or form to the government in Taiwan.
* Taiwan (or it's government in Japan) and China independently make agreements and treaties with other nations.
* Taiwan (or it's government in Japan)and China each print their own money.
* Taiwan (or it's government in Japan)and China each operate their own military.
* Taiwan (or it's government in Japan)and China each have their own head of state.
* Taiwan (or it's government in Japan)and China each issue their own travel documents, and do not accept each other's documents as domestically valid.
* No laws written in Taiwan are enforced in China.
* No laws written in China are enforced in Taiwan.
* No taxes collected in China are spent by Taiwan.
* No taxes collected in Taiwan are spent by China.
* China has a judiciary for which the highest level of appeal is in China and part of the government of China.
* Taiwan has a judiciary for which the highest level of appeal is in Japan or Taiwan and part of the government of Japan or Taiwan.
I am pretty sure the following "news" could be read somewhen in China
"'The US has established information warfare units to develop viruses to attack enemy computer systems and networks,' the annual PLA Defense departement report on USA's military warned. At the same, US armed forces are developing ways to protect its own systems from an enemy attack, it said, echoing similar warnings made in previous years."
On the other hand, you wouldn't find this "The main focus of USA's military modernization efforts are Taiwan". You see, Taiwan isn't developing nuclear weapons and doesn't support terrorism. Instead, Taiwan is a democratic country where human rights are respected. Taiwan is a threat to no one.
If China weren't regularly threatening to its empire through invasion, people wouldn't be so concerned about their military modernization. But the sad fact is that China frequently threatens to invade Taiwan, and has even tried to use missile tests in Taiwanese waters, disrupting commercial shipping to and from major Taiwanese ports, to intimidate Taiwanese voters during Taiwanese presidential elections.
Why do "myth busters" always seem to get things wrong in order to further some agenda? For example, one of their "myths" is "Mars and Pluto are warming too". And then in they "debunk" it by saying that evidence supports it but isn't conclusive. Then they make their real point, that it doesn't change their view on global warming.
But they didn't say the myth was "Mars and Pluto are warming to, showing humans play an insignificant part in global warming". I'm frankly sick of skeptics and myth busters who can't get their own facts right.
One of their "myths" is actually a question! "It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?" How do you debunk a question??
Slashdot shouldn't be advertising it as a "truth" "behind...common myths". It should just be pointing out propaganda piece.
The idea that my every move is being tracked and could incur advertising will certainly take the fun out of a MMORPG for me. Sure, I know that the server is watching my every move, but I know it generally doesn't care. What I do is harmless and has no effect in the real world. It's nice. Now I have to worry that every step I make will trigger ads. It would be a real shame if it came to that.
They'll accelerate when they know there's a red light or stopped traffic in front of them, even though it just means they need to brake harder (and probably come to a complete stop, which they might have avoided by slowing down sooner);
Where I drive if you don't accelerate to reach that red light you'll still have to break hard for the numerous people who cut you off before you reach the light.
No need to quit.
Send an email to your boss explaining why you cannot legally install the software, then simply refuse to install it.
If he fires or demotes you, and you're in the good ol' U S of A, it's lawsuit time. You can sue for wrongful termination. I'm pretty sure you can even sue for wrongful stalling of career. If it comes to that, be sure to contact Microsoft to see if they'll help you with your lawsuit. It would certainly be in their interest to support you.
Tax all the out of game transactions for real money at %100. That way the government will have a good reason to help Blizzard catch the gold farmers other similar troublemakers.
Develop your social skills:
There are courses in social skills, customer handeling, consultancy skills etc. Get a good training and develop what you already have further. You are asking for the opinion of others here, why not expand that communication urge to fields where it can be beneficial to you personally or, even better, professionally.
One way I've found to do this is to spend a lot of time with a group of people who prefer to speak a language I don't understand. Since I have to not act bored, I have to pay attention to people. Since I don't understand what they're saying, I'm forced to rely a on non-verbal clues. When I ask afterward what went on, I get feedback as to whether my guesses were correct. It's great training on both paying attention to people and reading body language.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, You're right. The US did something good for democracy in Europe. But since the sixties, your government has been taken in control of some people who give your country a very bad name, these people are a bunch of self-serving greedy bastards. I hope we can keep them out in Europe for a while longer. Not a bad idea. I wouldn't mind if the U.S. pulled out of most of Europe. There are some countries that appreciate our presence there, but a lot of others don't.
Maybe you can give an example of this good influence the US had anywhere?
Anything the US has done has had good and bad. We ended the Japanese occupation of China, and now we're branded as the only country that has ever use atomic weapons. We protected Western Europe from being overrun by Communists at the end of WWII, and I actually heard a fellow student claim that the U.S. bombing of Dresden was "the single greatest atrocity of WWII" (fortunately another student quickly replied "next to the slaughter of 6 million Jews").
I don't think I can say a single thing that you would be willing to consider a positive, because whatever negative you could find would be what you would focus on.
Wait, how about this? It's small, but maybe by being small it can squeeze through. In the 1970s and 80s, the US gave sanctuary to some Russian Pentacostals. Reagan did some dealing and managed to get the Russian government to let them go. Find something wrong with that! Oh? Oh yes, you're right. The flew out of Russia in airplanes and contributed to global warming. Pure evil that was. Should have kept them locked away where their carbon footprint would have been smaller.
Try "our efforts are directed by our need for oil" More like, our efforts influenced in part by our need for oil. The U.S. way of government is far to complex to have oil control everything. Yes, there is recognition of the strategic and economic importance of oil. But there is also the simple niceness and decency of the majority of the American voters. Both are considered when U.S. foreign policy is made. In general, the more visibility an issue has, the more it is influenced by the niceness and decency of Americans. The less visibility an issue has, the more likely it is to be influenced by selfishness and special interests.
It's also good enough to fly the plane into the nearest skyscraper, once you disable/disrupt/jam/take over the legitimate transmitter and know the protocol and encryption keys.
1. The pilot has a switch that allows the plane to be controlled from the ground. Without the switch (a physical switch, not a logical one), the tower can't do anything.
2. The switch, once thrown, is protected by a combination lock. Yes, locks can be picked/broken, but that takes time. Or maybe once thrown, the switch is locked in place with no way for pilot or crew to change back to pilot control.
So in the event of hijackign or pilot death, the switch is thrown (by pilot, stewardess, anyone who has a couple seconds to act). Unless the hijackers are smart enough to overcome the locks or have managed to simultaneously take over plane and tower, have guaranteed landing. Even if the hijackers overcome the locks, it may be so difficult that all they do is disable tower control. They'll crash the plane, but not into any buildings.
This system could also be used in an emergency where the pilot and co-pilot become incapacitated for other reasons.
you're still not focusing on the disease, and that's fundamental inequality and slavery in this world. The problem is, there is very little the U.S. can do about the inequality and slavery in the world. Our efforts are generally ineffective and condemned by the rest of the world. We've tried sanctions. We've tried throwing money at the problem in grants, foreign aid, and the IMF. But the leaders who control the guns in many countries don't care about the welfare of the people, they like the inequality and slavery. But military hasn't been very successful either.
I wrote: With Texas the question was secession. With Taiwan the question is forced annexation. They are related but different topics.
SLi wrote: You mean like the indian lands that were annexed into the US?
Yes. Let's hope that Taiwan is not also forcibly annexed. If China thinks that US crimes wrong 100 years ago make it OK for China to commit crimes today, when will such behavior end? Can the US then justify more crimes because China committed some?
In ancient times, China expanded its empire, and it is the largest (in population) on Earth. In more recent times, European powers expanded their empires, most of which they lost. But hopefully the age of imperialism is over. Neither China, Japan nor western nations should be trying to expand their empires, or even trying to reconquer areas that were once part of their empires.
The fact is that the country from which it split up does not recognize the split to be legal. Let us get another example, if for some reason alaska were to be split from the US for a long period of time, I doubt seriously that the US would recognize its independence because of the strategic value of Alaska. Any plot of land with big strategic value will be "forced into the rank".
Alaska has been a U.S. State, a full participating part of the country, for almost 50 years. Taiwan was a province of China for 5 years way back in the 1800s. Taiwan was again a province of China for an entire five years in the 1940s. For 105 of the past 110 years, Taiwan and China have been separate countries. And while Alaskans voted to join the U.S., the Taiwanese never agreed to be ruled by China. Now that they have free and fair elections, they are making it quite clear that they don't want to join China.
Just freaking look at what happenned to Panama, and it wasn't even a US province.
Um, what happened? It's independent.
What happened the last time Texas tried to secede? How about the right of Texas to secede that was explicitly written in its agreement to join the Union, IIRC?
With Texas the question was secession. With Taiwan the question is forced annexation. They are related but different topics.
Maybe your "Taiwanese" language is so Taiwanized that you have some Taiwanese character? Or maybe you want to declare all the millions people lived in Southern Fujian, China mainland, speaking the same dialect of Chinese, as "Taiwanese".
So all those English speaking Americans are really "Europeans" because they speak a European dialect?
I think that the invasion/retreat of the previous Chinese government to Taiwan has confused issues. Neither the Chinese in Taiwan nor the Chinese in China seem very interested in the native Taiwanese population. They just want to do what China has done for thousands of years... unify all the Chinese (of course, each side wants it unified under themselves).
But the difference is that now (for the last 12 years) Taiwan is a democracy, so the minority Chinese population doesn't have control anymore. The majority Taiwanese are not interested in unifying with China, and after 43 years of oppression, finally have the ability to make their will known.
However, they are in a difficult position. Their threatening neighbor puts pressure on the U.S., which in turn puts pressure on Taiwan, to pay lip service to the idea of eventual annexation. So what you see is the Taiwanese continuing to use the official name "Republic of China" or "Chinese Taipei" in foreign relations, but internally they are replacing "China" (left over from the dictatorship) with "Taiwan" as their identifier.
well the UK gave up any claim to Ireland when they signed the anglo-ireland treaty. so Ireland is really a separate country. No such thing happened between Taiwan (Republic of China) and the PRC.
You are right that the primary weakness in the analogy is the PRC's failure to recognized reality. China prefers to live in a dangerous fantasy world.
And the governing body of Taiwan(ROC) wants to be part of the mainland, but they want to be in control of the mainland.
Your information is about 20 years out of date. The dictators from China who ruled Taiwan from 1949 to 1988 did claim to want to control China. But a Taiwanese leader took over in 1988 and started democratic reforms. The government of Taiwan, reflecting the will of the people of Taiwan, does not want to take over China.
So the only way your Ireland/UK analogy would fit is if, the queen got ousted by a communist rebellion, to escape she successfully invades and annexes Ireland. Then Ireland would be part of the UK.
You didn't finish. The queen would then have to die. Her heir would have to appoint an unrelated Irish heir and then die. The Irish leader would have to initiate democratic reforms, lift marshal law, allow the use of the Irish language, put himself up for a fair election, and the Irish would need to state over and over that they want nothing to do with the UK. All the while, the UK would need to keep threatening to invade while France, the only friend the Irish have, tells the Irish that if they want French help to repel an invasion, they need to keep paying lip service to the idea that Ireland is part of the UK.
They have different governments, but they are (and always have been) one country, like Ireland or Korea. Taiwan calls (called?) itself the Republic of China, for fucks sake.
How many legs does a dog have if we call the tail a "leg"? 4, because calling a tail a "leg" doesn't make it a leg.
You have to know a little history to understand the name "Republic of China".
From 1949 until the late 1980s, Taiwan was ruled by a dictatorship of exiled Chinese. The Taiwanese language was forbidden on TV and radio. Children were punished for speaking Taiwanese in school. The dictator wanted to return to China and capture it, so he claimed Taiwan was part of China. When the Taiwanese finally were able to speak for themselves, China had become strong again, and the Taiwanese had to rely on the United States for protection. The U.S., as the protector of Taiwan, tells the Taiwanese that they must call themselves "Republic of China" because the U.S. is willing to sacrifice truth to avoid war. So one could argue that because Taiwan takes marching orders from the U.S. in keeping the obsolete name, Taiwan is really part of the U.S.. But it makes no sense to claim that Taiwan is part of China simply because of the misnomer. Indians (the early Americans) aren't from India just because they're called "Indians".
I think saying Taiwan is part of China, is much like saying Israel is part of Palestine.
But while China is a, Palestine is really a geographic area - so the comparison doesn't really fit.
A better analogy would be to say that "saying Taiwan is part of China is like saying Ireland is part of the UK". Taiwan was ruled by China for a while, just as Ireland was ruled by UK. China and UK both left huge cultural footprints (Chinese and English are spoken in Taiwan and Ireland, respectively). Taiwan and Ireland are both now separated from their former rulers and are independent.
While I support independence for Taiwan, you do realize what happened the last time Texas & friends tried to gain independence, right?
Yes, the U.S. prevented the secession. Whether that was justified is debatable. The secessions were done only partially democratically. A huge portion of the population (the slaves) were unable to vote on the question. But you're way off topic. Secession and conquest are different things.
And IIRC Texas had the right to secede explicitly written in their agreement to join the Union. There are no such agreements between China and Taiwan.
There is no need for such an agreement. Taiwan is already independent.
Tibet is part of china only because China invaded and occupied it. That's like saying Lebanon is part of Syria.
Or like saying California is part of the U.S.A, or saying southern Spain is part of Spain. For most parts of the world, you'll find they got to be the country they are in part through invasion. The invasion of Tibet was successful nearly 50 years ago. It seems to me like an accomplished fact, whether we like it or not.
[Taiwan] is also technically a apart of China, even if it is practically separate. Whether or not a country exists independently or is part of another country is established by the facts on the ground. It is not a "technical" matter. I suppose that "technically" the status of Cuba is unresolved because dead aborigines who were enslaved and killed by the Spanish invaders left no heirs nor wills, and the matter has never been adjudicated by a court with proper jurisdiction; does it matter? The reality is that Cuba belongs to Fidel Castro.
The reality also remains that Taiwan is not part of China.
As you pointed out yourself, Taiwan's government spent years in exile... and it wasn't because springtime in Japan is so lovely Not sure what you're talking about here. From 1895 to 1945, the government of Taiwan wasn't in exile in Japan, it was Japan. From 1949, the occupying Chinese were in exile from China, and they were in Taiwan, not in Japan. From 1995, when Taiwan finally began to be run by the Taiwanese as a democracy instead of by the occupying dictatorship, the Taiwanese rulers have never been in exile.
Taiwan is part of China. Just because the British held onto it for a little longer than other former possessions does not make it an independent country since it was part of China that was taken by foreign powers, and now China is free from them. Cultural differences from longer occupation do not mean anything except that it is two systems in one country. At least the Chinese are honest in their descriptions of things.
You seem very confused. Taiwan was never held by the British. Perhaps you are thinking of Hong Kong, which is in fact part of China unlike Taiwan, which is not part of China.
Also, China historically is mostly interested in China.
In recent years China has expressed interested in conquering and annexing its neighbor Taiwan (RTFA). It has even held missile tests in Taiwanese waters near major Taiwenese ports to disrupt commercial shipping in an attempt to intimidate Taiwanese voters during a Taiwanese presidential election.
Tibet is part of China, so that's ok. The Spratly's are disputed.
Taiwan is not part of China.
For more than 50 years, the following have all been true.
* Taiwan and China are controlled by different governments.
* The government in Taiwan does not answer in any way shape or form to the government in China.
* The government in China does not answer in any way shape or form to the government in Taiwan.
* Taiwan and China independently make agreements and treaties with other nations.
* Taiwan and China each print their own money.
* Taiwan and China each operate their own military.
* Taiwan and China each have their own head of state.
* Taiwan and China each issue their own travel documents, and do not accept each other's documents as domestically valid.
* No laws written in Taiwan are enforced in China.
* No laws written in China are enforced in Taiwan.
* No taxes collected in China are spent by Taiwan.
* No taxes collected in Taiwan are spent by China.
* China has a judiciary for which the highest level of appeal is in China and part of the government of China.
* Taiwan has a judiciary for which the highest level of appeal is in Taiwan and part of the government of Taiwan.
* All of these have been true for more than 50 years.
For 105 of the last 110 years, the following have all been true.
* Taiwan and China are controlled by different governments.
* The government in Taiwan does not answer in any way shape or form to the government in China.
* The government in China does not answer in any way shape or form to the government in Taiwan.
* Taiwan (or it's government in Japan) and China independently make agreements and treaties with other nations.
* Taiwan (or it's government in Japan)and China each print their own money.
* Taiwan (or it's government in Japan)and China each operate their own military.
* Taiwan (or it's government in Japan)and China each have their own head of state.
* Taiwan (or it's government in Japan)and China each issue their own travel documents, and do not accept each other's documents as domestically valid.
* No laws written in Taiwan are enforced in China.
* No laws written in China are enforced in Taiwan.
* No taxes collected in China are spent by Taiwan.
* No taxes collected in Taiwan are spent by China.
* China has a judiciary for which the highest level of appeal is in China and part of the government of China.
* Taiwan has a judiciary for which the highest level of appeal is in Japan or Taiwan and part of the government of Japan or Taiwan.
I am pretty sure the following "news" could be read somewhen in China
"'The US has established information warfare units to develop viruses to attack enemy computer systems and networks,' the annual PLA Defense departement report on USA's military warned. At the same, US armed forces are developing ways to protect its own systems from an enemy attack, it said, echoing similar warnings made in previous years."
On the other hand, you wouldn't find this "The main focus of USA's military modernization efforts are Taiwan". You see, Taiwan isn't developing nuclear weapons and doesn't support terrorism. Instead, Taiwan is a democratic country where human rights are respected. Taiwan is a threat to no one.
If China weren't regularly threatening to its empire through invasion, people wouldn't be so concerned about their military modernization. But the sad fact is that China frequently threatens to invade Taiwan, and has even tried to use missile tests in Taiwanese waters, disrupting commercial shipping to and from major Taiwanese ports, to intimidate Taiwanese voters during Taiwanese presidential elections.
Why do "myth busters" always seem to get things wrong in order to further some agenda? For example, one of their "myths" is "Mars and Pluto are warming too". And then in they "debunk" it by saying that evidence supports it but isn't conclusive. Then they make their real point, that it doesn't change their view on global warming.
But they didn't say the myth was "Mars and Pluto are warming to, showing humans play an insignificant part in global warming". I'm frankly sick of skeptics and myth busters who can't get their own facts right.
One of their "myths" is actually a question! "It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?" How do you debunk a question??
Slashdot shouldn't be advertising it as a "truth" "behind...common myths". It should just be pointing out propaganda piece.
The idea that my every move is being tracked and could incur advertising will certainly take the fun out of a MMORPG for me. Sure, I know that the server is watching my every move, but I know it generally doesn't care. What I do is harmless and has no effect in the real world. It's nice. Now I have to worry that every step I make will trigger ads. It would be a real shame if it came to that.
They'll accelerate when they know there's a red light or stopped traffic in front of them, even though it just means they need to brake harder (and probably come to a complete stop, which they might have avoided by slowing down sooner);
Where I drive if you don't accelerate to reach that red light you'll still have to break hard for the numerous people who cut you off before you reach the light.
No need to quit. Send an email to your boss explaining why you cannot legally install the software, then simply refuse to install it. If he fires or demotes you, and you're in the good ol' U S of A, it's lawsuit time. You can sue for wrongful termination. I'm pretty sure you can even sue for wrongful stalling of career. If it comes to that, be sure to contact Microsoft to see if they'll help you with your lawsuit. It would certainly be in their interest to support you.
Tax all the out of game transactions for real money at %100. That way the government will have a good reason to help Blizzard catch the gold farmers other similar troublemakers.
Develop your social skills:
There are courses in social skills, customer handeling, consultancy skills etc. Get a good training and develop what you already have further. You are asking for the opinion of others here, why not expand that communication urge to fields where it can be beneficial to you personally or, even better, professionally.
One way I've found to do this is to spend a lot of time with a group of people who prefer to speak a language I don't understand. Since I have to not act bored, I have to pay attention to people. Since I don't understand what they're saying, I'm forced to rely a on non-verbal clues. When I ask afterward what went on, I get feedback as to whether my guesses were correct. It's great training on both paying attention to people and reading body language.