Surely the Environmental Ministry cannot be as harmful as the Chinese Ministry preventing this quote from being carried in Xinhua, China Daily or any major news source in China? [...] Solve your censorship problem and you will solve a lot of your other problems. Just be prepared to see high turnover in your leadership -- something that has been needed for a very long time in China.
Let me guess which ministry you are referring to...
Ah, must be the U.S. Department of Education. Since it obvious doesn't teach you Chinese and consequently causing you unable to read this same news in Chinese news and make up false conclusion.
Yet Jeff Flake (R-AZ), he received $588,966 $2,800 - a staggering 200x in favor, and voted "NO".
Mark Kirk (R-IL) $1,076,621to $28,200 or some 35x in favor, another "NO" vote.
Dear Donor,
Thank you for your generous checks! As promised, I will not blow my nose (we call it filibustering) during the public performance of our Circus, even though I have an impressively long nose longer than that of Pinocchio's, so that the Donkeys can pass your bill. But I will immediately blame the Donkeys for passing the bill. Don't worry. That won't hurt your bill a bit. I just do it to entice other of my donors to continue to write checks to me.
Thanks again for your generous checks! Keep in touch.
Yet Jeff Flake (R-AZ), he received $588,966 $2,800 - a staggering 200x in favor, and voted "NO".
Mark Kirk (R-IL) $1,076,621to $28,200 or some 35x in favor, another "NO" vote.
But maybe 200X got them not to start filibuster the bill? If you don't pay enough, the R will filibuster to block it; if you do pay enough, the R will not filibuster but blame the D.
Correct. Wait until robots can do ramen (pulled noodles, as in the original meaning of the word.) That's what a real human noodle maker will do in China to be employable.
Nobody disputes that. And so it is justified? Just like we used to befriend Saddam Hussein for the same reason? We're not on moral high ground and our public and media wouldn't criticize their own country's actions much since it is unpatriotic and thus unwelcome. It is all rooted in selfishness and double standards.
The US didn't support Mao and the US was not complicit in the building of a police state in China.
What about:
The US didn't help the ROC to fight off the communists after WWII, causing the eventual change of power on the mainland
After China had successfully developed nuclear bombs, the US didn't defend ROC's membership in the UN Security Council but miserably missing during a key vote that turned the key membership to the PRC.
A few years later, a US Secretary of States and a President visited Mao during Cultural Revolution, period with a million times worse human rights violation, to ally them to fight for the Soviet
For the same reason of fighting its cold war, the US opened its market to China
No doubt that North Korea is now learning from US-China relations. And we can predict NK will be an US ally against China in a decade. When it comes to foreign politics, no country was / is clean.
Exactly! This whole sage has suddenly been blown up recently. They have the full control of their routers and gateway and can fake network addressing information anyway they want, if it is a serious spy operation. Besides, anyone who really know China should know that government departments or employees in china are almost ways just work for their own projects for their own profits, rather than that of the country's.
This whole saga reminds me of the WMD in Iraq claim before the Iraq war. It was so convinced at the time that Iraq was building/storing massive WMD that aimed at US... until we spent trillions of dollar and thousands of lives to find out the whole thing is a flop. So many defense contractors who were friendly to the ruling parties got big rainfall, and nobody really got punished for such terrible intelligence.
This time, though, we will never find out the truth, because we can't possibly invade China to find out. We will just keep spending $$$. Thanks a lot!
China is very poor at public relation marketing and packaging. The government hasn't really needed to spit out anything other than blunt propaganda that nobody in China believe (go check out comments in any Chinese news forum to see.) As their society becomes modernized with more and more PR, marketing people and lawyers trained in the West, they will eventually refine their PR just like us. They will enter the era of marketing just like us.
The USA, on the other hand, has been very very good at that, both government and private companies. That's why we got world-wide brand names like Coke and McDonald's. Ad that's why we all believed in WMD in Iraq before we spent a trillion dollars and thousands of lives to find out it is a flop and nobody got punished for the 'intelligence error".
The CO2 can be fed to algae tanks to continue another energy production process. It would be easier than doing the same with traditional coal plant if the CO2 is clean and not mixed with ash etc.
... to the contractors. This just looks like WMD in Iraq again -- you (taxpayers) paid a trillion dollar to find out the whole thing was fake and yet nobody got punished. For this one, you will spend billion$ and still won't know if it is real -- after all we can't invade China to find out. When somebody tries to sell you something hard, it must be fishy.
I just wonder why a sophisticate spy operation forgot to fake their IP addresses but leave all trails to one location, given that they have controls of their routers and gateways.
Repots from contractors? How do we know it is not the same this time? Last time, it was so convincing too until after we spent a trillion dollars and thousands of lives.
The *real* problem is a set of beliefs, including that rich people are better than everyone else, that giving more and more money to rich people will help the economy grow, and that money is the only effective motivator of human behavior.
Unfortunately, that's not untrue. Wealth gap is like potential energy in physics. Without it, you can't have kinetic energy to get works done. People who think that the society can progress by forcefully, evenly distributing wealth have not lived in Soviet/China before economic reform -- it was proven a failure. Think of the thousands of start-ups in Silicon Valley, majority of them are funded by venture capitalists -- very rich people; most of these companies still fail at the end. If the VCs think they can't rip sufficient rewards back in the remaining successful ones, why would they bet their money? If you find you can't make more than the same amount of money working as employee, why would you risk everything you have to found a company? It would be better to keep the money in the bank earning negative interest still since it has little risk. As the market mature, it is harder and harder to easily find profitable niches but people will not have works without companies, so more and more incentives -- in tax deduction or even subsidies like in green tech -- have to be handed out.
It always comes down to the right ratio. Perhaps the golden ratio is the right one -- something like 38% people controlling 62% of wealth.
There is some culture dependency, but most countries -- including the US regarding civil rights -- cleaned up their acts after their economy had developed and per-capita GDP is high enough. I knew a public school teacher in HK and they get a government granted condo worth probably HKD $10 million; that's why civic servants there don't need to corrupt -- everybody else is paying in the form of high property prices or tax. China tries to go the path of HK and Singapore but there are too many civic servants to afford it widely; if most are just fired, then rebellion and civic war -- sort of like we can just cut our spending big enough to lower the debt. Again too big to fail everywhere. Among all factors, economy is still the primary one; political system, lack of democracy, etc. just have marginal effects.
Look at India which was ruled by the Brits too; it is more corrupted than China. That disproves your point. Or at best that may work for small places like HK and TW. BTW, no matter how bad a government is, few people will support their own country been invaded and ruled by another.
I stood by my use of the term. The term in American politics simply hijacked the more general sense of term. There are clearly many definitions of "power" -- like "political power". And I said it is "a form of", not the "balance of power in American politics."
If you truly care about national stability, you would want to see the CCP allow for greater transparency."
Agree. If recent development in China since the Bo-Wang scandal last year continues, it is an indication they want to go in that direction. Judging from comments and blogs in China now, the level and frequency of public criticism of os much higher than last year. You can read direct attack against the party, the leaders by names, and even call for revolution every day; never see these in plain sign and in abundance before.
But officially, it will likely to be done gradually and open up the media (head-line news) gradually. Don't expect big announcement that will please populists and western media. It is not likely they will suddenly release all political prisoners because it may rock the boat. But slowly. (To be honest, I doubt there are too many of those prisoners, probably dozens to a hundred; while you keep hearing people being wrapped up for political view or speech in China, they are probably much rarer than gun violence as an average person will experience in the US.)
Agree! No, there is no corruption in the US. There are only political contributions which is perfectly legal. And you only need to pay it when you need to change the law to your flavor. There is no political contribution in China, there is only corruption which could get you executed. That's the differences in the system designs. I actually think China will eventually go the US system -- election + political contributions. Not because it is good, but because it is more stable.
A form of balance of power can also mean different groups are watching over each other, regardless of motivation. If they can balance each other, that means no groups gain too much power.
In a properly designed system, the party can be out of power without worrying about death or exile. Believe it or not, that's a huge difference. [...] You do realize the ex-president of Taiwan is currently in jail for embezzlement, right? Your ability to gather accurate information isn't exactly showing itself today.....
The party out of power has to worry about going to jail. They would have to worry about death too if death sentence is allowed for corruption, as in China. And this ex-president started his act after Taiwan completed its transformation long time ago. Just like a corrupt official in HK today wouldn't be pardoned anymore. The reset button is hit once and hopefully only once.
Unfortunately, there are many problems that are constantly in the main street headline, and still haven't been resolved. I leave to you as an exercise to find some.
There are of course constant headlines, but the ones become really loud -- like airline safety at 9/11, pending collapse of economy in 2008, US debt in 2011 -- will be taken care of. (I should have emphasize the really loud part better.) They don't necessary be solved right the way but the various solutions are often created to at least make the problem much less dangerous.
Most "anti-corruption" drives in China are used to scapegoat political enemies
Probably, but isn't that a form of balance of power? How's that different from two party election system? How do other democracies, like India, Philippine, Mexico, do in this regard? (Hint: they rank even lower than China's in the clean government index.)
Stability is also important. As much as you and me would like to see the CCP fail, it will be tragic to the 1.6 billion people if civil wars break out, causing massive death and chaos. At this point, the CCP is also too big to fail just like our mega banks. The process has to be gradual. For example, Hong Kong was very corrupt back in 1960's; the HK government tried to crack down on corruption but met with resistance and chaos; eventually the HK government had to pardon all corrupted officials and police. Today, HK is one of the cleanest government in the world. The same thing happened in Taiwan and S. Korea. The same thing will need to happen in China too.
Regarding the GP's comment, this round of effort is a little different than the past in its wide and deep coverage by both official media and the Internet. Like all of our problems in this world, when a problem hits the main street headline day and night, it is near the time of a solution.
But I do have hope that this will be taken care of. It is a natural evolution of a developed economy, independent of what political party is in power. Taiwan/SK went in the same process when their economy became developed, China is near that stage. You need to trust the natural force.
Though most large companies are state-own, it doesn't mean they are more monopolistic or less competing than the private duopolies we have. For examples, after their only airline that was known for bad services was broken into many state-own airlines, each of them have become much more efficient and provide good services and prices driven by the market. The two telcos were not known for bad services within their own customers; rather they set up barrier between them so trying to keep customers from leaving (until such practices got crack down by the government.) In short, state-own in China probably means not too much more than US government owning majority AIG. Both are trying to lobby or bribe their respective governments to their advantages.
Slashdot Mirror
Surely the Environmental Ministry cannot be as harmful as the Chinese Ministry preventing this quote from being carried in Xinhua, China Daily or any major news source in China?
[...]
Solve your censorship problem and you will solve a lot of your other problems. Just be prepared to see high turnover in your leadership -- something that has been needed for a very long time in China.
Let me guess which ministry you are referring to...
Ah, must be the U.S. Department of Education. Since it obvious doesn't teach you Chinese and consequently causing you unable to
read this same news in Chinese news and make up false conclusion.
Yet Jeff Flake (R-AZ), he received $588,966 $2,800 - a staggering 200x in favor, and voted "NO".
Mark Kirk (R-IL) $1,076,621to $28,200 or some 35x in favor, another "NO" vote.
Dear Donor,
Thank you for your generous checks! As promised, I will not blow my nose (we call it filibustering) during the public performance of our Circus, even though I have an impressively long nose longer than that of Pinocchio's, so that the Donkeys can pass your bill. But I will immediately blame the Donkeys for passing the bill. Don't worry. That won't hurt your bill a bit. I just do it to entice other of my donors to continue to write checks to me.
Thanks again for your generous checks! Keep in touch.
Sincerely,
The Elephants
Yet Jeff Flake (R-AZ), he received $588,966 $2,800 - a staggering 200x in favor, and voted "NO".
Mark Kirk (R-IL) $1,076,621to $28,200 or some 35x in favor, another "NO" vote.
But maybe 200X got them not to start filibuster the bill? If you don't pay enough, the R will filibuster to block it; if you do pay enough, the R will not filibuster but blame the D.
Correct. Wait until robots can do ramen (pulled noodles, as in the original meaning of the word.) That's what a real human noodle maker will do in China to be employable.
Just buy a life insurance. You will win.
Nobody disputes that. And so it is justified? Just like we used to befriend Saddam Hussein for the same reason? We're not on moral high ground and our public and media wouldn't criticize their own country's actions much since it is unpatriotic and thus unwelcome. It is all rooted in selfishness and double standards.
The US didn't support Mao and the US was not complicit in the building of a police state in China.
What about:
No doubt that North Korea is now learning from US-China relations. And we can predict NK will be an US ally against China in a decade. When it comes to foreign politics, no country was / is clean.
Exactly! This whole sage has suddenly been blown up recently. They have the full control of their routers and gateway and can fake network addressing information anyway they want, if it is a serious spy operation. Besides, anyone who really know China should know that government departments or employees in china are almost ways just work for their own projects for their own profits, rather than that of the country's.
This whole saga reminds me of the WMD in Iraq claim before the Iraq war. It was so convinced at the time that Iraq was building/storing massive WMD that aimed at US... until we spent trillions of dollar and thousands of lives to find out the whole thing is a flop. So many defense contractors who were friendly to the ruling parties got big rainfall, and nobody really got punished for such terrible intelligence.
This time, though, we will never find out the truth, because we can't possibly invade China to find out. We will just keep spending $$$. Thanks a lot!
China is very poor at public relation marketing and packaging. The government hasn't really needed to spit out anything other than blunt propaganda that nobody in China believe (go check out comments in any Chinese news forum to see.) As their society becomes modernized with more and more PR, marketing people and lawyers trained in the West, they will eventually refine their PR just like us. They will enter the era of marketing just like us.
The USA, on the other hand, has been very very good at that, both government and private companies. That's why we got world-wide brand names like Coke and McDonald's. Ad that's why we all believed in WMD in Iraq before we spent a trillion dollars and thousands of lives to find out it is a flop and nobody got punished for the 'intelligence error".
No. This headline is better:
Mongo Not a New Lemon In the World of DB
The CO2 can be fed to algae tanks to continue another energy production process. It would be easier than doing the same with traditional coal plant if the CO2 is clean and not mixed with ash etc.
... to the contractors. This just looks like WMD in Iraq again -- you (taxpayers) paid a trillion dollar to find out the whole thing was fake and yet nobody got punished. For this one, you will spend billion$ and still won't know if it is real -- after all we can't invade China to find out. When somebody tries to sell you something hard, it must be fishy.
I just wonder why a sophisticate spy operation forgot to fake their IP addresses but leave all trails to one location, given that they have controls of their routers and gateways.
Repots from contractors? How do we know it is not the same this time? Last time, it was so convincing too until after we spent a trillion dollars and thousands of lives.
The *real* problem is a set of beliefs, including that rich people are better than everyone else, that giving more and more money to rich people will help the economy grow, and that money is the only effective motivator of human behavior.
Unfortunately, that's not untrue. Wealth gap is like potential energy in physics. Without it, you can't have kinetic energy to get works done. People who think that the society can progress by forcefully, evenly distributing wealth have not lived in Soviet/China before economic reform -- it was proven a failure. Think of the thousands of start-ups in Silicon Valley, majority of them are funded by venture capitalists -- very rich people; most of these companies still fail at the end. If the VCs think they can't rip sufficient rewards back in the remaining successful ones, why would they bet their money? If you find you can't make more than the same amount of money working as employee, why would you risk everything you have to found a company? It would be better to keep the money in the bank earning negative interest still since it has little risk. As the market mature, it is harder and harder to easily find profitable niches but people will not have works without companies, so more and more incentives -- in tax deduction or even subsidies like in green tech -- have to be handed out.
It always comes down to the right ratio. Perhaps the golden ratio is the right one -- something like 38% people controlling 62% of wealth.
Or maybe you can use brain when reading.
You didn't notice I was being cynical in the reply?
There is some culture dependency, but most countries -- including the US regarding civil rights -- cleaned up their acts after their economy had developed and per-capita GDP is high enough. I knew a public school teacher in HK and they get a government granted condo worth probably HKD $10 million; that's why civic servants there don't need to corrupt -- everybody else is paying in the form of high property prices or tax. China tries to go the path of HK and Singapore but there are too many civic servants to afford it widely; if most are just fired, then rebellion and civic war -- sort of like we can just cut our spending big enough to lower the debt. Again too big to fail everywhere. Among all factors, economy is still the primary one; political system, lack of democracy, etc. just have marginal effects.
Look at India which was ruled by the Brits too; it is more corrupted than China. That disproves your point. Or at best that may work for small places like HK and TW. BTW, no matter how bad a government is, few people will support their own country been invaded and ruled by another.
I stood by my use of the term. The term in American politics simply hijacked the more general sense of term. There are clearly many definitions of "power" -- like "political power". And I said it is "a form of", not the "balance of power in American politics."
If you truly care about national stability, you would want to see the CCP allow for greater transparency."
Agree. If recent development in China since the Bo-Wang scandal last year continues, it is an indication they want to go in that direction. Judging from comments and blogs in China now, the level and frequency of public criticism of os much higher than last year. You can read direct attack against the party, the leaders by names, and even call for revolution every day; never see these in plain sign and in abundance before.
But officially, it will likely to be done gradually and open up the media (head-line news) gradually. Don't expect big announcement that will please populists and western media. It is not likely they will suddenly release all political prisoners because it may rock the boat. But slowly. (To be honest, I doubt there are too many of those prisoners, probably dozens to a hundred; while you keep hearing people being wrapped up for political view or speech in China, they are probably much rarer than gun violence as an average person will experience in the US.)
Agree! No, there is no corruption in the US. There are only political contributions which is perfectly legal. And you only need to pay it when you need to change the law to your flavor. There is no political contribution in China, there is only corruption which could get you executed. That's the differences in the system designs. I actually think China will eventually go the US system -- election + political contributions. Not because it is good, but because it is more stable.
A form of balance of power can also mean different groups are watching over each other, regardless of motivation. If they can balance each other, that means no groups gain too much power.
In a properly designed system, the party can be out of power without worrying about death or exile. Believe it or not, that's a huge difference.
[...]
You do realize the ex-president of Taiwan is currently in jail for embezzlement, right? Your ability to gather accurate information isn't exactly showing itself today.....
The party out of power has to worry about going to jail. They would have to worry about death too if death sentence is allowed for corruption, as in China. And this ex-president started his act after Taiwan completed its transformation long time ago. Just like a corrupt official in HK today wouldn't be pardoned anymore. The reset button is hit once and hopefully only once.
Unfortunately, there are many problems that are constantly in the main street headline, and still haven't been resolved. I leave to you as an exercise to find some.
There are of course constant headlines, but the ones become really loud -- like airline safety at 9/11, pending collapse of economy in 2008, US debt in 2011 -- will be taken care of. (I should have emphasize the really loud part better.) They don't necessary be solved right the way but the various solutions are often created to at least make the problem much less dangerous.
Most "anti-corruption" drives in China are used to scapegoat political enemies
Probably, but isn't that a form of balance of power? How's that different from two party election system? How do other democracies, like India, Philippine, Mexico, do in this regard? (Hint: they rank even lower than China's in the clean government index.)
Stability is also important. As much as you and me would like to see the CCP fail, it will be tragic to the 1.6 billion people if civil wars break out, causing massive death and chaos. At this point, the CCP is also too big to fail just like our mega banks. The process has to be gradual. For example, Hong Kong was very corrupt back in 1960's; the HK government tried to crack down on corruption but met with resistance and chaos; eventually the HK government had to pardon all corrupted officials and police. Today, HK is one of the cleanest government in the world. The same thing happened in Taiwan and S. Korea. The same thing will need to happen in China too.
Regarding the GP's comment, this round of effort is a little different than the past in its wide and deep coverage by both official media and the Internet. Like all of our problems in this world, when a problem hits the main street headline day and night, it is near the time of a solution.
But I do have hope that this will be taken care of. It is a natural evolution of a developed economy, independent of what political party is in power. Taiwan/SK went in the same process when their economy became developed, China is near that stage. You need to trust the natural force.
Though most large companies are state-own, it doesn't mean they are more monopolistic or less competing than the private duopolies we have. For examples, after their only airline that was known for bad services was broken into many state-own airlines, each of them have become much more efficient and provide good services and prices driven by the market. The two telcos were not known for bad services within their own customers; rather they set up barrier between them so trying to keep customers from leaving (until such practices got crack down by the government.) In short, state-own in China probably means not too much more than US government owning majority AIG. Both are trying to lobby or bribe their respective governments to their advantages.
Slashdot editors' memory is getting really short. This is essentially the same story already post just two days ago! And nothing new in this one.
which says:
1. put the device in your pant
2. setup wi-fi password
3. open your favorite browser
4. type www.xvideo.com
5. ???
6. more happiness!