In the paper industry, acid-free paper is often tied to longevity. For example, according to International Paper's Pocket Pal, creating an acid-free paper is defined as a "process that gives paper over four times the life (200 years) of acid-sized paper (40-50 years).
In short, our paper records are gone after 200 years. Our digital records are likely not to survive somthing as cataclysmic as a war.
Our society produces more text about itself in a day than the Romans probably did in their whole history. Even if a small fraction survives
True, but most of it is in formats which won't be easily accessible in the future. Anyone can look at a photo. But every time I change my reel tapes to VHS to DVD etc. it gets a little bit fuzzier. Compression and recompression. Replica to fading.
We create a lot of information, but none of it in a form that will last for over 200 years. Paper, film, digital photos. They fade or are lost or become obsolete.
From an archeologist's perspective nothing that is digitally recorded will exist. Paper lasts 200 years. We're unlikely to find paper in a garbage dump that's legible the way the Nag Hamadi(sp?) scrolls were.
Semantics, perhaps, but they're relevant in determining how effective the courts are in enforcing the law, which is what the grandparent poster was discussing.
How do you define breaking the law? I define it as being convicted in a court.
That's how it's determined that someone broke the law.
If you take somthing that isn't yours, you've committed a crime, regardless of whether or not you are caugh. You have broken the law, even if you were never tried.
Breaking the law is not an action that is performed in court, however. It's only a determiniation which can be formally(legally) made in court.
I'd diagram it like this; Break the law --> Have a trial --> go to jail or be set free.
A person could say "Yes, I broke the law, but they can't try me because of the statue of limitations has expired." This phrase makes sense to me. So does "I broke the law, but I bribed the judge and he let me off easy." If guilt has to be determined in a court for the law to be broken, the phrase is contradictory.
And really, its not important that you or I have a presumption of innocence, its important that the government and the legal system has it.
I agree as far as individual trials are concerned.
But as a citizen who is responsible for the government's actions and who needs to be able to evaluate the effect of our laws and the fairness of our legal system, it's important for us to be able to differentiate between being proven 'not guilty' and being proven 'innocent.' We need to know whether our justice system is capable of enforcing the law in a fair manner, or if some groups get caught while others get off scot free. There's a gap between committing a crime, (say killing someone) and being tried, found guilty, and sent to jail.
"Not guilty" says that there's not enough legally admissible evidence to prove that you committed a crime in court. "Innocent" says that you didn't commit an action in violation of the law. They're not the same.
I agree 100% with what you're saying about how teaching ability should be based on merit and that it isn't.
Merit for teachers is a bit harder to measure quantitatively. A person who is a brilliant doctor may not be that much better at teaching biology. It's a lot easier to identify those teacher who are poor performers and help or eliminate them, than it is to quantitatively and objectivly identify the best teachers.
That being said, if you're just going to go by hours worked, most economic analyses assume that teachers only work 40 hours a week or less, and neglect to factor in the time it takes to prepare a lesson, for example.
I'd just like to find a country where there's more competition for chip manufacturing to drive the price down.
At least with vehicles, if gas gets really really bad we could get modified diesel engines and run our cars off corn oil produced by independant producers.
But when you eliminate competition and have a huge cost-of-entry barrier to the market, then the price of things is dictated by whatever the market will bear as opposed to what the item costs to research, market, produce and sell plus a small profit margin.
It's worthwhile for consumers to know what things cost. After all, if companies can organize to pursue their own ends, so should buyers.
... just because they haven't been caught doesn't make it legal...
Actually, that's precisely what it means. The fundamental presumption of innocence is completely required for our legal system to function. And I assume that by 'been caught' you mean 'been convicted.'
Do you really disagree with the grandparent poster? Just because a person is presumed innocent doesn't mean that they haven't broken any laws.
If you commit a murder and you're never caught or tried you've still broken the law, even though you're "presumed innocent."
Some violations of the law are difficult to punish, so they become common and accepted but not legal. (Though they are legal in a de facto sense.) Some companies have really good legal departments and political connections and can defend themselves.
Perhaps a more advanced student would do fine with a pull-down list of options like "Why are you going there?" and "Why do you go there?" and decide which one to use,
That'd be very useful to me.
Perhaps some kind of flowchart or wizard? It may be difficult to do things automatically. If you can flag somthing as incorrect and use some tool (wizard, dropdown, etc) to get the user to supply content, I think somthing like this could be very useful for ESL.
While I'm generally good with English, I was a horrid speller until I started using spellcheck. While most aids tend to become crutches sooner than guides, my spelling improved dramatically after I picked it up. This seems like a highly functional form of e-learning, since it allows the user to learn as part of the target environment, as opposed to a separate environment like the classroom.
Ideally, you could make a grammer checker specifically designed for an ESL student with a particular background. It could target common language mistakes, and you could adjust the 'level' so that beginners were forced to construct rigidly perfect sentances and advanced learners could be given more leeway.
Also, common translation errors could perhaps be targeted, though most of those would require context recogntion or else they'd get a ton of false positives. But phrases like "sour milk" (the literal Chinese translation of 'yogurt' into English) could raise a red flag for beginners. Even so, this seems like an excellent way to improve a student's English.
My coding is pretty weak, but how hard it would be to modify a commercial spell checker...
Is open office's spell checker easily configurable? I wonder if there any projects like this...
Of course, since ESL is lightyears from what you do, all this is probably totally irrelevant to you. Sorry about that.
Assume that it would cost your customers $1.50 worth of their time to order the item, and would cost you $1 to sell it. So if you priced the item at $1.50, giving yourself a 50 cent profit per item sold, your customers would, theoretically, say to themselves "I'd have to pay $1.50 plus $1.50 worth of my time to buy a $2 item. It's not worth it." Of course, most people aren't so rational.
I suppose, as someone who has taught English as a foreign language, that I had a different audience in mind than you did.
Imagine a bunch of Chineese students asking 'why you go there?' and I'm sure you can begin to imagine the pedagogical and utilitarian value of a program that enforced standard grammer at least until a user was competent enough to violate it 'correctly.'
Perhaps a better question would be 'who would use a grammer checker, and what would they want it to check?'
It's really not a difficult concept to understand, but if you want the Cliff's Notes version of my point: "Nothing in life is free." If you want to see what happens with a society tries to avoid the basic laws of economics go vacation in North Korea (or to a lesser extent, Cuba).
So can I assume then that you're a Slashdot subscriber?
Or perhaps you think that Slashdot should be paying you for posting here?
Software is different than most commodities since with software, it's possible to make somthing once and then reuse it 100,000 times. So it's amenable to unconventional business models.
Lets say that making a thing takes $1000 worth of your time to create. Once created, it can be replicated infinitely for almost no cost. It's worth $2 to your customers (in RL this would be much more variable, of course) and you have 100,000 customers. It would cost your customers $1 worth of their time to order the item and it would cost you $1 per item to sell it.
Using conventional sales models, you can't make a profit.
But considering that you can generate $100,000 worth of value for $1000 there's a potential opportunity here... if a person can find the right business model.
I love Steven Pinker's remark about this; that we know the difference between young women looking for husbands and husbands looking for young women.
But there are some things a grammar checker could readily do; see if a verb should be able to accept a direct object, see if a sentence ends in a preposition, etc.
Why didn't they start this when the original owners registered gmail.com?
Because the original owners were in a different market.
I'm pretty sure that I can sell "Microsoft" bananas. It's a different industry and people aren't going to confuse my products with the software maker. I can't use their logo, of course. I just can't sell "microsoft" operating systems or do anything that would create brand confusion with the software maker.
There have been no nuclear power accidents on navy vessels.
Does this apply to all countries? How easy would it be to make a statement like this definitively considering that some of the vessles most likely to use nuclear are also the most likely to kept secret?
Except for near convection-causing volcanic vents, deeper water is cold and likes to stay down, and shallower water is warm and likes to stay up....and any sufficiently experienced nuclear engineer will tell you that a large slab of highly radioactive material will give off heat. What do you think that heat would do to the thermoclines?
I'm all for the safe use of Nuclear power, but the Russians have a history of being reckless (dumping radioactive materials in ponds that dry up, and spread the hazardous material, for instance) and I'm not inclined to trust the safety of the things that they build. They give a bad name to a very important technology.
The boiling point of a liquid is determined both by its temperature and the atmospheric pressure. Mars has a thinner atmosphere because it can't hold as much gas. Oxygen on Mars is too light and escapes off the face of the planet, just as Helium and free Hydrogen do on Earth.
Also, incumbents always want it to be harder to give money--incumbents have a huge out of the gate advantage, and less money makes it harder for new comers to take out incumbents.
Of course, don't incumbants also have a huge advantage in terms of collecting campaign donations as well? They'll have it better, whether you decrease donations or keep them the same.
So should we be complaining about teacher's unions? Labor unions? Environmental advocacy groups?
Complain about them doing what, specifically? Contributing to campaigns?
Unions shouldn't be making campaign donations, but they may have to now in order to offset corporate interests. It'd be better if we could 'de-escalate' the situation.
In terms of the lobbying efforts of these groups, whether the lobbying is ethical depends on what they're doing and how they're structured. For example, the NRA is a good lobbying group because it represents a grassroots base of voters. They do information campaigns and letter writing campaigns which is democratic as opposed to a few individuals making contributions out of proportion to their numbers.
If we have to have campaign contributions, cap them on a per person basis at a level where almost everyone can contribute - $50 or $100 per registered voter. You could then contribute $25 to a campaign as a private individual in the name of the World Wildlife Fund, but the WWF is not a voter and should not be able to contribute. We should eliminate contributions from non-persons like corporations. If all the people in the company want to contribute freely, so be it. Corporations aren't people and shouldn't be able to contribute to campaigns.
Of course, ultimately anyone with money is going to be able to buy political influence if they want it. I don't know how that can be avoided. I don't know if there's a good way to prevent this while still letting people retain their rights to free speech. I have no problem with unlimited contributions to "issue ads." If anyone has a good idea how fix this problem, I'm all ears. But if you agree that preventing foreign citizens from donating to American campaigns is having a positive effect, then you obviously think that we can do somthing to improve campaign finance.
But at the national level you have that canceled out by many competeing interests also donating money. So for instance MCI might donate a lot of money to someone, but so can Sprint...
Which is like balancing out the gasoline that you poured on the fire by adding kerosine. This system that you've described, where MCI and Sprint both donate funds, solidifies the position of powerful entities, and hurts the position of weaker ones, as opposed to a free market with genuine rule of law which treats all entities equally based on their merits.
I agree that the US is much better run than a 3rd world country such as the Philippines, where corruption cripples the local school system and even the local stock market. But saying 'at least half our population isn't starving' seems like a poor mantra. Our situation is getting worse, to say the least.
so if someone taking a lot of money from one company suddenly starts throwing everything there way people look at that a little funny, and true rascals get thrown out eventually.... and are replaced by that other party which doesn't take any campaign contributions. Oh, wait. Campaign contributions are increasing with each election. Until we get accurate accounting and base our votes on campaign contributions and how 'bought off' a candidate is, I don't know that anything will change.
the US won't do anything like this because there isn't a ton of oil in the ground in China....
There's some. Right next to China's bright, shiny nukes.
China wasn't always so heavily dependent upon imported oil. The discovery in 1959 of the Daqing oil fields under the Manchurian grasslands meant the once largely agrarian country was for decades able to produce more crude than it required, a happy circumstance that the government celebrated as a political victory. "Study Daqing!" chanted legions of Red Guards during the 1966-76 Cultural Revolution, when the country's best-known "model worker" was Wang Jinxi, who was said to have plunged into a vat of Daqing oil during a freezing winter and stirred it with his body so it would continue flowing. Oil and gas discoveries in the South China Sea and Bohai Gulf, where drilling began in 1979, made China seem all the more invulnerable to oil shocks, and the country remained an oil exporter until 1993. Today, however, output from China's top four oil fields is in decline. By some estimates, the country's current proven reserves will be depleted in as few as 14 years. Meanwhile, largely untapped petroleum pools believed to lie beneath western China's desolate Tarim Basin are uneconomic to drill, even with prices at $50 a barrel.
You seem to know somthing about Chinese tech censorship. Could you answer a question for me?
A friend has a site about China. It can't be accessed in China, but can be accessed in Hong Kong and the mainland. How do I make it accessible? Change servers? Remove offending keywords? Get a new domain name? Locate the host in China and get a.cn TLD? Is most of Chinese filtering based on keywords done 'at runtime' so to speak?
Slashdot Mirror
Papyrus to paperback is closer.
g es/acid_lignin.pdf
Or even from parchment to paper. But still, fair enough.
From
http://www.hp.com/sbso/product/supplies/paper/ima
In the paper industry, acid-free paper is often tied to longevity. For example, according to
International Paper's Pocket Pal, creating an acid-free paper is defined as a "process that gives paper over four times the life (200 years) of acid-sized paper (40-50 years).
In short, our paper records are gone after 200 years. Our digital records are likely not to survive somthing as cataclysmic as a war.
Our society produces more text about itself in a day than the Romans probably did in their whole history. Even if a small fraction survives
True, but most of it is in formats which won't be easily accessible in the future. Anyone can look at a photo. But every time I change my reel tapes to VHS to DVD etc. it gets a little bit fuzzier. Compression and recompression. Replica to fading.
We create a lot of information, but none of it in a form that will last for over 200 years. Paper, film, digital photos. They fade or are lost or become obsolete.
From an archeologist's perspective nothing that is digitally recorded will exist. Paper lasts 200 years. We're unlikely to find paper in a garbage dump that's legible the way the Nag Hamadi(sp?) scrolls were.
...Except that this digital info is not likely to survive quite as well as the stone buildings from 1000 years ago.
Heck, even our VHS tapes wont be viewable by most people soon, but I can see the photos taken by my great grandparents.
We're creating a history which is increasingly malleable and vulnerable to destruction.
Technology is great, but tech wasn't meant to last or to be archived.
Semantics, perhaps, but they're relevant in determining how effective the courts are in enforcing the law, which is what the grandparent poster was discussing.
How do you define breaking the law? I define it as being convicted in a court.
That's how it's determined that someone broke the law.
If you take somthing that isn't yours, you've committed a crime, regardless of whether or not you are caugh. You have broken the law, even if you were never tried.
Breaking the law is not an action that is performed in court, however. It's only a determiniation which can be formally(legally) made in court.
I'd diagram it like this;
Break the law --> Have a trial --> go to jail or be set free.
A person could say "Yes, I broke the law, but they can't try me because of the statue of limitations has expired." This phrase makes sense to me. So does "I broke the law, but I bribed the judge and he let me off easy." If guilt has to be determined in a court for the law to be broken, the phrase is contradictory.
And really, its not important that you or I have a presumption of innocence, its important that the government and the legal system has it.
I agree as far as individual trials are concerned.
But as a citizen who is responsible for the government's actions and who needs to be able to evaluate the effect of our laws and the fairness of our legal system, it's important for us to be able to differentiate between being proven 'not guilty' and being proven 'innocent.' We need to know whether our justice system is capable of enforcing the law in a fair manner, or if some groups get caught while others get off scot free. There's a gap between committing a crime, (say killing someone) and being tried, found guilty, and sent to jail.
"Not guilty" says that there's not enough legally admissible evidence to prove that you committed a crime in court. "Innocent" says that you didn't commit an action in violation of the law. They're not the same.
I agree 100% with what you're saying about how teaching ability should be based on merit and that it isn't.
Merit for teachers is a bit harder to measure quantitatively. A person who is a brilliant doctor may not be that much better at teaching biology. It's a lot easier to identify those teacher who are poor performers and help or eliminate them, than it is to quantitatively and objectivly identify the best teachers.
That being said, if you're just going to go by hours worked, most economic analyses assume that teachers only work 40 hours a week or less, and neglect to factor in the time it takes to prepare a lesson, for example.
And on a side note, I'd like to hear about the last salary increase you turned down...
;)
If the boss pays a shitty wage, do shitty work.
That's differential pricing for ya!
I could design a website for $100 for you, but it'll be entirely in mauve and orange. Even the text. The nice colors are more expensive.
I'd just like to find a country where there's more competition for chip manufacturing to drive the price down.
At least with vehicles, if gas gets really really bad we could get modified diesel engines and run our cars off corn oil produced by independant producers.
But when you eliminate competition and have a huge cost-of-entry barrier to the market, then the price of things is dictated by whatever the market will bear as opposed to what the item costs to research, market, produce and sell plus a small profit margin.
It's worthwhile for consumers to know what things cost. After all, if companies can organize to pursue their own ends, so should buyers.
... just because they haven't been caught doesn't make it legal ...
Actually, that's precisely what it means. The fundamental presumption of innocence is completely required for our legal system to function. And I assume that by 'been caught' you mean 'been convicted.'
Do you really disagree with the grandparent poster? Just because a person is presumed innocent doesn't mean that they haven't broken any laws.
If you commit a murder and you're never caught or tried you've still broken the law, even though you're "presumed innocent."
Some violations of the law are difficult to punish, so they become common and accepted but not legal. (Though they are legal in a de facto sense.) Some companies have really good legal departments and political connections and can defend themselves.
Seems simple enough to me.
Perhaps a more advanced student would do fine with a pull-down list of options like "Why are you going there?" and "Why do you go there?" and decide which one to use,
That'd be very useful to me.
Perhaps some kind of flowchart or wizard? It may be difficult to do things automatically. If you can flag somthing as incorrect and use some tool (wizard, dropdown, etc) to get the user to supply content, I think somthing like this could be very useful for ESL.
While I'm generally good with English, I was a horrid speller until I started using spellcheck. While most aids tend to become crutches sooner than guides, my spelling improved dramatically after I picked it up. This seems like a highly functional form of e-learning, since it allows the user to learn as part of the target environment, as opposed to a separate environment like the classroom.
Ideally, you could make a grammer checker specifically designed for an ESL student with a particular background. It could target common language mistakes, and you could adjust the 'level' so that beginners were forced to construct rigidly perfect sentances and advanced learners could be given more leeway.
Also, common translation errors could perhaps be targeted, though most of those would require context recogntion or else they'd get a ton of false positives. But phrases like "sour milk" (the literal Chinese translation of 'yogurt' into English) could raise a red flag for beginners. Even so, this seems like an excellent way to improve a student's English.
My coding is pretty weak, but how hard it would be to modify a commercial spell checker...
Is open office's spell checker easily configurable? I wonder if there any projects like this...
Of course, since ESL is lightyears from what you do, all this is probably totally irrelevant to you. Sorry about that.
I'm interested in this for the purpose of people teaching English as a Second\Foreign Language.
I had a Chinese girlfriend who used the phrase "My parents are very saving." She meant 'frugal.'
This is the type of thing I'm hoping to catch.
Assume that it would cost your customers $1.50 worth of their time to order the item, and would cost you $1 to sell it. So if you priced the item at $1.50, giving yourself a 50 cent profit per item sold, your customers would, theoretically, say to themselves "I'd have to pay $1.50 plus $1.50 worth of my time to buy a $2 item. It's not worth it." Of course, most people aren't so rational.
I suppose, as someone who has taught English as a foreign language, that I had a different audience in mind than you did.
Imagine a bunch of Chineese students asking 'why you go there?' and I'm sure you can begin to imagine the pedagogical and utilitarian value of a program that enforced standard grammer at least until a user was competent enough to violate it 'correctly.'
Perhaps a better question would be 'who would use a grammer checker, and what would they want it to check?'
It's really not a difficult concept to understand, but if you want the Cliff's Notes version of my point: "Nothing in life is free." If you want to see what happens with a society tries to avoid the basic laws of economics go vacation in North Korea (or to a lesser extent, Cuba).
So can I assume then that you're a Slashdot subscriber?
Or perhaps you think that Slashdot should be paying you for posting here?
Software is different than most commodities since
with software, it's possible to make somthing once and then reuse it 100,000 times. So it's amenable to unconventional business models.
Lets say that making a thing takes $1000 worth of your time to create. Once created, it can be replicated infinitely for almost no cost. It's worth $2 to your customers (in RL this would be much more variable, of course) and you have 100,000 customers. It would cost your customers $1 worth of their time to order the item and it would cost you $1 per item to sell it.
Using conventional sales models, you can't make a profit.
But considering that you can generate $100,000 worth of value for $1000 there's a potential opportunity here... if a person can find the right business model.
I love Steven Pinker's remark about this; that we know the difference between young women looking for husbands and husbands looking for young women.
But there are some things a grammar checker could readily do; see if a verb should be able to accept a direct object, see if a sentence ends in a preposition, etc.
Why didn't they start this when the original owners registered gmail.com?
Because the original owners were in a different market.
I'm pretty sure that I can sell "Microsoft" bananas. It's a different industry and people aren't going to confuse my products with the software maker. I can't use their logo, of course. I just can't sell "microsoft" operating systems or do anything that would create brand confusion with the software maker.
A sign of success.. is that people sue you.
A sign of success.. is that people sue you unsuccessfully. Otherwise, it's a sign of failure.
If it's really "property" maybe we should start taxing it when it's imported.
Maybe then they'd find a better name for it.
There have been no nuclear power accidents on navy vessels.
Does this apply to all countries? How easy would it be to make a statement like this definitively considering that some of the vessles most likely to use nuclear are also the most likely to kept secret?
Except for near convection-causing volcanic vents, deeper water is cold and likes to stay down, and shallower water is warm and likes to stay up. ...and any sufficiently experienced nuclear engineer will tell you that a large slab of highly radioactive material will give off heat. What do you think that heat would do to the thermoclines?
I'm all for the safe use of Nuclear power, but the Russians have a history of being reckless (dumping radioactive materials in ponds that dry up, and spread the hazardous material, for instance) and I'm not inclined to trust the safety of the things that they build. They give a bad name to a very important technology.
The boiling point of a liquid is determined both by its temperature and the atmospheric pressure. Mars has a thinner atmosphere because it can't hold as much gas. Oxygen on Mars is too light and escapes off the face of the planet, just as Helium and free Hydrogen do on Earth.
Interesting link. Thank you very much.
Also, incumbents always want it to be harder to give money--incumbents have a huge out of the gate advantage, and less money makes it harder for new comers to take out incumbents.
Of course, don't incumbants also have a huge advantage in terms of collecting campaign donations as well? They'll have it better, whether you decrease donations or keep them the same.
So should we be complaining about teacher's unions? Labor unions? Environmental advocacy groups?
Complain about them doing what, specifically? Contributing to campaigns?
Unions shouldn't be making campaign donations, but they may have to now in order to offset corporate interests. It'd be better if we could 'de-escalate' the situation.
In terms of the lobbying efforts of these groups, whether the lobbying is ethical depends on what they're doing and how they're structured. For example, the NRA is a good lobbying group because it represents a grassroots base of voters. They do information campaigns and letter writing campaigns which is democratic as opposed to a few individuals making contributions out of proportion to their numbers.
If we have to have campaign contributions, cap them on a per person basis at a level where almost everyone can contribute - $50 or $100 per registered voter. You could then contribute $25 to a campaign as a private individual in the name of the World Wildlife Fund, but the WWF is not a voter and should not be able to contribute. We should eliminate contributions from non-persons like corporations. If all the people in the company want to contribute freely, so be it. Corporations aren't people and shouldn't be able to contribute to campaigns.
Of course, ultimately anyone with money is going to be able to buy political influence if they want it. I don't know how that can be avoided. I don't know if there's a good way to prevent this while still letting people retain their rights to free speech. I have no problem with unlimited contributions to "issue ads." If anyone has a good idea how fix this problem, I'm all ears. But if you agree that preventing foreign citizens from donating to American campaigns is having a positive effect, then you obviously think that we can do somthing to improve campaign finance.
But this should make my ideals clear, at least.
But at the national level you have that canceled out by many competeing interests also donating money. So for instance MCI might donate a lot of money to someone, but so can Sprint...
... and are replaced by that other party which doesn't take any campaign contributions. Oh, wait. Campaign contributions are increasing with each election. Until we get accurate accounting and base our votes on campaign contributions and how 'bought off' a candidate is, I don't know that anything will change.
Which is like balancing out the gasoline that you poured on the fire by adding kerosine. This system that you've described, where MCI and Sprint both donate funds, solidifies the position of powerful entities, and hurts the position of weaker ones, as opposed to a free market with genuine rule of law which treats all entities equally based on their merits.
I agree that the US is much better run than a 3rd world country such as the Philippines, where corruption cripples the local school system and even the local stock market. But saying 'at least half our population isn't starving' seems like a poor mantra. Our situation is getting worse, to say the least.
so if someone taking a lot of money from one company suddenly starts throwing everything there way people look at that a little funny, and true rascals get thrown out eventually.
the US won't do anything like this because there isn't a ton of oil in the ground in China....
1 3673,501041025-725174,00.html
There's some. Right next to China's bright, shiny nukes.
China wasn't always so heavily dependent upon imported oil. The discovery in 1959 of the Daqing oil fields under the Manchurian grasslands meant the once largely agrarian country was for decades able to produce more crude than it required, a happy circumstance that the government celebrated as a political victory. "Study Daqing!" chanted legions of Red Guards during the 1966-76 Cultural Revolution, when the country's best-known "model worker" was Wang Jinxi, who was said to have plunged into a vat of Daqing oil during a freezing winter and stirred it with his body so it would continue flowing. Oil and gas discoveries in the South China Sea and Bohai Gulf, where drilling began in 1979, made China seem all the more invulnerable to oil shocks, and the country remained an oil exporter until 1993. Today, however, output from China's top four oil fields is in decline. By some estimates, the country's current proven reserves will be depleted in as few as 14 years. Meanwhile, largely untapped petroleum pools believed to lie beneath western China's desolate Tarim Basin are uneconomic to drill, even with prices at $50 a barrel.
http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,
NT
You seem to know somthing about Chinese tech censorship. Could you answer a question for me?
.cn TLD? Is most of Chinese filtering based on keywords done 'at runtime' so to speak?
A friend has a site about China. It can't be accessed in China, but can be accessed in Hong Kong and the mainland. How do I make it accessible? Change servers? Remove offending keywords? Get a new domain name? Locate the host in China and get a
Thanks for any insight.
Ryan