I'm paying about 60 USD (SEK 349) a month for uncapped 24/3 DSL, but that includes the phone line and wifi modem/router. Can't get cable or fibre where I'm living right now. My only complaint is that all my machines have public IPs, which makes communications between machines within what ought to be my LAN slower and less secure.
In Brisbane, I was paying about AUD 125 (about SEK 700) - also including phone line - for 3/1 capped at 10GB down per month.
Perhaps until the backbone in Japan is updated to uncap upload speeds, the right answer would be to throttle bit rates for anyone who has uploaded more than 20 gigabytes in a particular month?
Huh? Why should they do that (and why should their customers stand for it) when they've just told people they can upload 900 GB per month?
Trying to sell something and hope that the customer won't use it is at the very least false advertising. Personally, I'd call it fraud. Perhaps you would. Some people, however, find that it suits their purposes to refer to it as "marketing".
Montana for many years said only that one must maintain a "reasonable and prudent speed", and only set a numeric limit in the 1970s. However, speed limits (elsewhere) in the USA are much older than that. Existing speed limits were lowered in many cases in the 1970s, but that's not the same thing.
NO one believed in the negotiation between KMT and CCP, including the US government. This statement can be trivially disproven.
Furthermore, I said nothing about anyone's intelligence (or lack thereof). Being smart is not necessarily proof against making mistakes. Neither is being in a position of power.
The fact remains that the US government threatened to withhold aid from Chiang if he didn't negotiate.
If you really know Chinese history, you know that actually they believed in what they were doing at the time. It's like the Nazi's in Germany. The ideology just swept up an entire country that was starving and pissed off and it was how they thought they could make things better. Political power came from the barrel of a gun, just as Mao said it did.
How come you imply that I'm engaging in character assassination, but fail to address my thesis - that the West - most notably the US - mistakenly believed that a compromise with Mao could be reached?
I - unlike you, I suspect - do not view history as something written to suit a particular political agenda.
BTW, Roosevelt wasn't a general. And he'd been dead for a year or more by the time the Americans started forcing Chiang to negotiate.
Buddhism neither accepts or denies the existence of any gods... Yes, and that requirement makes them atheists, because that actually denies the existence of a god in the same sense atheism does. It does not do anything of the sort.
Atheism = "There is definitely no such thing as [a] God[s]."
Buddhism says, "Whether or not any God[s] exist[s] is irrelevant."
"Su" means "yours" No it doesn't. Yes it does - well, if you want to be pedantic about it, "su" is "your" (possessive of "Usted") and "yours" (predicate form) is "suyo" or "suya".
Buddhists, for example, are atheists... Buddhism neither accepts or denies the existence of any gods. All it says is that, if that any do exist, then they are subject to the same laws of karma that any other being is.
Well... in a sense, the whole China has already adopted the "one county two systems" policy... This is exactly what I was alluding to.
We certainly can't rely on what the Chinese government tells us, but it is just about as risky to rely on accusations from these movement groups. Agreed.
...these really aren't our matter, other than their entertainment values to us. Here we diverge. I don't dismiss the suffering of others as "entertainment". But trying to slap the Chinese government with Tibet and expecting instant results from this, as is being done right now, is not the way to go about persuading Beijing to make changes.
Are you actually trying to argue with me, or are you perhaps just looking for an axe to grind? I don't see how you're actually addressing any of my points, much less negating any of them.
To tar the KMT and the CCP with the same brush is, I think, a gross oversimplification.
...the Chinese Nationalists (the Chinese KMT) had the same Stalinist training as the Communists and their power structure was an authoritarian one party-state monster that the Communists also later evolved into. As I said, Chiang was no angel. Yes, he had people shot and did some other things that weren't terribly nice.
The Kuomintang were decidely militaristic, and I never said they weren't either of those things. I'll even grant the "fascist" label. But - any assistance that Chiang might have had in the early days from the Russians notwithstanding - the KMT were not Stalinist (or even Marxist).
...Chiang was more interested in killing Communists than stopping the rape and pillage of China by the Japanese. Perhaps. But the Nationalists bore the brunt of the fight against the Japanese, and Communists did almost nothing in that regard.
...[Chiang] had all the room and power to implement his ideas of an "ideal state". Can you honestly say with a straight face that, had Chiang won in 1949, he would have reorganised China into a vast slave-labour camp and set about systematically to eradicate Chinese culture like Mao did?
My own outlook tends towards the Marxist/Socialist end of the spectrum, but I'd have to say that, given a choice of living in Mao's China or in Chiang's, I'd be inclined to take my chances with the latter.
And how did the West get repaid for taking that stance and helping to liberate China? With the Chinese intervention against the United Nations (not just the United States) during the Korean War. The US helped "liberate" China in such a fashion that it pretty much handed the country to Mao on a silver platter. American leaders were foolish enough to swallow propaganda pieces like Red Star Over China and so thought that the Communists were a little rough, but they were basically nice guys who were concerned with workers' and peasants' rights. (Some of them probably were, but by then Mao was in control, and he was not a nice guy at all.) In that mistaken belief, the Americans twisted Chiang Kai-Shek's arm (by threatening to withhold aid) until he agreed to continue co-operating with the Reds rather than mopping the floor with them when he had the chance.
Not that Chiang was exactly an angel, either, but - had the Chinese Civil War played out differently - the country might have been spared a generation having its soul ripped from it as a hyper-Stalinist slave-labour state. But I digress.
While support of the right of Tibetans to national and cultural self-determination is laudable, one must also have some recognition of China's recent history. The Chinese are very sensitive to anything they perceive as an attempt to divide (or even dismember) their country. This perception is quite understandable, given the number of foreign colonies, puppet states, spheres of influence, and disvestitures that China saw in the 19th and 20th centuries. They're not anxious to see Tibet become another Mongolia (which exists as an independent country today only because Josef Stalin wanted to be able to station troops within 500 km of Beijing) or Manchukuo (Japanese puppet régime in North China).
Given the circumstances - rather than demand Tibetan independence - I think that a much more reasonable solution would be encourage China to adopt a 'one country, different systems' policy similar to how it has handled Macau and Hong Kong, where I've personally had the opportunity to see Falun Gong meetings taking place, in the open and unmolested, within sight of the PRC flag flying over Bauhinia Square.
How many Turkish language spam messages have you got recently in your mailbox? Now that you mention it, it's gone from zero to about 5-10 per day over the last 6 weeks or so. I've been wondering how these are managing to slip through the company's spam filters (which are normally pretty good) as well as my own Baynesian filtering, which seems for some odd reason not to be very trainable when it comes to these.
And what the hell is wrong with primitives, anyways? Everything doesn't need to be an object. Maybe not, but in JavaScript, everything is an object - including what most people think are "primitives".
Can someone with a better knowledge of XML can explain to me (I'm an infrastructure guy) why the OOXML 'standard' is 6000 pages? Surely a DTD defining a document format should be relatively simple - Doc Title goes here, body text here, format info here, etc.
I thought the whole point of XML is that it's effectively self documenting - simply publishing the XML DTD should suffice. I can't see how this should be more than 10's of pages. Am I being too simplistic? ODF is actually defined using a Relax-NG schema, but that's admittedly a bit of nit-picking.:)
Defining structures for several different sorts of documents (which need to interoperate with one another) is a bit more complex than perhaps you make it out to be, but even so, such a spec does ultimately reduce to the sort of thing you're talking about.
In addition, "self-documenting" is a nice theory, but in practise, things do sometimes need to be explained - we expect C or Java code to be commented, and the same is true for XML. (Why else would computer languages even have provisions for making comments?)
Those things being said, the ODF spec, which includes the entire 18,000-line schema, is a little over 700 pages long. (At 60 lines per page, that means the schema itself probably takes up about 300 pages of that.)
The OOXML spec requires nearly ten times that. Even with the assumption that half of that difference is due to MS' admittedly considerable experience with office documents, that's still enough leftover cruft for nearly five ODF specifications.
I can see it is the truth! Please. You'll have to do much better than that. I can say that there's a UFO hovering over my apartment block, but it's going to take a bit more than my say-so to convince people.
Like the Chinese media aren't heavily censored/manipulated?
The site is www.anti-cnn.com, BTW, and it's interesting to note that it links to a bunch of videos at YouTube - which (in case you missed it) is blocked in China.
Slashdot Mirror
IOW: Occam, meet razor.
Wow! Your UID is OVER 9000!!!
And yours is NULL - your point being...?
I'm paying about 60 USD (SEK 349) a month for uncapped 24/3 DSL, but that includes the phone line and wifi modem/router. Can't get cable or fibre where I'm living right now. My only complaint is that all my machines have public IPs, which makes communications between machines within what ought to be my LAN slower and less secure.
In Brisbane, I was paying about AUD 125 (about SEK 700) - also including phone line - for 3/1 capped at 10GB down per month.
Perhaps until the backbone in Japan is updated to uncap upload speeds, the right answer would be to throttle bit rates for anyone who has uploaded more than 20 gigabytes in a particular month?
Huh? Why should they do that (and why should their customers stand for it) when they've just told people they can upload 900 GB per month?
I guess I must be new here.
I moved from Australia to Sweden last year.
Me: "What's my bandwidth cap?"
Swedish ISP Tech Support Guy: "What's a 'bandwidth cap'?"
Me: :)
...their companies' buildings leveled in the most hostile manner possible and their business licenses revoked.
...their companies' buildings levelled, their business licenses revoked, and the traces ploughed over with salt.
There. Fixed that for you. :)
Montana for many years said only that one must maintain a "reasonable and prudent speed", and only set a numeric limit in the 1970s. However, speed limits (elsewhere) in the USA are much older than that. Existing speed limits were lowered in many cases in the 1970s, but that's not the same thing.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States for more info.
May I be the first to say:
Whooosh
There's something stopping you from downloading FF2 and untarring it into your ~/bin, if that's what you prefer to use?
Furthermore, I said nothing about anyone's intelligence (or lack thereof). Being smart is not necessarily proof against making mistakes. Neither is being in a position of power.
The fact remains that the US government threatened to withhold aid from Chiang if he didn't negotiate.
How come you imply that I'm engaging in character assassination, but fail to address my thesis - that the West - most notably the US - mistakenly believed that a compromise with Mao could be reached?
I - unlike you, I suspect - do not view history as something written to suit a particular political agenda.
BTW, Roosevelt wasn't a general. And he'd been dead for a year or more by the time the Americans started forcing Chiang to negotiate.
Atheism = "There is definitely no such thing as [a] God[s]."
Buddhism says, "Whether or not any God[s] exist[s] is irrelevant."
These are not the same thing at all.
Russia also inherited the USSR's nukes.
(You don't think those conveniently "just went away", do you?)
...these really aren't our matter, other than their entertainment values to us. Here we diverge. I don't dismiss the suffering of others as "entertainment". But trying to slap the Chinese government with Tibet and expecting instant results from this, as is being done right now, is not the way to go about persuading Beijing to make changes.Are you actually trying to argue with me, or are you perhaps just looking for an axe to grind? I don't see how you're actually addressing any of my points, much less negating any of them.
To tar the KMT and the CCP with the same brush is, I think, a gross oversimplification.
...the Chinese Nationalists (the Chinese KMT) had the same Stalinist training as the Communists and their power structure was an authoritarian one party-state monster that the Communists also later evolved into. As I said, Chiang was no angel. Yes, he had people shot and did some other things that weren't terribly nice.The Kuomintang were decidely militaristic, and I never said they weren't either of those things. I'll even grant the "fascist" label. But - any assistance that Chiang might have had in the early days from the Russians notwithstanding - the KMT were not Stalinist (or even Marxist).
...Chiang was more interested in killing Communists than stopping the rape and pillage of China by the Japanese. Perhaps. But the Nationalists bore the brunt of the fight against the Japanese, and Communists did almost nothing in that regard.
...[Chiang] had all the room and power to implement his ideas of an "ideal state". Can you honestly say with a straight face that, had Chiang won in 1949, he would have reorganised China into a vast slave-labour camp and set about systematically to eradicate Chinese culture like Mao did?My own outlook tends towards the Marxist/Socialist end of the spectrum, but I'd have to say that, given a choice of living in Mao's China or in Chiang's, I'd be inclined to take my chances with the latter.
Not that Chiang was exactly an angel, either, but - had the Chinese Civil War played out differently - the country might have been spared a generation having its soul ripped from it as a hyper-Stalinist slave-labour state. But I digress.
While support of the right of Tibetans to national and cultural self-determination is laudable, one must also have some recognition of China's recent history. The Chinese are very sensitive to anything they perceive as an attempt to divide (or even dismember) their country. This perception is quite understandable, given the number of foreign colonies, puppet states, spheres of influence, and disvestitures that China saw in the 19th and 20th centuries. They're not anxious to see Tibet become another Mongolia (which exists as an independent country today only because Josef Stalin wanted to be able to station troops within 500 km of Beijing) or Manchukuo (Japanese puppet régime in North China).
Given the circumstances - rather than demand Tibetan independence - I think that a much more reasonable solution would be encourage China to adopt a 'one country, different systems' policy similar to how it has handled Macau and Hong Kong, where I've personally had the opportunity to see Falun Gong meetings taking place, in the open and unmolested, within sight of the PRC flag flying over Bauhinia Square.
Number.prototype.sqrt = function() {
return Math.sqrt(this.valueOf());
}
alert( (2).sqrt() );
I thought the whole point of XML is that it's effectively self documenting - simply publishing the XML DTD should suffice. I can't see how this should be more than 10's of pages. Am I being too simplistic? ODF is actually defined using a Relax-NG schema, but that's admittedly a bit of nit-picking.
Defining structures for several different sorts of documents (which need to interoperate with one another) is a bit more complex than perhaps you make it out to be, but even so, such a spec does ultimately reduce to the sort of thing you're talking about.
In addition, "self-documenting" is a nice theory, but in practise, things do sometimes need to be explained - we expect C or Java code to be commented, and the same is true for XML. (Why else would computer languages even have provisions for making comments?)
Those things being said, the ODF spec, which includes the entire 18,000-line schema, is a little over 700 pages long. (At 60 lines per page, that means the schema itself probably takes up about 300 pages of that.)
The OOXML spec requires nearly ten times that. Even with the assumption that half of that difference is due to MS' admittedly considerable experience with office documents, that's still enough leftover cruft for nearly five ODF specifications.
It does kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Like the Chinese media aren't heavily censored/manipulated?
The site is www.anti-cnn.com, BTW, and it's interesting to note that it links to a bunch of videos at YouTube - which (in case you missed it) is blocked in China.