Our government probes Lenovo for spying charges. Lenovo claims, and truthfully so, that they do not bug their systems. Then, our government concludes the investigation and Lenovo goes free; no harms done, or is there?
What I don't understand is why this news made it out to the public to begin with. If Lenovo is guilty of spying, then our government wins. If Lenovo is innocent of spying, our government still wins by telling that all US customers out there that if your computer is made from China, it might be bugged and we have to investigate you on that. Seriously, if I was a big computer customer, I would think twice before buying electronics from China.
I agree with lowrydr310 there. Let's ask ourselves a hypothetical question, "If the concept of going to the movie theatre to see a movie has just been discovered today and that movies have been readily available to everyone at home already, would the concept of move theatre take off?"
I think the answer to that question is not likely. Sure, in this hypothetical situation, some people would still go to the movie theatre to see a movie because of the "fuller experience", but at the end, majority would probably stay home and watch their movies comfortably, and less expensively.
This hypothetical question reveals something else: that going to the theatre to watch a movie is obsoleted. That used to be the only way to watch a movie (before VHS)... As time progresses and home entertainment technologies advance, the trend is that entertainment is moving toward the homes. (Similar analogy could be made about the video arcades and home console systems. Arcade has been in decline ever since.) Whatever arguments made against this trend just slow down the inevitable...
I think Disney is heading in the right direction. Make DVDs come out asap, and not artificially delay their release. Figure out a way to charge people to get their movies at home, and make the billing painlessly easy. I would stop short of abandoning the movie threatre market all together. Most movies that produce only DVD are of low quality, and the public is not yet ready to receive a high-quality DVD only release.
Though Disney is heading in the right direction, it is using the wrong arguments. The main issue isn't pirvacy at all. If people can get movies legitimately with a small fee as easily as stealing off the net, I think most people would rather obey the law. The online music industry is successful example here.
In short, embrace the technology and make it work for you, not argue against it artificially.
I like to continue on the discussion of the usage of words and definitions, though it may be off topic.
Rather than using "digital" or "binary", I think the word you are looking for is "discrete". The word discrete refers to the concept of something inseparable. "Binary" specifically refers to a system with 2 values per digit, while digital refers to numerical subjects.
As you correctly pointed out, the surface of the word is discrete. I.e. "Li" and "fe" carries no meaning. That being said, the definition and meaning of "Life" is compositional. The meaning of "life" is a complex one consisting of combination of other meanings and refers to a variety of concepts. Adding to this complexity, every observer has his/her own definition of what "life" means (or what a particular word means).
Unless the specific senses of a word's definition from two observers result in inconsistency, the differences between the two definitions would go undetected. This is the communication problem. Similar problems arise when talking about abstracted concepts such as "life", "love", "God", etc.
Finally, rather than asking if the simulated object in the article constitues "life" according to your definition, it's more productive to find out how the author of the article defines "life". Knowing how your definition and his definition differ can aid in understanding of the article.
Think about how many key-loggers and zombies are in-the-wild running silently in computer own by every-day users?
As always, MS receives much flaks for writing vulnerable software. Truth-be-told, the reason why there are so many vulnerabilities in IE is because there are many people who actively look for security flaws in IE, since it is the most popular system. I don't think using Firefox or escaping to Linux are a permanent solutions. Think of people who write attacks as "testers". At the very least, these "testers" found many flaws in MS products. With less "testers" working, who knows how many Firefox and Linux vulnerabilities there are?
Patching is important. However, it is just unrealistic to expect softwares as large as Windows and IE to be patched in a timely manner. Rather than putting the focus on more secured software, we need to make the system more transparent. A system that expose hidden processes, hidden files, and hidden system configurations would allow a user to detect whether his/her system has been compromised (granted, this does not address such attacks as phishing). Also, we need to have some user-friendly features (even comments and descriptions would be nice) to help the user make sense of all these process/file/config information. This way, the user can actually decide whether a system is running in a non-secure state or not.
Many would argue that making the system more transparent makes the system less userable. I agree. However, I think (and I think we all agree) that users, even non-technical ones, can adopt faster than MS put out a security patch...
Rather than trying to predict what technology we'll have tomorrow, it's more productive to simply list the cutting edge ideas we are working on. This way, we can pick some new ideas, develop them, and turn them into the technology of tomorrow. If an idea has merits, then it'll succeed.
"Flying cars" have been mentioned many times in the past as something we should have now. However, I fail to see how we could have a flying car in any near future. Without new physics being developed, no amount of wishful thinking can leviate a car off the ground. Indeed, in order for an idea to succeed, that idea must be first be plausible, and then economically feasible. Just because something sounds nice won't cut it.
Thank you for your considerations, no offence taken.
In my definition of a Big Thing, I mentioned that it is a product that changes people's lives significantly. What I failed to define is what constitutes a 'significant change'.
I tend to equate significance with time. The invention of computer, for example, will probably influence and change our lives for a long long time. Paper, for another example, was a Big Thing of its time. It influenced the world for many years since its invention (and still does, to an argueably lesser extent with electronic media as an alternative.) On the other hand, CDs have been with us for a while, and is slowly getting phased out by other storage media.
In short, I do not like to equate "big-ness" with popularity. "Big-ness", in my opinion, has staying power, standing up against the test of time. An Ipod, I think, would one day be replaced by something else, joining the ranks of other entertainment systems such as tamaguchi (which was immensely popular in some parts of the world, but a scant memory now)
It's one thing to have a list of problems for researchers to work on, it's quite another to have a solution for any of these problems. Looking down the list you produced, some of them seem more like the Big Thing in the Next Century, rather than the Next Big Thing.
Also, the word BIG THING is unclear. For instance, I can see how someone would call an Ipod a Big Thing, since it's a big commercial success. It's unclear (to me anyways) whether any ground-breaking technology has been applied to make an Ipod. I agree with a previous post where they say that the original story suffers from... sensationalism.
I tend to equate the Big Thing as a product that impacts people's lives significantly. Computer, for instance, was a Big Thing. Medicine, for another instance, was a Big Thing. Here are two fields where I think the next big thing will be:
* Protein Shape Prediction: this field leads to the ability to give a functional explanation of drugs at the molecular level. This ability, combined with gene splicing, allows us to design and create drugs and medicines.
* Artificial Intelligence: A field where I spend a lot of time in. From my vantage, I see the technology to build an A.I. at the level of Data in Star-Trek already exists. The only thing holding us back: our inability to decribe our own thinking. Once an A.I. has the same cognitive capability as human, we would be able to delegate more tasks to machines.
Hello all:
I like to point out that the story is lost in most of our posts here (some of us still remain true). The point is that our news media takes materials out of context. In annoyance, the two Chinese bloggers protest how their words have been twisted...
The original story is NOT about western news media's lack of research and getting their stories wrong (though that certainly contributed to the development of this event). As stated in http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2006-03/1 4/content_534795.htm, the story is about our media turning these two bloggers' words into politically charged statements.
The original story is NOT even about Chinese government's censorship over material on the internet (though that is true). The story is about extra material our media added to spice up a story about two Chinese bloggers' site being shut down.
Cheers
B. Pascal.
Well said. I like your analogy of staging your own kidnapping.
That being said, I like to point out that the intent of the two Chinese bloggers are not to... expose the Western press's weakness to detect lies. They did this, to show that the Western press adds elements (politically charged words, for example) to a story. There is a slight difference between reporting a fake event truthfully, and spicing up a story. The former is unfortunate but still journalism. The latter is sensationalism. Let's try a less Western centric press, and see their side of the story. From: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2006-03/1 4/content_534795.htm
' Wang Xiaofeng had been annoyed that he was constantly misquoted by foreign media.
"Every time they interviewed me, they tried to steer the questions towards political topics, in which I have no interest. Even if I made no mention of anything political, the articles would come out as if I were an activist," he said.
"Most of the foreign reporters are not readers of my blog, and the few snippets they read in translation are usually out of context so they appear to be political," he added. '
Finally, I don't think the bloggers try to justify Chinese censorship in this stunt. I can see how it may be interpreted that way though, especially from where we are.
Hello:
Perhaps I am not very clear. By social contract, I mean the term in the same sense as expressed in S. Freud. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
It is implicit. I am not advocating such a contract, merely pointing out its existence and that the government should fulfill its end. As far as I understand, if one violates/intrudes on another person or group, he should be punished either by that person or group. The police (or men with guns as you call them) are there to administer justice even though the afflicted may be too powerless to seek justice. The law and the threat of punishment are there to protect us from anarchy, not prevent us from freedom.
Cheers.
B. Pascal
I think the original point of this thread has been lost. The main topic is about job-losses, and the misery it costs. In previous posts, counter-points have been raised about regional advantages in production specialization. These points, as I interpreted, imply that other jobs would open up to offset job-losses due to out-sourcing.
That is, if the theories could account for two practicalities: 1) the speed at which individual workers can adapt to the changes in supply and demands, and 2) the speed at which prices change to reflect the change of supply and demand.
For example, it takes a few years to get an undergrad/grad degree. Within this period you'll learn some employable skills based on perceived future demands. I assert that no economic theory or model is sufficient to describe the miseries of all those who paid thousands to get an education, only to find that the jobs are not available. Mind you, I think the example of a student is slighted. I won't even try to imagine that pressure of losing a job while having to support a family and paying a mortgage...
At this point, I like to ask, what is the purpose of a government? Is it not to protect her people and to administer social welfare/justice? I give up my tax money and my absolute freedom to enter into a social contract with the government and the people she represents. If the government is not doing its job, am I free to break my end of the bargain (e.g. stop paying taxes...)
I believe in justice, and I believe in helping out my neighbors. I can also see that if I am a corporation, I'll hold out on many of my donations because they make no economical sense. Afterall, there are always fools like myself to help with the world.
The U.S. constitution was written to separate the church (quite a powerful force at the time) and the state. This was done wisely to protect each from the other.
Unfortunately, it seems that now, a new power is upon us: the corporations. With enough resources to influence government policies, it is no wonder that the U.S. government has been promoting policies to enhance profit instead of administering social welfare.
For some odd results, this situation rings a bell from the "Communist's Manifesto", a required reading in my undergrad history class. As much as we hate the actual implementation of communism, I must say the pro-business climate is actually matches the early environmental requirements in Marx's work.
I would like to offer up my observations on the matter of evolution vs creationism (and all of its variants, in whatever disguises...). Though the scope of my observations is quite general, they are still just my observations as I try to make sense of this arguement.
Some of us accept evolution as the mechanism for the origin of the human race. This explanation is sound, and is consistent to many natural/observational experiments. In these experiments, they witness the change in living organisms in the molecular, micro, and macro scale. Thus, they project that through eons of environmental pressures, small changes were accumulated into significant ones, creating new species in the process. In short, they base their arguements on what is observable and logically sound.
On the other hand, some of us accept that a higher intellect has designed and created the human race. They accept this explanation because of their personal experience with that higher intellect. As they learn more about this intellect, they come to learn that this intellect created life on earth. Looking at their personal experience, they see the effects or touches this intellect had on their lives. Thus, they project that the teachings and/or revelations of this higher intellect says is true. In short, they based their arguements on personal experience and conviction.
For whose who accept evolution, please do not think the other camp as stupid. I personally know many intelligent people who believes in creationism. These people are highly educated, and understand evolution very well. They... slight it as something less than factual because their personal experience and conviction are stronger than what are taught in the classrooms, and what's observed in in experiments...
For whose who accept creationism and/or its many variants, please do not mix up your personal experience (however strong it may be) with objectivity. Have some considerations for the other camp who do not (yet) have the same... exposure to this higher intellect... as you.
For all of us, please be careful and not let opportunistic politicians hijack this arguement, which is, at the end of the day, a search for the truth.
I like to highlight that there is a difference between a Prediction and a Summary. From what I read so far, the tool posted in the article generates a summary, which maybe used as a prediction.
Let s(t) be the Summary of a system (in this case, the economy) at any given time, then:
A prediction, p(S), would be a prediction based on a set of summary S, where: S == {s(t), s(t-1), s(t-2),... s(t-n)}
One can always make a prediction based on a very small number of summaries. |S| = 0 is a guess. |S| = 1 means that no past summaries are considered in the predication, just the most up-to-date one. Presumably, the bigger |S| is, the more information is considered in that summary.
The usefulness of such a tool lies in the value of t. Web-crawling allows one to collect much data in a small amount of time. If one is able to collect a summary quicker than everyone else, then presumably, someone using this summary tool would be able to stay ahead of the trend.
That being said, one of the input of s(t) is actually publicly available data. Financial reports events after the fact. Information based on actual financial transactions (ones that you can collect if you plan a spybot at the central booth of a major retailer, for example) is much better. At the end of the day, if you want to play a really cut-throat, high profit game of stock trading, I think you are better off having insider info.
I agree. Though in my reply I have layout out the difference between private/personal data and public data, I agree that there are cases when it is difficult to distinguish the two.
That being said, I think one can take the steps needed to make private data into a publishable form without violating privacy. For instance, my medical record is clearly a personal matter. However, I would not object to that medical record being published if my name/address/Id is left out of the record.
For another instance, I have invented a cure for cancer. The data for that cure would be my intellectual property and, therefore, private. The public may have an interest in my private data, but that interest, however large, does not make my property public. In fact, that is the difference between communism and capitalism. With capitalism, individuals are entitled to withhold fruits of their labor/fortune. With communism, all products of every individual is the property of the state, and is under the control of the state for distributions.
I hope the answer to your question is: never. Surely, going to war over internet censorship and freedom of speech is silly to say the least.
An open war with China, for whatever reason, would definitely result heavy damages in US and in China. Even if the US manages to defeat China militarily, I doubt that the US would have the strength to be the global super-power afterward.
At the end of the day, everything can be measured in terms of economic power, i.e. money. China has been buying a large proportion of US Treasury bonds. An estimate put half of US T-bonds being own by Asian countries.
Imagine that the US goes to war with China. The Chinese sell US T-Bond holdings, resulting in a free-fall of those bonds... Overnight, many people's and financial companies at home and abroad would be bankrupted. In one move, the US economic power would be heavily damaged before there is even a missile fired...
There is a difference between protecting privacy and censorship. Privacy protection involves stopping the dissemination of personal information. On the other hand, censorship involves stopping the dissemination of public information.
For example, protecting my medical records, making it inaccessible to others without my permission, is protecting my privacy. Stopping news report of an earth quake, for another example, would be censorship.
Three years ago, I was travelling in Beijing, capital of China. While there, I found that the Chinese are living more or less Western-styled capitalistic lives. The everyday Chinese people are just like us: talking/criticizing the PLA, shopping in malls, etc. I was impressed that they even have a mall dedicated to selling products for women. Though I haven't been there yet, I suspect that growing cities like Shang-Hai would be no different than, say, New York and Tokyo.
Let's constrast this with Japan. From my experience with young Japanese, most of them have no idea about their country's involvement during WWII. Their history text books have gaps that would make most of us raise an eyebrow to the least.
My point is this: looking across the ocean, we may exagerate the Chinese government's attempt to control the internet. To understand the big picture, we should look at the situation from both sides. From the Chinese's perspective, the internet is a tool used by foreign powers to incite rebellion within the country. To understand the magnitude of this problem, try to imagine 1.3 billion hungry, jobless Chinese following a small group of ideologically charged "visionaries". What you end up with is a very bloody revout.
China is changing, it is opening up, and it is catching up to our world. Yet, for a country this big, it cannot open up in a short time. Doing so would result in chaos (the dissolution of Soviet Union and its results come to mind) and a huge loss of lives.
Hello Mr. Copilot:
Thank you for verifying the Coventry example I used. I have been mistaken.
Despite the bad start, the main point of what I am trying to say is this: we like to think that if it wasn't for the Bush administration, we wouldn't be going to war. We try to find evidence to support our blame. I leave to your imagination what would have happen if Bush was not the president. Still, I believe everyone is partially responsible. Rather than spending time and energy to find who to blame, we should examine ourselves and take steps to make this world we live in a better place, whether it be voting, having discussions like these, being more aware of woes in lands other than our own, etc.
Thank you once again. Cheers.
B. Pascal
Hello all:
Please bear with me, I like to say something about the discussions going on so far...
Let me start with a historical analogy: the bombing of Coventry, 1940. The attack against Coventry has been known to Prime Minister Churchill in advance. Instead of ordering an evacuation, the Prime Minister decided to withhold information abou the attack because doing so would tip the Germans off that the British Intelligence has cracked the German's encryption code, the Enigma.
I cited this example because it shows that there are circumstances when it is comprehensible for Politicians to withold the truth to the public.
My next point is in the form of questions. I assert that the American way of life is an expensive one: it as a whole requires much energy to fuel. These energies come in the form of imported oil. Why aren't the oil producing countries in the world (such as Iraq, Iran, etc) benefiting from the American's reliance on oil? Pictures I have seen in these countries show poor living conditions with little public education. Why aren't the people of these countries getting richer from this reliance? Why isn't oil more expensive, price driven ever higher by supply and demand? I think the answer is quite simple. America has the largest, best arms in the world. We are able to dictate the price of oil, bringing it down to a more affordble price by influence (back by arms).
In the case of the Iraq war, critics attack the legitimacy of the war by citing intelligence failures. Also, they cast doubts about the true motives behind the war by suggesting that it was an action to secure oil resources. They fault the Bush administration for these. However, we should recognize that we contribute to the administration's decisions as well. Their policies, though underhanded, have defended my quality of life and I am grateful for it. Looking around me, I doubt that people around me would want to give up their cars, their homes, their luxuries so that there are less wars, less destitutes, and less pollution in the world.
Let us be more responsible about our world. Let us realize the impact of our lives, and make changes, however small they may be, to make this world a better, fairer place.
Thank you for your time.
B. Pascal.
Slashdot Mirror
Hello all:
I can't help but think along this line:
Our government probes Lenovo for spying charges. Lenovo claims, and truthfully so, that they do not bug their systems. Then, our government concludes the investigation and Lenovo goes free; no harms done, or is there?
What I don't understand is why this news made it out to the public to begin with. If Lenovo is guilty of spying, then our government wins. If Lenovo is innocent of spying, our government still wins by telling that all US customers out there that if your computer is made from China, it might be bugged and we have to investigate you on that. Seriously, if I was a big computer customer, I would think twice before buying electronics from China.
Cheers.
B. Pascal.
Hello all:
I agree with lowrydr310 there. Let's ask ourselves a hypothetical question, "If the concept of going to the movie theatre to see a movie has just been discovered today and that movies have been readily available to everyone at home already, would the concept of move theatre take off?"
I think the answer to that question is not likely. Sure, in this hypothetical situation, some people would still go to the movie theatre to see a movie because of the "fuller experience", but at the end, majority would probably stay home and watch their movies comfortably, and less expensively.
This hypothetical question reveals something else: that going to the theatre to watch a movie is obsoleted. That used to be the only way to watch a movie (before VHS)... As time progresses and home entertainment technologies advance, the trend is that entertainment is moving toward the homes. (Similar analogy could be made about the video arcades and home console systems. Arcade has been in decline ever since.) Whatever arguments made against this trend just slow down the inevitable...
I think Disney is heading in the right direction. Make DVDs come out asap, and not artificially delay their release. Figure out a way to charge people to get their movies at home, and make the billing painlessly easy. I would stop short of abandoning the movie threatre market all together. Most movies that produce only DVD are of low quality, and the public is not yet ready to receive a high-quality DVD only release.
Though Disney is heading in the right direction, it is using the wrong arguments. The main issue isn't pirvacy at all. If people can get movies legitimately with a small fee as easily as stealing off the net, I think most people would rather obey the law. The online music industry is successful example here.
In short, embrace the technology and make it work for you, not argue against it artificially.
Cheers
B. Pascal
Hello wsherman:
I like to continue on the discussion of the usage of words and definitions, though it may be off topic.
Rather than using "digital" or "binary", I think the word you are looking for is "discrete". The word discrete refers to the concept of something inseparable. "Binary" specifically refers to a system with 2 values per digit, while digital refers to numerical subjects.
As you correctly pointed out, the surface of the word is discrete. I.e. "Li" and "fe" carries no meaning. That being said, the definition and meaning of "Life" is compositional. The meaning of "life" is a complex one consisting of combination of other meanings and refers to a variety of concepts. Adding to this complexity, every observer has his/her own definition of what "life" means (or what a particular word means).
Unless the specific senses of a word's definition from two observers result in inconsistency, the differences between the two definitions would go undetected. This is the communication problem. Similar problems arise when talking about abstracted concepts such as "life", "love", "God", etc.
Finally, rather than asking if the simulated object in the article constitues "life" according to your definition, it's more productive to find out how the author of the article defines "life". Knowing how your definition and his definition differ can aid in understanding of the article.
Such is the study of semantics of language.
Cheers.
B. Pascal.
Hello all:
Think about how many key-loggers and zombies are in-the-wild running silently in computer own by every-day users?
As always, MS receives much flaks for writing vulnerable software. Truth-be-told, the reason why there are so many vulnerabilities in IE is because there are many people who actively look for security flaws in IE, since it is the most popular system. I don't think using Firefox or escaping to Linux are a permanent solutions. Think of people who write attacks as "testers". At the very least, these "testers" found many flaws in MS products. With less "testers" working, who knows how many Firefox and Linux vulnerabilities there are?
Patching is important. However, it is just unrealistic to expect softwares as large as Windows and IE to be patched in a timely manner. Rather than putting the focus on more secured software, we need to make the system more transparent. A system that expose hidden processes, hidden files, and hidden system configurations would allow a user to detect whether his/her system has been compromised (granted, this does not address such attacks as phishing). Also, we need to have some user-friendly features (even comments and descriptions would be nice) to help the user make sense of all these process/file/config information. This way, the user can actually decide whether a system is running in a non-secure state or not.
Many would argue that making the system more transparent makes the system less userable. I agree. However, I think (and I think we all agree) that users, even non-technical ones, can adopt faster than MS put out a security patch...
Cheers.
B. Pascal.
Hello all:
l
Just when I said that flying cars are no where in sight, something like this comes along...
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.htm
Cheers.
B. Pascal.
Hello everyone:
Rather than trying to predict what technology we'll have tomorrow, it's more productive to simply list the cutting edge ideas we are working on. This way, we can pick some new ideas, develop them, and turn them into the technology of tomorrow. If an idea has merits, then it'll succeed.
"Flying cars" have been mentioned many times in the past as something we should have now. However, I fail to see how we could have a flying car in any near future. Without new physics being developed, no amount of wishful thinking can leviate a car off the ground. Indeed, in order for an idea to succeed, that idea must be first be plausible, and then economically feasible. Just because something sounds nice won't cut it.
Cheers.
B. Pascal.
Hello anethema:
Thank you for your considerations, no offence taken.
In my definition of a Big Thing, I mentioned that it is a product that changes people's lives significantly. What I failed to define is what constitutes a 'significant change'.
I tend to equate significance with time. The invention of computer, for example, will probably influence and change our lives for a long long time. Paper, for another example, was a Big Thing of its time. It influenced the world for many years since its invention (and still does, to an argueably lesser extent with electronic media as an alternative.) On the other hand, CDs have been with us for a while, and is slowly getting phased out by other storage media.
In short, I do not like to equate "big-ness" with popularity. "Big-ness", in my opinion, has staying power, standing up against the test of time. An Ipod, I think, would one day be replaced by something else, joining the ranks of other entertainment systems such as tamaguchi (which was immensely popular in some parts of the world, but a scant memory now)
Cheers
B. Pascal
Hello Ryo:
It's one thing to have a list of problems for researchers to work on, it's quite another to have a solution for any of these problems. Looking down the list you produced, some of them seem more like the Big Thing in the Next Century, rather than the Next Big Thing.
Also, the word BIG THING is unclear. For instance, I can see how someone would call an Ipod a Big Thing, since it's a big commercial success. It's unclear (to me anyways) whether any ground-breaking technology has been applied to make an Ipod. I agree with a previous post where they say that the original story suffers from... sensationalism.
I tend to equate the Big Thing as a product that impacts people's lives significantly. Computer, for instance, was a Big Thing. Medicine, for another instance, was a Big Thing. Here are two fields where I think the next big thing will be:
* Protein Shape Prediction: this field leads to the ability to give a functional explanation of drugs at the molecular level. This ability, combined with gene splicing, allows us to design and create drugs and medicines.
* Artificial Intelligence: A field where I spend a lot of time in. From my vantage, I see the technology to build an A.I. at the level of Data in Star-Trek already exists. The only thing holding us back: our inability to decribe our own thinking. Once an A.I. has the same cognitive capability as human, we would be able to delegate more tasks to machines.
Cheers.
B.Pascal
Hello all: I like to point out that the story is lost in most of our posts here (some of us still remain true). The point is that our news media takes materials out of context. In annoyance, the two Chinese bloggers protest how their words have been twisted... The original story is NOT about western news media's lack of research and getting their stories wrong (though that certainly contributed to the development of this event). As stated in http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2006-03/1 4/content_534795.htm, the story is about our media turning these two bloggers' words into politically charged statements.
The original story is NOT even about Chinese government's censorship over material on the internet (though that is true). The story is about extra material our media added to spice up a story about two Chinese bloggers' site being shut down.
Cheers
B. Pascal.
Hello FreeUser:
... expose the Western press's weakness to detect lies. They did this, to show that the Western press adds elements (politically charged words, for example) to a story. There is a slight difference between reporting a fake event truthfully, and spicing up a story. The former is unfortunate but still journalism. The latter is sensationalism. Let's try a less Western centric press, and see their side of the story. From: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2006-03/1 4/content_534795.htm
Well said. I like your analogy of staging your own kidnapping.
That being said, I like to point out that the intent of the two Chinese bloggers are not to
'
Wang Xiaofeng had been annoyed that he was constantly misquoted by foreign media.
"Every time they interviewed me, they tried to steer the questions towards political topics, in which I have no interest. Even if I made no mention of anything political, the articles would come out as if I were an activist," he said.
"Most of the foreign reporters are not readers of my blog, and the few snippets they read in translation are usually out of context so they appear to be political," he added.
'
Finally, I don't think the bloggers try to justify Chinese censorship in this stunt. I can see how it may be interpreted that way though, especially from where we are.
Cheers.
B. Pascal
Hello: Perhaps I am not very clear. By social contract, I mean the term in the same sense as expressed in S. Freud. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract It is implicit. I am not advocating such a contract, merely pointing out its existence and that the government should fulfill its end. As far as I understand, if one violates/intrudes on another person or group, he should be punished either by that person or group. The police (or men with guns as you call them) are there to administer justice even though the afflicted may be too powerless to seek justice. The law and the threat of punishment are there to protect us from anarchy, not prevent us from freedom. Cheers. B. Pascal
Hello all:
I think the original point of this thread has been lost. The main topic is about job-losses, and the misery it costs. In previous posts, counter-points have been raised about regional advantages in production specialization. These points, as I interpreted, imply that other jobs would open up to offset job-losses due to out-sourcing.
That is, if the theories could account for two practicalities: 1) the speed at which individual workers can adapt to the changes in supply and demands, and 2) the speed at which prices change to reflect the change of supply and demand.
For example, it takes a few years to get an undergrad/grad degree. Within this period you'll learn some employable skills based on perceived future demands. I assert that no economic theory or model is sufficient to describe the miseries of all those who paid thousands to get an education, only to find that the jobs are not available. Mind you, I think the example of a student is slighted. I won't even try to imagine that pressure of losing a job while having to support a family and paying a mortgage...
At this point, I like to ask, what is the purpose of a government? Is it not to protect her people and to administer social welfare/justice? I give up my tax money and my absolute freedom to enter into a social contract with the government and the people she represents. If the government is not doing its job, am I free to break my end of the bargain (e.g. stop paying taxes...)
I believe in justice, and I believe in helping out my neighbors. I can also see that if I am a corporation, I'll hold out on many of my donations because they make no economical sense. Afterall, there are always fools like myself to help with the world.
Cheers.
B. Pascal
Hello all:
The U.S. constitution was written to separate the church (quite a powerful force at the time) and the state. This was done wisely to protect each from the other.
Unfortunately, it seems that now, a new power is upon us: the corporations. With enough resources to influence government policies, it is no wonder that the U.S. government has been promoting policies to enhance profit instead of administering social welfare.
For some odd results, this situation rings a bell from the "Communist's Manifesto", a required reading in my undergrad history class. As much as we hate the actual implementation of communism, I must say the pro-business climate is actually matches the early environmental requirements in Marx's work.
I hope Marx is wrong.
Cheers.
B. Pascal
Hello everyone:
... exposure to this higher intellect... as you.
I would like to offer up my observations on the matter of evolution vs creationism (and all of its variants, in whatever disguises...). Though the scope of my observations is quite general, they are still just my observations as I try to make sense of this arguement.
Some of us accept evolution as the mechanism for the origin of the human race. This explanation is sound, and is consistent to many natural/observational experiments. In these experiments, they witness the change in living organisms in the molecular, micro, and macro scale. Thus, they project that through eons of environmental pressures, small changes were accumulated into significant ones, creating new species in the process. In short, they base their arguements on what is observable and logically sound.
On the other hand, some of us accept that a higher intellect has designed and created the human race. They accept this explanation because of their personal experience with that higher intellect. As they learn more about this intellect, they come to learn that this intellect created life on earth. Looking at their personal experience, they see the effects or touches this intellect had on their lives. Thus, they project that the teachings and/or revelations of this higher intellect says is true. In short, they based their arguements on personal experience and conviction.
For whose who accept evolution, please do not think the other camp as stupid. I personally know many intelligent people who believes in creationism. These people are highly educated, and understand evolution very well. They... slight it as something less than factual because their personal experience and conviction are stronger than what are taught in the classrooms, and what's observed in in experiments...
For whose who accept creationism and/or its many variants, please do not mix up your personal experience (however strong it may be) with objectivity. Have some considerations for the other camp who do not (yet) have the same
For all of us, please be careful and not let opportunistic politicians hijack this arguement, which is, at the end of the day, a search for the truth.
Cheers.
B. Pascal
Hello all:
... s(t-n)}
I like to highlight that there is a difference between a Prediction and a Summary. From what I read so far, the tool posted in the article generates a summary, which maybe used as a prediction.
Let s(t) be the Summary of a system (in this case, the economy) at any given time, then:
A prediction, p(S), would be a prediction based on a set of summary S, where: S == {s(t), s(t-1), s(t-2),
One can always make a prediction based on a very small number of summaries. |S| = 0 is a guess. |S| = 1 means that no past summaries are considered in the predication, just the most up-to-date one. Presumably, the bigger |S| is, the more information is considered in that summary.
The usefulness of such a tool lies in the value of t. Web-crawling allows one to collect much data in a small amount of time. If one is able to collect a summary quicker than everyone else, then presumably, someone using this summary tool would be able to stay ahead of the trend.
That being said, one of the input of s(t) is actually publicly available data. Financial reports events after the fact. Information based on actual financial transactions (ones that you can collect if you plan a spybot at the central booth of a major retailer, for example) is much better. At the end of the day, if you want to play a really cut-throat, high profit game of stock trading, I think you are better off having insider info.
Cheers.
B. Pascal
Hello J.B.:
I agree. Though in my reply I have layout out the difference between private/personal data and public data, I agree that there are cases when it is difficult to distinguish the two.
That being said, I think one can take the steps needed to make private data into a publishable form without violating privacy. For instance, my medical record is clearly a personal matter. However, I would not object to that medical record being published if my name/address/Id is left out of the record.
For another instance, I have invented a cure for cancer. The data for that cure would be my intellectual property and, therefore, private. The public may have an interest in my private data, but that interest, however large, does not make my property public. In fact, that is the difference between communism and capitalism. With capitalism, individuals are entitled to withhold fruits of their labor/fortune. With communism, all products of every individual is the property of the state, and is under the control of the state for distributions.
Sorry to give a lecture.
Cheers.
B.Pascal
Hello Rob Squared:
j 01.html
I hope the answer to your question is: never. Surely, going to war over internet censorship and freedom of speech is silly to say the least.
An open war with China, for whatever reason, would definitely result heavy damages in US and in China. Even if the US manages to defeat China militarily, I doubt that the US would have the strength to be the global super-power afterward.
At the end of the day, everything can be measured in terms of economic power, i.e. money. China has been buying a large proportion of US Treasury bonds. An estimate put half of US T-bonds being own by Asian countries.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/FA23D
Imagine that the US goes to war with China. The Chinese sell US T-Bond holdings, resulting in a free-fall of those bonds... Overnight, many people's and financial companies at home and abroad would be bankrupted. In one move, the US economic power would be heavily damaged before there is even a missile fired...
B.Pascal.
Hello J.B.:
There is a difference between protecting privacy and censorship. Privacy protection involves stopping the dissemination of personal information. On the other hand, censorship involves stopping the dissemination of public information.
For example, protecting my medical records, making it inaccessible to others without my permission, is protecting my privacy. Stopping news report of an earth quake, for another example, would be censorship.
Cheers.
B.Pascal
Hello all:
Three years ago, I was travelling in Beijing, capital of China. While there, I found that the Chinese are living more or less Western-styled capitalistic lives. The everyday Chinese people are just like us: talking/criticizing the PLA, shopping in malls, etc. I was impressed that they even have a mall dedicated to selling products for women. Though I haven't been there yet, I suspect that growing cities like Shang-Hai would be no different than, say, New York and Tokyo.
Let's constrast this with Japan. From my experience with young Japanese, most of them have no idea about their country's involvement during WWII. Their history text books have gaps that would make most of us raise an eyebrow to the least.
My point is this: looking across the ocean, we may exagerate the Chinese government's attempt to control the internet. To understand the big picture, we should look at the situation from both sides. From the Chinese's perspective, the internet is a tool used by foreign powers to incite rebellion within the country. To understand the magnitude of this problem, try to imagine 1.3 billion hungry, jobless Chinese following a small group of ideologically charged "visionaries". What you end up with is a very bloody revout.
China is changing, it is opening up, and it is catching up to our world. Yet, for a country this big, it cannot open up in a short time. Doing so would result in chaos (the dissolution of Soviet Union and its results come to mind) and a huge loss of lives.
Cheers.
B. Pascal
Hello Mr. Copilot: Thank you for verifying the Coventry example I used. I have been mistaken. Despite the bad start, the main point of what I am trying to say is this: we like to think that if it wasn't for the Bush administration, we wouldn't be going to war. We try to find evidence to support our blame. I leave to your imagination what would have happen if Bush was not the president. Still, I believe everyone is partially responsible. Rather than spending time and energy to find who to blame, we should examine ourselves and take steps to make this world we live in a better place, whether it be voting, having discussions like these, being more aware of woes in lands other than our own, etc. Thank you once again. Cheers. B. Pascal
Hello all: Please bear with me, I like to say something about the discussions going on so far... Let me start with a historical analogy: the bombing of Coventry, 1940. The attack against Coventry has been known to Prime Minister Churchill in advance. Instead of ordering an evacuation, the Prime Minister decided to withhold information abou the attack because doing so would tip the Germans off that the British Intelligence has cracked the German's encryption code, the Enigma. I cited this example because it shows that there are circumstances when it is comprehensible for Politicians to withold the truth to the public. My next point is in the form of questions. I assert that the American way of life is an expensive one: it as a whole requires much energy to fuel. These energies come in the form of imported oil. Why aren't the oil producing countries in the world (such as Iraq, Iran, etc) benefiting from the American's reliance on oil? Pictures I have seen in these countries show poor living conditions with little public education. Why aren't the people of these countries getting richer from this reliance? Why isn't oil more expensive, price driven ever higher by supply and demand? I think the answer is quite simple. America has the largest, best arms in the world. We are able to dictate the price of oil, bringing it down to a more affordble price by influence (back by arms). In the case of the Iraq war, critics attack the legitimacy of the war by citing intelligence failures. Also, they cast doubts about the true motives behind the war by suggesting that it was an action to secure oil resources. They fault the Bush administration for these. However, we should recognize that we contribute to the administration's decisions as well. Their policies, though underhanded, have defended my quality of life and I am grateful for it. Looking around me, I doubt that people around me would want to give up their cars, their homes, their luxuries so that there are less wars, less destitutes, and less pollution in the world. Let us be more responsible about our world. Let us realize the impact of our lives, and make changes, however small they may be, to make this world a better, fairer place. Thank you for your time. B. Pascal.