Re:The real tragedy of the earthquake...
on
Earthquake In China
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Ah, I see that the mods have become quite tasteless.
The real tragedy of this world is that you can make such an insensitive comment and be modded +5 insightful.
Yeah, the video doesn't have much in it. I know how much y'all wanted to see buildings cave and people die. I mean, whoever got a hold of that video, what WERE they thinking, not editing it? It's almost like they had something more pressing at hand; oh wait.
There are bigger problems in China than your concept of "freedom". Such as staking out a decent living. If you think the Chinese people look at their government and say, "Well, gee, don't we have a swell government? They tell us so, better believe them!" then I think you have a very badly misconceived notion of China.
Maybe I do too, but I get the sense that in China, the people aren't exactly giggles over the government. It's more of a bitter sentiment, and deservedly so, because when has the government really taken to looking after its populace? There's more problems with corruption than with not being able to vote (I won't look up the turnout numbers on American elections).
Look, the Chinese aren't stupid. In America, we tend to think, "Well, gosh, they have a Communist government with a state-owned media" and consider everyone to be poor brainwashed souls. I really do not think so - and I may be wrong, of course - but I really don't feel that the Chinese rely on the media for truth, for good journalism, for ways to think. Again, it's a kind of bitterness that comes along with a government you can't depend on to look out for what's best for its people.
Honestly, I think that media dependence (for ideas, general conceptions, etc) is more true in America. Wake up, guys! Our western media is not exactly a glorious, unbiased bastion of truth. Your last paragraph smacks of reliance on nebulous, preconceived Western impressions, not of experience.
Millions of people already see a glimpse of the outside world. Television. KFC. Expose itself to Western culture in a way it hasn't previously? Western culture is ALL over the place. What will likely is happen is the people of Beijing will be like, "psh. *AMERICANS*." Unfortunately, we (America) aren't that popular around the world these days. Even if we are glorious and full of freedom, we also have kind of a recent history of being an arrogant state trying to police the world. Founded or not, that's another argument, but anyway.
Here's what the Olympics will NOT do: help out Beijing's denizens. It's all for show, to show off the mighty progress of the government and the pride of China. What it really does is make life a lot harder for the millions of denizens who are going to face roads being blocked off or reserved, incredible travel restrictions into and out of the city, etc. The LAST thing I expect these millions of people to do is go all starry eyed and think, "Wow! These westerners! There is just so much to learn from them and their culture." Just another difficulty the people endure at the hands of a government that, while you could say is slowly improving, doesn't hold the people as a high priority.
It's very late, but I think your post deserves a response.
I think you misunderstood me, and that we do have common ground.
First, the Chinese government, in pretty much all its history, has demonstrated a detestable lack of concern for its citizens...the lao bai xing. I am not apologizing for it in any way. There needs to be a LOT MORE reform. But it is what it is - and it's not what it's not. This is where my protest with the West's media presentation of China lies.
Second, that statement was an opinion, not rooted in a sense of "we're special and different, 'cos we're Asia." Rather, it's only because China has such a large population. Public elections? I don't see it. I really don't see that as a viable system in China. I could be wrong, but given the population, and the makeup of it, I really do not see democracy working - or being accepted, though that's a different question.
I was commenting *solely* on the matter of voting. It seems, to me, that a lot of people think, "Oh, why doesn't China just overthrow their government and introduce a democracy." Obviously I don't think people see this as a feasible or likely thing to happen, but when it's expressed as a wish, I think they're just missing the point entirely. There is a lot of poverty in China. A lot of corruption - among the wealthy, among those in power. There's a heck of a lot more to worry about than whether or not the people have voting rights like we do in America.
So what are these values and rights? It's really simple stuff, like a government that has to reasonably demonstrate guilt before it can jail the accused, that doesn't punish you for believing in the wrong ideas or saying the wrong thing, that is accountable to the same rule of law that it holds its citizens, that doesn't shoot you in the street because you happen to be expressing your displeasure at the way things are going (a sentiment that IMO is somewhat misplaced in the Tibet's case, but hey, that doesn't mean you need to shoot the uppity buggers for it), stuff like that.
I absolutely agree. It seems the Chinese government operates under control freak philosophy. Everything is about controlling the people, and that's just not right, in my opinion, or sustainable. And that's something that, IMO, seriously needs fixing.
Since you bring up Tibet though, I think it's worth bringing up what a horrifyingly shameless job the western media has done covering this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that there's been shooting of the Tibetan rioters. I also can't comment on the Tibetans' claim to freedom, because honestly I don't know a whole lot about that situation. I'm sure there are valid points to both sides, as in most arguments about "whose land is it really?"
But what is *actually* happening? Let's see. Rioters - I, personally, don't care much just what their ethnicity is - are burning stores. Completely innocent people are being burned alive. No doubt there's ethnic tension fueling this (Tibetan stores were marked with white flags to indicate they should be spared), but it doesn't matter to me who's targeting who, but more what is going on. People are destroying buildings, destroying families, destroying lives.
If this kind of thing happened in the US - or any society with any sense of law and order - the objective observer, I think, would say the military has got to bring the situation under control. Instead, the police and military are scared to act, because it's a PR nightmare, and indeed, you have all these people calling for boycotts of the Olympic ceremonies and crying human rights violations. This is just plain wrong - people are dying in the streets; people, defenseless and innocent, dying or getting injured in some pretty brutal ways. But that's not at all of concern to the Western media, which is strange, given how much we value that inalienable right to life. No, what's of concern is this brutal police state cracking down on protesters. 'Protesters.' Let's make sure we all call o
^ Please don't read the above. Holy cow, I'm sorry, I didn't notice I had "HTML formatted" turned on. -_-
Here it is in paragraphs.
---
The idea that democracy is the model of perfection for government is one that's just plain wrong, but one that's also taken completely for granted, no questions asked, most of the time.
I am not saying that the US model is bad. It's not.
But you seem to be saying that China, if it were informed and its people not repressed enough, obviously would trend towards democracy because democracy just rocks so much.
Do you really think that a democracy is all that feasible for a country of China's population? Yeah, India is a democracy. And India is also a budding world power, isn't it?
I think there are a lot of points that need to be made here. First: "Red China" is not communist except in name. China's economy is not growing the way it has been by being communist. You seem to assume that since the media calls it "communist" China all the time, that companies are all state-owned. I'm no expert on the particulars, but I do believe that is false.
Also, there is a huge disparity in well-off-ness, particularly as you go from the cities to the rural areas. This is very, um, communist.
The majority of the Chinese don't put much cred into things the government tells them. Let's move away from the traditional western view of those pitiable, brainwashed, and oppressed Chinese populace, mindlessly following what the government tells them. Bullshit. There are a lot of poor people in China. But they're not stupid, mindless government drones incapable of free thought.
Which is sometimes more than we can say about the West. This particular view of communist, oppressive, anti-rights China is very much a Western one, and in many ways it has merit, because let's face it, the Chinese government isn't exactly full of angels, and the communist party's history there is not one of sterling uprightness and fluffy bunnies and such.
But one thing I hope West will just get over is the feeling that since we live in America, land of democracy and perfection, we can trust the government and media. We can let them tell us how we should think about "Red China", because there's no significant government oversight in what the media says at all. We are free of propaganda and brainwashing, because our free, democratic governments would NEVER do something like that.
So to sum up, I do not completely disagree with the things you say, but it looks like you're subscribing wholesale and rather blindly to the Western media view on communist China, and I wanted to add a different perspective. Things are not great, but things are not as BBC tells it either (just look at their coverage of the Tibet riots), and it's time we started questioning our own media, here in the West, and holding it up to the same standards and microscopes we apply to such heavily censored, oppressive regimes as "Red China."
The idea that democracy is the model of perfection for government is one that's just plain wrong, but one that's also taken completely for granted, no questions asked, most of the time.
I am not saying that the US model is bad. It's not.
But you seem to be saying that China, if it were informed and its people not repressed enough, obviously would trend towards democracy because democracy just rocks so much.
Do you really think that a democracy is all that feasible for a country of China's population? Yeah, India is a democracy. And India is also a budding world power, isn't it?
I think there are a lot of points that need to be made here. First: "Red China" is not communist except in name. China's economy is not growing the way it has been by being communist. You seem to assume that since the media calls it "communist" China all the time, that companies are all state-owned. I'm no expert on the particulars, but I do believe that is false.
Also, there is a huge disparity in well-off-ness, particularly as you go from the cities to the rural areas. This is very, um, communist.
The majority of the Chinese don't put much cred into things the government tells them. Let's move away from the traditional western view of those pitiable, brainwashed, and oppressed Chinese populace, mindlessly following what the government tells them. Bullshit. There are a lot of poor people in China. But they're not stupid, mindless government drones incapable of free thought.
Which is sometimes more than we can say about the West. This particular view of communist, oppressive, anti-rights China is very much a Western one, and in many ways it has merit, because let's face it, the Chinese government isn't exactly full of angels, and the communist party's history there is not one of sterling uprightness and fluffy bunnies and such.
But one thing I hope West will just get over is the feeling that since we live in America, land of democracy and perfection, we can trust the government and media. We can let them tell us how we should think about "Red China", because there's no significant government oversight in what the media says at all. We are free of propaganda and brainwashing, because our free, democratic governments would NEVER do something like that.
So to sum up, I do not completely disagree with the things you say, but it looks like you're subscribing wholesale and rather blindly to the Western media view on communist China, and I wanted to add a different perspective. Things are not great, but things are not as BBC tells it either (just look at their coverage of the Tibet riots), and it's time we started questioning our own media, here in the West, and holding it up to the same standards and microscopes we apply to such heavily censored, oppressive regimes as "Red China."
Exactly, this is how slippery slope arguments work. Allow something, and then the next logical step becomes...
They may as well skip to the next next logical step and get DNA samples from everybody. That's better than targeting. What the hell does it mean to a 5-year old kid when the government says, "We think you're going to be a criminal?"
Any video clips of this on, say, Youtube?
I'm interested in seeing it. Speaking "a little English" and "a little Chinese" does not create a language of the people...it sounds pretty outlandish, if you ask me.
Well, you see, the guy who originally retorted with "The Pond" incorrectly assumed that the guy who retorted, "You Americans..." was from England, so the latter guy responded to the "The Pond" guy by correcting him. Which makes *your* retort baseless....I think.
"Boeing's reason for not testing is that fine carbon powder released by a tension breakage would contaminate and destroy expensive equipment and require hazmat cleaning procedures afterwards. Imagine if a B787 crashes real-life, what pollution would be there! Carbon fibre shards and powder are known dangerous to lungs, carbon brake discs are about to be banned from Formula-1 car races because many drivers are already ill. I think Boeing is doing an ugly thing purely for profit and fate will punih them."
Yes, too bad they didn't read the history books and foolishly chose to use the name of one of history's most accomplished conquerors , after whose names all subsequent rulers of the Roman Empire styled their own...you know, they really should've read their history books...what kind of fool would associate "Caesar" with power and leadership, anyway?
... realized he was an 11-year-old boy, complete with squeaky, prepubescent vocal chords. When he laughed, his voice shot up abruptly into an octave range that induced headaches and probably killed any dogs within earshot. Oh, and he used "motherfucker" about four times a sentence, except when his mother came into his bedroom to check on him.
I still enjoyed questing with him -- he was a terrific World of Warcraft player. But there's no doubt that hearing each other's voices abruptly changed our social milieu. He seemed equally weirded out by me -- a 38-year-old guy who undoubtedly sounds more like his father than anyone he recognizes as a "gamer." After an hour of this, we all politely logged off and never hooked up again.
It may be commonly used, but virii is stupid. Where did it come from? People trying to look knowledgeable about latin? Then viri makes sense; you know, because it's the plural of the actual latin word "virus" (which means 'man,' not virus or bug or anything even closely related). VIRUSES. IT'S NOT A DAMN LATIN WORD, PEOPLE.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, I see that the mods have become quite tasteless.
The real tragedy of this world is that you can make such an insensitive comment and be modded +5 insightful.
Yeah, the video doesn't have much in it. I know how much y'all wanted to see buildings cave and people die. I mean, whoever got a hold of that video, what WERE they thinking, not editing it? It's almost like they had something more pressing at hand; oh wait.
There are bigger problems in China than your concept of "freedom". Such as staking out a decent living. If you think the Chinese people look at their government and say, "Well, gee, don't we have a swell government? They tell us so, better believe them!" then I think you have a very badly misconceived notion of China.
Maybe I do too, but I get the sense that in China, the people aren't exactly giggles over the government. It's more of a bitter sentiment, and deservedly so, because when has the government really taken to looking after its populace? There's more problems with corruption than with not being able to vote (I won't look up the turnout numbers on American elections).
Look, the Chinese aren't stupid. In America, we tend to think, "Well, gosh, they have a Communist government with a state-owned media" and consider everyone to be poor brainwashed souls. I really do not think so - and I may be wrong, of course - but I really don't feel that the Chinese rely on the media for truth, for good journalism, for ways to think. Again, it's a kind of bitterness that comes along with a government you can't depend on to look out for what's best for its people.
Honestly, I think that media dependence (for ideas, general conceptions, etc) is more true in America. Wake up, guys! Our western media is not exactly a glorious, unbiased bastion of truth. Your last paragraph smacks of reliance on nebulous, preconceived Western impressions, not of experience.
Millions of people already see a glimpse of the outside world. Television. KFC. Expose itself to Western culture in a way it hasn't previously? Western culture is ALL over the place. What will likely is happen is the people of Beijing will be like, "psh. *AMERICANS*." Unfortunately, we (America) aren't that popular around the world these days. Even if we are glorious and full of freedom, we also have kind of a recent history of being an arrogant state trying to police the world. Founded or not, that's another argument, but anyway.
Here's what the Olympics will NOT do: help out Beijing's denizens. It's all for show, to show off the mighty progress of the government and the pride of China. What it really does is make life a lot harder for the millions of denizens who are going to face roads being blocked off or reserved, incredible travel restrictions into and out of the city, etc. The LAST thing I expect these millions of people to do is go all starry eyed and think, "Wow! These westerners! There is just so much to learn from them and their culture." Just another difficulty the people endure at the hands of a government that, while you could say is slowly improving, doesn't hold the people as a high priority.
hey! how come this is more insightful than the first is funny? :-P
[+]Peter Jackson Will Not Be Making The Hobbit 467 comments
...Coincidence?
[+] New Hope for Jackson Hobbit Film? 268 comments
But then, African swallows are non-migratory.
We gripped it by the husk. It's a simple matter of weight ratios, really.
I think you misunderstood me, and that we do have common ground.
First, the Chinese government, in pretty much all its history, has demonstrated a detestable lack of concern for its citizens...the lao bai xing. I am not apologizing for it in any way. There needs to be a LOT MORE reform. But it is what it is - and it's not what it's not. This is where my protest with the West's media presentation of China lies.
Second, that statement was an opinion, not rooted in a sense of "we're special and different, 'cos we're Asia." Rather, it's only because China has such a large population. Public elections? I don't see it. I really don't see that as a viable system in China. I could be wrong, but given the population, and the makeup of it, I really do not see democracy working - or being accepted, though that's a different question.
I was commenting *solely* on the matter of voting. It seems, to me, that a lot of people think, "Oh, why doesn't China just overthrow their government and introduce a democracy." Obviously I don't think people see this as a feasible or likely thing to happen, but when it's expressed as a wish, I think they're just missing the point entirely. There is a lot of poverty in China. A lot of corruption - among the wealthy, among those in power. There's a heck of a lot more to worry about than whether or not the people have voting rights like we do in America.
I absolutely agree. It seems the Chinese government operates under control freak philosophy. Everything is about controlling the people, and that's just not right, in my opinion, or sustainable. And that's something that, IMO, seriously needs fixing.
Since you bring up Tibet though, I think it's worth bringing up what a horrifyingly shameless job the western media has done covering this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that there's been shooting of the Tibetan rioters. I also can't comment on the Tibetans' claim to freedom, because honestly I don't know a whole lot about that situation. I'm sure there are valid points to both sides, as in most arguments about "whose land is it really?"
But what is *actually* happening? Let's see. Rioters - I, personally, don't care much just what their ethnicity is - are burning stores. Completely innocent people are being burned alive. No doubt there's ethnic tension fueling this (Tibetan stores were marked with white flags to indicate they should be spared), but it doesn't matter to me who's targeting who, but more what is going on. People are destroying buildings, destroying families, destroying lives.
If this kind of thing happened in the US - or any society with any sense of law and order - the objective observer, I think, would say the military has got to bring the situation under control. Instead, the police and military are scared to act, because it's a PR nightmare, and indeed, you have all these people calling for boycotts of the Olympic ceremonies and crying human rights violations. This is just plain wrong - people are dying in the streets; people, defenseless and innocent, dying or getting injured in some pretty brutal ways. But that's not at all of concern to the Western media, which is strange, given how much we value that inalienable right to life. No, what's of concern is this brutal police state cracking down on protesters. 'Protesters.' Let's make sure we all call o
^ Please don't read the above. Holy cow, I'm sorry, I didn't notice I had "HTML formatted" turned on. -_-
Here it is in paragraphs.
---
The idea that democracy is the model of perfection for government is one that's just plain wrong, but one that's also taken completely for granted, no questions asked, most of the time.
I am not saying that the US model is bad. It's not.
But you seem to be saying that China, if it were informed and its people not repressed enough, obviously would trend towards democracy because democracy just rocks so much.
Do you really think that a democracy is all that feasible for a country of China's population? Yeah, India is a democracy. And India is also a budding world power, isn't it?
I think there are a lot of points that need to be made here. First: "Red China" is not communist except in name. China's economy is not growing the way it has been by being communist. You seem to assume that since the media calls it "communist" China all the time, that companies are all state-owned. I'm no expert on the particulars, but I do believe that is false.
Also, there is a huge disparity in well-off-ness, particularly as you go from the cities to the rural areas. This is very, um, communist.
The majority of the Chinese don't put much cred into things the government tells them. Let's move away from the traditional western view of those pitiable, brainwashed, and oppressed Chinese populace, mindlessly following what the government tells them. Bullshit. There are a lot of poor people in China. But they're not stupid, mindless government drones incapable of free thought.
Which is sometimes more than we can say about the West. This particular view of communist, oppressive, anti-rights China is very much a Western one, and in many ways it has merit, because let's face it, the Chinese government isn't exactly full of angels, and the communist party's history there is not one of sterling uprightness and fluffy bunnies and such.
But one thing I hope West will just get over is the feeling that since we live in America, land of democracy and perfection, we can trust the government and media. We can let them tell us how we should think about "Red China", because there's no significant government oversight in what the media says at all. We are free of propaganda and brainwashing, because our free, democratic governments would NEVER do something like that.
So to sum up, I do not completely disagree with the things you say, but it looks like you're subscribing wholesale and rather blindly to the Western media view on communist China, and I wanted to add a different perspective. Things are not great, but things are not as BBC tells it either (just look at their coverage of the Tibet riots), and it's time we started questioning our own media, here in the West, and holding it up to the same standards and microscopes we apply to such heavily censored, oppressive regimes as "Red China."
The idea that democracy is the model of perfection for government is one that's just plain wrong, but one that's also taken completely for granted, no questions asked, most of the time. I am not saying that the US model is bad. It's not. But you seem to be saying that China, if it were informed and its people not repressed enough, obviously would trend towards democracy because democracy just rocks so much. Do you really think that a democracy is all that feasible for a country of China's population? Yeah, India is a democracy. And India is also a budding world power, isn't it? I think there are a lot of points that need to be made here. First: "Red China" is not communist except in name. China's economy is not growing the way it has been by being communist. You seem to assume that since the media calls it "communist" China all the time, that companies are all state-owned. I'm no expert on the particulars, but I do believe that is false. Also, there is a huge disparity in well-off-ness, particularly as you go from the cities to the rural areas. This is very, um, communist. The majority of the Chinese don't put much cred into things the government tells them. Let's move away from the traditional western view of those pitiable, brainwashed, and oppressed Chinese populace, mindlessly following what the government tells them. Bullshit. There are a lot of poor people in China. But they're not stupid, mindless government drones incapable of free thought. Which is sometimes more than we can say about the West. This particular view of communist, oppressive, anti-rights China is very much a Western one, and in many ways it has merit, because let's face it, the Chinese government isn't exactly full of angels, and the communist party's history there is not one of sterling uprightness and fluffy bunnies and such. But one thing I hope West will just get over is the feeling that since we live in America, land of democracy and perfection, we can trust the government and media. We can let them tell us how we should think about "Red China", because there's no significant government oversight in what the media says at all. We are free of propaganda and brainwashing, because our free, democratic governments would NEVER do something like that. So to sum up, I do not completely disagree with the things you say, but it looks like you're subscribing wholesale and rather blindly to the Western media view on communist China, and I wanted to add a different perspective. Things are not great, but things are not as BBC tells it either (just look at their coverage of the Tibet riots), and it's time we started questioning our own media, here in the West, and holding it up to the same standards and microscopes we apply to such heavily censored, oppressive regimes as "Red China."
Exactly, this is how slippery slope arguments work. Allow something, and then the next logical step becomes... They may as well skip to the next next logical step and get DNA samples from everybody. That's better than targeting. What the hell does it mean to a 5-year old kid when the government says, "We think you're going to be a criminal?"
*sigh*...
LUDICROUS. Someone needs to lay off the "listening to hip-hop music" addiction.
Any video clips of this on, say, Youtube? I'm interested in seeing it. Speaking "a little English" and "a little Chinese" does not create a language of the people...it sounds pretty outlandish, if you ask me.
"At least"? ....now he won't have future children. Yeah, 'at least' he didn't have it in his pants pocket, right?
I'm fairly certain that UAVs are way beyond the scope of the challenge.
The problem is that it's broken _by_design_, isn't it? And the TFA did mention alternatives which do the same thing, but without the dangers.
Yeah. You're correct on "gao shou" (), but I'd be surprised if 'gosu' wasn't an actual korean word.
Well, you see, the guy who originally retorted with "The Pond" incorrectly assumed that the guy who retorted, "You Americans..." was from England, so the latter guy responded to the "The Pond" guy by correcting him. Which makes *your* retort baseless....I think.
Maybe so. I would not really know myself, so it's good you point it out.
From comments at http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/06/the-new -boeing-.html
"Boeing's reason for not testing is that fine carbon powder released by a tension breakage would contaminate and destroy expensive equipment and require hazmat cleaning procedures afterwards. Imagine if a B787 crashes real-life, what pollution would be there! Carbon fibre shards and powder are known dangerous to lungs, carbon brake discs are about to be banned from Formula-1 car races because many drivers are already ill. I think Boeing is doing an ugly thing purely for profit and fate will punih them."
Yeah....at least Microsoft doesn't take pictures of my living room cat.
Hey, Bitter much?
Yes, too bad they didn't read the history books and foolishly chose to use the name of one of history's most accomplished conquerors , after whose names all subsequent rulers of the Roman Empire styled their own...you know, they really should've read their history books...what kind of fool would associate "Caesar" with power and leadership, anyway?
If it's 3rd declension, that would give vires, right?
It may be commonly used, but virii is stupid. Where did it come from? People trying to look knowledgeable about latin? Then viri makes sense; you know, because it's the plural of the actual latin word "virus" (which means 'man,' not virus or bug or anything even closely related). VIRUSES. IT'S NOT A DAMN LATIN WORD, PEOPLE.