It's Israel's attempt to allow the civilians to leave before the start of bombing. Obviously, it's a risky thing to do for the reason you state: it gives advance warning to the terrorists also. However, the alternative, to just bomb civilian-occupied areas without warning, is rejected by Israel.
In part, this is justifiable by Israel's limited goals in Lebanon. If the terrorists leave the south, and move to a distance beyond which they can no longer land their rocket bombs into Israel's cities, it would meet the primary goal of the incursion.
However, Hezbollah thrives on civilian casualties and deaths. The term for this is "radicalization". Simply stated, Hezbollah is betting that if "the world" sees that civilians are suffering at the hands of Israel, then "the world" will become angry at Israel, and not at Hezbollah, despite the fact that Hezbollah has located their arsenals and fighters smack in the middle (and underneath, in bunkers) of the civilian population of Lebanon. Hezbollah fires their rockets from the civilian areas. Ambulances have been used in the past to secretly transport their munitions.
As expected, this strategy is working for much of "the world", which is calling for Israel to stop their "aggression", rather than calling for the immediate disarming, arrest, and trial of the Hezbollah terrorist groups.
Hezbollah targets Israel's citizens; it promises to destroy Haifa and Tel Aviv. Remember that there are numerous civilians, including women, children, and elderly living in Haifa and Tel Aviv. Those are Hezbollah's stated targets.
Somehow, someone got at least the following personal information about me, to attempt this attack:
What bank my credit card was with.
Card type (VISA, MCRD, AMEX, etc).
My name.
My phone number.
Although they did indeed need your name and phone number (actually, maybe not even those, if they autodialed incrementally or randomly and just didn't bother to use your name, but that would have probably been too big a tipoff to the ripoff).
For bank and card type, all they need to do is say ${some-big-bank} and ${some-widely-used-credit-card}; around here, Citibank VISA would work fine. If you don't happen to have a Citibank VISA card, they just hangup and dial the next mark.
Spam via VoIP is an interesting thought, but how about the more immediate threat of someone, say in some remote country, cloning my SIP and using that to make a load of international phone calls? This would run up my bill very quickly, and every VoIP provider I've checked requires that the account be tied to a credit card. My guess is that if this has already happened, it's been hushed by the VoIP provider, which covered the startled customer's bill to avoid bad publicity. And if it hasn't yet happened, I expect that it will. Who will be on the hook?
P.S.: Yahoo! said in the article that they don't even known the nature of the investigation when they get a request for data. It could be a journalist being investigated for publishing information the government doesn't want people to know, or it could be a homocidal maniac that likes to wear heads as hats. Either way, they don't know.
Well, Yahoo! could ask.
They could demand a written, official request.
They could do what "news media" are expected to do when "authorities" demand the name of a source for clearly political (as opposed to "capturing a serial killer") reasons.
D'oh! Yahoo!
China: Yahoo!, here boy! Gimme his name, boy!
Yahoo: Why, China? Is he a serial killer on the loose?
China: Gimme.
Yahoo: Did he shoot students in Tiananmen Square?
China: Gimme. Gimme. Gimme.
Yahoo: Who wants it, anyhow? You got a warrant, China?
China: Gimme now!
Yahoo: OK. Here.
China: Shieh-shieh Yahoo!Dog. Have a biscuit.
Yahoo: Mmmmmmmm. Mung-Fu! My favorite!
A girl I work with mentioned she had a MySpace page so I decided to look it up when I got home (she wanted us to). Trying to find it I stumbled upon another girl's page that works in the same office. On her page she says that she is bi-sexual. I (like an idiot) repeated to someone that her page said she was "bi" and it got out everywhere. She was upset, I don't blame her. But if she wanted the world to know, they why can't I tell a few people? I explained to her that she should expect people to find out - she published the information on the internets!!!
No matter, she was lying on her MySpace page. After it was all said and done, I 'outed' a straight girl.
Nah, she probably just told you that because it seemed simpler than telling you that she didn't want you to be part of some afterwork threesome.
At my employer, as with many companies these days, the health insurance that's offered to employees has changed from a standard insurance provider like Blue Cross (just for example), to "Self-Insured", under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a.k.a., "ERISA".
What this means, besides the loss of virtually all state-mandated consumer protection in the area of medical reimbursement (because ERISA supercedes all that), is that now, instead of a 3rd party insurer getting my medical billing info, and keeping my employer at least an arm's length away from it, my employer gets to see it all.
So what's the point of "Medical Privacy Laws" if the information is specifically made available to the very people one would probably want to not have access to it?
Look at wikipedia - just how successful do you think they'll be in China now that they're officially blocked??? Exact same thing would happen to Yahoo!
So what? Especially when people, both Chinese and non-Chinese get to view the magnificent Bu-Wikipedia (the "Not-Wikipedia"), and laugh at it, much as they would if presented with one of the "Golden Books" series that was such a popular supermarket sales item here not so long ago.
Let China develop their own censored applications. But don't give them censored versions of the real thing, with strings attached that send people to jail for using your vaunted Yahoo service. This is reverse-outsourcing of the worst kind - Yahoo has become an in-house spy for China.
I often try the famous Fred Brooks, Jr. quote (seldom to much success):
'Software entities are more complex for their size than perhaps any other human construct because no two parts are alike (at least above the statement level). If they are, we make the two similar parts into a subroutine--open or closed. In this respect, software systems differ profoundly from computers, buildings, or automobiles, where repeated elements abound.'
See, that's the problem, and it's the programmers that caused it. Stop making subroutines. Monolithic code be da shizzle on da bizzle.
I never signed up with BlueFrog (in fact, the first I heard of them was when a few pieces of the current spam flood made it into my mailbox at work). So my guess is that any claim to have obtained the membership list is a bogus claim by the spammer(s) responsible for the current flood. My 2-cents, FWIW.
youngerpants writes:
I recently had to travel to North Korea (don't ask... work related) much as I had to travel to the former Soviet Union, and billboards are noticeable by their absence. These places look dull. Even though we have advertising forced on us 90% of the time advertisements are (usually) asthetically pleasing, vibrant and a sign of economic growth.
North Korea doesn't need billboards. Isn't that the land where every home has a broadcast receiver that they can turn down, but not completely (shades of "1984"), continuously bombarding them with government-provided idealogically uplifting content? When I read about that, it made me very sad for the people there.
Waffle Iron writes:
When did you ever own the content displayed on your TV by broadcasers?
The instant it enters my house.
The only thing that I don't own is the right to prevent people (including myself) from making further copies in most cases. That's the only thing that the producer owns, but most people have been hoodwinked into believing that the producer somehow owns something beyond that.
That argument doesn't appear to hold water in the case of encrypted satellite broadcast content.
As I understand it, the law specifies that although the radio waves are being propagated through your head, et al., you aren't allowed to decrypt it unless you pay the provider for the privilege. That angers me; I can't turn off broadcast transmissions. My own TV, I can turn that off.
I've seen that with many ISPs - and I still do not understand why. As long as I'm paying the ISP for the bandwidth, it should be my problem what I do with it. I can decide to use it all, or I can decide to share it with my friends - my call.
The reason why is simple: profit. The same reason that some DSL, cable Internet, and cellular phone providers advertise "unlimited usage", but in the fine print note that "unlimited" is some (possibly specified) fairly large number, which, if it is exceeded by the customer, may result in additional charges and/or revocation of the contract.
I think that companies that make such offers warrant penalties under the various laws prohibiting misleading advertising, but so far I don't think that any has been so far successfully challenged.
They should have an assignment that each student rob, or break into a bank. Any attemps to break into school secured areas would result in immediate suspension.
Don't you think that suspension would be a bit harsh just for robbing the school's Bursar's Office?
The first of the three TFAs cited in the original post concludes with what strikes me as the most essential question regarding "contributing back to Apple":
Even now, we are going through yet another cycle of losing access that we once had. With the release of Mac OS X for x86 processors, Apple has chosen to not release source to key components of the OS, such as the kernel and all drivers. This means Darwin/x86 is dead in the water; Darwin/ppc has many closed source components and is a deprecated architecture. One has to wonder why Apple even bothers to release non-GPL'd source at all, if it is unwilling to cooperate with external developers to increase their return on investment and accept external bug fixes and features. Even worse, one has to wonder why people would want to donate their time to such a fruitless and pointless cause.
I accept the existence of an altruism that motivates people to contribute to philanthropic organizations, and to help those who are less fortunate, but to contribute one's time to a megabuck for-profit corporation? Please.
An erratum to my own post: the decimal points were omitted after HTML processing, e.g., (1 -dot-in-center- 5) became (15) instead of (1.5).
The above quote should read:
Findings
The risk of death was estimated to be 2.5-fold (95% CI 1.6-4.2) higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period. Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 1.5-fold (1.1-2.3) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98000 more deaths than expected (8000-194000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included. The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8.1-419) than in the period before the war.
I'll pick the Lancet article you pointed to. Here is an excerpt:
Findings
The risk of death was estimated to be 25-fold (95% CI 16-42) higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period. Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 15-fold (11-23) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98000 more deaths than expected (8000-194000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included. The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 81-419) than in the period before the war.
Please note the sentence in boldface. Hiding in the parentheses, you will find the information that the "98000 excess deaths" figure is, within a 95 percent confidence interval, really somewhere between 8 and 194000. With a 95% CI supporting some value between 8 and 194000, how does one then conclude that the answer is "98000"? The average of the range of values supported by the chosen confidence interval is not the answer.
Kill tally: Approaching two million, including between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqis and between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranians killed during the Iran-Iraq War. An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000. Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared". No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shi'ite Muslims killed during Hussein's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shi'ites and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000). Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.
Perhaps you have some other favorite sources of Saddam's kill stats?
Nope, not the exact same thing. In this case, they provide a link explaining exactly what was removed and why. Do you think that China's censors allow them to provide the explanation Photos of armored tanks and dead protestors have been removed to comply with China's information policies regarding the Tiananmen incident.?
If it were just about face I wouldn't care much. What bugs me is that China now has Google providing them with two views of every search: they (the Chinese censors) can view the unfiltered results at US (or UK, etc.) Google, and then they can view the filtered results at Google.cn, compare the two, and tune their filtering.
Worse, the difference also gives them a quick way of skimming the list looking for Chinese operated rogue sites, so they can crack down on them faster.
Had Google not acceded to China's filtering demands, then China would be left developing this capability on their own, and, gee, the programmers working on that would have to be able to see all the unfiltered stuff in order to filter it. That might slow down the project a bit.
Slashdot Mirror
It's Israel's attempt to allow the civilians to leave before the start of bombing. Obviously, it's a risky thing to do for the reason you state: it gives advance warning to the terrorists also. However, the alternative, to just bomb civilian-occupied areas without warning, is rejected by Israel.
In part, this is justifiable by Israel's limited goals in Lebanon. If the terrorists leave the south, and move to a distance beyond which they can no longer land their rocket bombs into Israel's cities, it would meet the primary goal of the incursion.
However, Hezbollah thrives on civilian casualties and deaths. The term for this is "radicalization". Simply stated, Hezbollah is betting that if "the world" sees that civilians are suffering at the hands of Israel, then "the world" will become angry at Israel, and not at Hezbollah, despite the fact that Hezbollah has located their arsenals and fighters smack in the middle (and underneath, in bunkers) of the civilian population of Lebanon. Hezbollah fires their rockets from the civilian areas. Ambulances have been used in the past to secretly transport their munitions.
As expected, this strategy is working for much of "the world", which is calling for Israel to stop their "aggression", rather than calling for the immediate disarming, arrest, and trial of the Hezbollah terrorist groups.
Hezbollah targets Israel's citizens; it promises to destroy Haifa and Tel Aviv. Remember that there are numerous civilians, including women, children, and elderly living in Haifa and Tel Aviv. Those are Hezbollah's stated targets.
The very prolific Anonymous Coward wrote:
Somehow, someone got at least the following personal information about me, to attempt this attack:
What bank my credit card was with.
Card type (VISA, MCRD, AMEX, etc).
My name.
My phone number.
Although they did indeed need your name and phone number (actually, maybe not even those, if they autodialed incrementally or randomly and just didn't bother to use your name, but that would have probably been too big a tipoff to the ripoff).
For bank and card type, all they need to do is say ${some-big-bank} and ${some-widely-used-credit-card}; around here, Citibank VISA would work fine. If you don't happen to have a Citibank VISA card, they just hangup and dial the next mark.
Spam via VoIP is an interesting thought, but how about the more immediate threat of someone, say in some remote country, cloning my SIP and using that to make a load of international phone calls? This would run up my bill very quickly, and every VoIP provider I've checked requires that the account be tied to a credit card. My guess is that if this has already happened, it's been hushed by the VoIP provider, which covered the startled customer's bill to avoid bad publicity. And if it hasn't yet happened, I expect that it will. Who will be on the hook?
The text above the images in TFA says "Click thumbnails for full-size image".
Do you think they really mean it this time?
Well, Yahoo! could ask.
They could demand a written, official request.
They could do what "news media" are expected to do when "authorities" demand the name of a source for clearly political (as opposed to "capturing a serial killer") reasons.
D'oh! Yahoo!
China: Yahoo!, here boy! Gimme his name, boy!
Yahoo: Why, China? Is he a serial killer on the loose?
China: Gimme.
Yahoo: Did he shoot students in Tiananmen Square?
China: Gimme. Gimme. Gimme.
Yahoo: Who wants it, anyhow? You got a warrant, China?
China: Gimme now!
Yahoo: OK. Here.
China: Shieh-shieh Yahoo!Dog. Have a biscuit.
Yahoo: Mmmmmmmm. Mung-Fu! My favorite!
A girl I work with mentioned she had a MySpace page so I decided to look it up when I got home (she wanted us to). Trying to find it I stumbled upon another girl's page that works in the same office. On her page she says that she is bi-sexual. I (like an idiot) repeated to someone that her page said she was "bi" and it got out everywhere. She was upset, I don't blame her. But if she wanted the world to know, they why can't I tell a few people? I explained to her that she should expect people to find out - she published the information on the internets!!!
No matter, she was lying on her MySpace page. After it was all said and done, I 'outed' a straight girl.
Nah, she probably just told you that because it seemed simpler than telling you that she didn't want you to be part of some afterwork threesome.
OK, yeah, I'm joking. Well, maybe not.
At my employer, as with many companies these days, the health insurance that's offered to employees has changed from a standard insurance provider like Blue Cross (just for example), to "Self-Insured", under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a.k.a., "ERISA".
What this means, besides the loss of virtually all state-mandated consumer protection in the area of medical reimbursement (because ERISA supercedes all that), is that now, instead of a 3rd party insurer getting my medical billing info, and keeping my employer at least an arm's length away from it, my employer gets to see it all.
So what's the point of "Medical Privacy Laws" if the information is specifically made available to the very people one would probably want to not have access to it?
Guess which country is a solid #1 for prisoners per capita?
Right. And according to your posted source, Cuba and Sudan are oh-so-pure at 0 prisoners per 100,000. Bad, bad, US. Bad US. Bad.
Look at wikipedia - just how successful do you think they'll be in China now that they're officially blocked??? Exact same thing would happen to Yahoo!
So what? Especially when people, both Chinese and non-Chinese get to view the magnificent Bu-Wikipedia (the "Not-Wikipedia"), and laugh at it, much as they would if presented with one of the "Golden Books" series that was such a popular supermarket sales item here not so long ago. Let China develop their own censored applications. But don't give them censored versions of the real thing, with strings attached that send people to jail for using your vaunted Yahoo service. This is reverse-outsourcing of the worst kind - Yahoo has become an in-house spy for China.
I often try the famous Fred Brooks, Jr. quote (seldom to much success):
'Software entities are more complex for their size than perhaps any other human construct because no two parts are alike (at least above the statement level). If they are, we make the two similar parts into a subroutine--open or closed. In this respect, software systems differ profoundly from computers, buildings, or automobiles, where repeated elements abound.'
See, that's the problem, and it's the programmers that caused it. Stop making subroutines. Monolithic code be da shizzle on da bizzle.
I never signed up with BlueFrog (in fact, the first I heard of them was when a few pieces of the current spam flood made it into my mailbox at work). So my guess is that any claim to have obtained the membership list is a bogus claim by the spammer(s) responsible for the current flood. My 2-cents, FWIW.
I'm not sure why TFM didn't link to AMD for their disclosure of the problem, but here it is: http://www.amd.com/us-en/0,,3715_13965,00.html
EntropyXP writes:
Now running Rinux
There is an "L" sound in Mandarin, so your "subject" is curious, though the intent is clear.
youngerpants writes:
I recently had to travel to North Korea (don't ask... work related) much as I had to travel to the former Soviet Union, and billboards are noticeable by their absence. These places look dull. Even though we have advertising forced on us 90% of the time advertisements are (usually) asthetically pleasing, vibrant and a sign of economic growth.
North Korea doesn't need billboards. Isn't that the land where every home has a broadcast receiver that they can turn down, but not completely (shades of "1984"), continuously bombarding them with government-provided idealogically uplifting content? When I read about that, it made me very sad for the people there.
Waffle Iron writes:
When did you ever own the content displayed on your TV by broadcasers?
The instant it enters my house.
The only thing that I don't own is the right to prevent people (including myself) from making further copies in most cases. That's the only thing that the producer owns, but most people have been hoodwinked into believing that the producer somehow owns something beyond that.
That argument doesn't appear to hold water in the case of encrypted satellite broadcast content.
As I understand it, the law specifies that although the radio waves are being propagated through your head, et al., you aren't allowed to decrypt it unless you pay the provider for the privilege. That angers me; I can't turn off broadcast transmissions. My own TV, I can turn that off.
I've seen that with many ISPs - and I still do not understand why. As long as I'm paying the ISP for the bandwidth, it should be my problem what I do with it. I can decide to use it all, or I can decide to share it with my friends - my call.
The reason why is simple: profit. The same reason that some DSL, cable Internet, and cellular phone providers advertise "unlimited usage", but in the fine print note that "unlimited" is some (possibly specified) fairly large number, which, if it is exceeded by the customer, may result in additional charges and/or revocation of the contract.
I think that companies that make such offers warrant penalties under the various laws prohibiting misleading advertising, but so far I don't think that any has been so far successfully challenged.
They should have an assignment that each student rob, or break into a bank. Any attemps to break into school secured areas would result in immediate suspension.
Don't you think that suspension would be a bit harsh just for robbing the school's Bursar's Office?
What an appropriate Subject for the creation of the new .BJ subdivision of the .CN namespace!
The first of the three TFAs cited in the original post concludes with what strikes me as the most essential question regarding "contributing back to Apple":
Even now, we are going through yet another cycle of losing access that we once had. With the release of Mac OS X for x86 processors, Apple has chosen to not release source to key components of the OS, such as the kernel and all drivers. This means Darwin/x86 is dead in the water; Darwin/ppc has many closed source components and is a deprecated architecture. One has to wonder why Apple even bothers to release non-GPL'd source at all, if it is unwilling to cooperate with external developers to increase their return on investment and accept external bug fixes and features. Even worse, one has to wonder why people would want to donate their time to such a fruitless and pointless cause.
I accept the existence of an altruism that motivates people to contribute to philanthropic organizations, and to help those who are less fortunate, but to contribute one's time to a megabuck for-profit corporation? Please.
An erratum to my own post: the decimal points were omitted after HTML processing, e.g., (1 -dot-in-center- 5) became (15) instead of (1.5).
The above quote should read:
Findings
The risk of death was estimated to be 2.5-fold (95% CI 1.6-4.2) higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period. Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 1.5-fold (1.1-2.3) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98000 more deaths than expected (8000-194000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included. The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8.1-419) than in the period before the war.
I'll pick the Lancet article you pointed to. Here is an excerpt:
Findings
The risk of death was estimated to be 25-fold (95% CI 16-42) higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period. Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 15-fold (11-23) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98000 more deaths than expected (8000-194000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included. The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 81-419) than in the period before the war.
Please note the sentence in boldface. Hiding in the parentheses, you will find the information that the "98000 excess deaths" figure is, within a 95 percent confidence interval, really somewhere between 8 and 194000. With a 95% CI supporting some value between 8 and 194000, how does one then conclude that the answer is "98000"? The average of the range of values supported by the chosen confidence interval is not the answer.
Here is an article that, in part, discusses the Lancet article; you may find it illuminating:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8679662/site/newsweek/
zogger writes:
So far, US forces have killed more innocent civilians than saddam did, by the year.
Just to inject a little fact into your fiction, here's what http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html says about Saddam Hussein:
Kill tally: Approaching two million, including between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqis and between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranians killed during the Iran-Iraq War. An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000. Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared". No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shi'ite Muslims killed during Hussein's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shi'ites and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000). Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.
Perhaps you have some other favorite sources of Saddam's kill stats?
Nope, not the exact same thing. In this case, they provide a link explaining exactly what was removed and why. Do you think that China's censors allow them to provide the explanation Photos of armored tanks and dead protestors have been removed to comply with China's information policies regarding the Tiananmen incident.?
If it were just about face I wouldn't care much. What bugs me is that China now has Google providing them with two views of every search: they (the Chinese censors) can view the unfiltered results at US (or UK, etc.) Google, and then they can view the filtered results at Google.cn, compare the two, and tune their filtering.
Worse, the difference also gives them a quick way of skimming the list looking for Chinese operated rogue sites, so they can crack down on them faster.
Had Google not acceded to China's filtering demands, then China would be left developing this capability on their own, and, gee, the programmers working on that would have to be able to see all the unfiltered stuff in order to filter it. That might slow down the project a bit.
There is no censorship in China - it's just an urban legand. It's been debunked by Snopes China.