News Stories

[iLney]

Originally Posted by Vexx

The problem with your flippant answer is that -
1) if its your wife, you've just gone to war with China
2) if it were his wife... its YOUR WIFE's mother. Good luck with ignoring that...

1) They have gone to war with the US if that were the case, not the other way around.

2) One should be careful about with whom to wed.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by iLney

1) They have gone to war with the US if that were the case, not the other way around.

2) One should be careful about with whom to wed.

1) Your wife is Chinese.... welcome to the world.
2) So.... you're not going to trade with China at all.

Seriously, do you two think at all before you post?

[mysterious]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

China "unhappy" with support for detained artist
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...74B6PE20110512

They wheren't expecting international aproval for what they did or what ?

A quote from the article. "The Chinese people are unhappy about this. No matter what influence they have had, they will be punished according to the law"

You are sure it is the chinese and not your government? and this comment comes from a communist country? seriously, who are they kidding.

edit:yeah, I know corruption is everywhere, so inb4 the US has it too.

[iLney]

1) By Chinese, you mean the people? They are not my wife!
2) I'll gladly trade with them, why not? Now if they venture into nationalizing MY investment, that is not cool. Other than that, who cares! Any nonsensical financial manipulation on their part will hurt them on the long run, not us.

You are making it unnecessarily complicated.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by iLney

1) By Chinese, you mean the people? They are not my wife!
2) I'll gladly trade with them, why not? Now if they venture into nationalizing MY investment, that is not cool. Other than that, who cares! Any nonsensical financial manipulation on their part will hurt them on the long run, not us.

You are making it unnecessarily complicated.

The thing is, the wife is an analogy of FDI. So taking things into context, you just went to war with China over an investment, and by divesting, you just destroyed hundreds and thousands of jobs, and what is more important, you made the Chinese government "lose face".

I don't think I have to elaborate on the "what happens" part where you made the Chinese government lose face.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by iLney

1) By Chinese, you mean the people? They are not my wife!
2) I'll gladly trade with them, why not? Now if they venture into nationalizing MY investment, that is not cool. Other than that, who cares! Any nonsensical financial manipulation on their part will hurt them on the long run, not us.

You are making it unnecessarily complicated.

1. Learn to read metaphors/similes please. What he means is that you if you were to trade with China, then what happens within its borders would affect you/your government/your country. The same way your father-in-law beating his daughter/your wife would affect you.

2. If you say you'd gladly trade with them, you're contradicting what you said earlier: "one should be careful about who to wed" which in the context of this conversation means "one should be careful about who to trade with" and that implies you'd be weary about trading with China, but then you say you'd gladly do it. Which is it?

[Jinto]

Why is it, that the intelectually unarmed in a forums' discussion, defend their point of view most rigorously, to a point where they make themselves fools in the eyes of others. If one considers the pros and cons (being basically resistant to learning/not accepting anything outside of their short horizon, loosing kudos with basically no real social reward..) it would appear wise to simply shut up in such a case. Maybe it is just hard to see that plank in one's own eye because of the plank in the eye hinders the view on the plank that causes such behaviour.

[ganbaru]

Syria's Assad reported to have ordered no shooting
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...73N02P20110513

(Reuters) - Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has ordered troops not to fire on pro-democracy demonstrators, a rights campaigner said, ahead of Friday prayers that have become a rallying point for protesters in an eight-week uprising.

Not sure if I can belive this or not. Probably not .

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Syria's Assad reported to have ordered no shooting
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...73N02P20110513

Not sure if I can belive this or not. Probably not .

probably ?

Pakistan paramilitary Shaqbadar base bombings 'kill 80
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13385597

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Syria's Assad reported to have ordered no shooting
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...73N02P20110513

Not sure if I can belive this or not. Probably not .

You can. With strings attached of course, like "do not shoot protestors unless they start moving forward or pick up anything from the ground".

Rationale? If they moved forward, they are pushing towards key installations. If they pick up anything, they are bound to throw them. So Assad orders probably went that if they "do anything else besides that or those of outright suspicion", don't shoot them. *sarcastic*

[DonQuigleone]

Well the rationale of China is that this is all within their national sovereignty.

To use another analogy, if you were giving your kid chocolate, and the health freak mom next door said you were a terrible parent and you should have your kids taken away etc. etc. you would be right to say, "this is my kid, and my yard, not yours, I run it how I like".

Now whether this could be extended to political prisoners is another matter. But the Chinese say "this is how we run things, don't tell us what to do," and there really isn't much you can do to respond to that. I suppose their feeling is that if they cave to one thing, it's not much time before they cave to everything. And it's not exactly like the Chinese government doesn't have the approval of it's populace. Last time I checked their approval rating was pretty high. The only people who can really be expected to change how the government does thing, is the people themselves.

[GundamFan0083]

It's these kinds of stories that make me feel the US really is becoming a police state under DHS.

I guess the legacy of Clinton, and GW Bush continues under Obama.

Here's the latest round:

Senate Bill Gives Feds Power to Order Blacklisting of Piracy Sites

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/protect-act/

I wonder, would animesuki be on that list of banned sites because of the bit torrents it hosts?

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

It's these kinds of stories that make me feel the US really is becoming a police state under DHS.

I guess the legacy of Clinton, and GW Bush continues under Obama.

Here's the latest round:

Senate Bill Gives Feds Power to Order Blacklisting of Piracy Sites

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/protect-act/

I wonder, would animesuki be on that list of banned sites because of the bit torrents it hosts?

Like most "police state" laws, the bill *sounds* good until you realize how ambiguous it is and how disproportionate the punishments are to what is often a civil rather than a criminal issue. Fortunately, its still only a bill but eyeballs must be kept on it and letters written poking holes in the language of it. Also, follow the money on politicians who support it (their campaign donors) and call them out when its clear they aren't serving the needs of the greater community

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

It's these kinds of stories that make me feel the US really is becoming a police state under DHS.

I guess the legacy of Clinton, and GW Bush continues under Obama.

Here's the latest round:

Senate Bill Gives Feds Power to Order Blacklisting of Piracy Sites

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/protect-act/

I wonder, would animesuki be on that list of banned sites because of the bit torrents it hosts?

article said since bush

Either way, though, the legislation amounts to the holy grail of intellectual-property enforcement that the recording industry, movie studios and their union and guild workforces have been clamoring for since the George W. Bush administration.

why are you dragging bill into it.

[iLney]

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

1. Learn to read metaphors/similes please. What he means is that you if you were to trade with China, then what happens within its borders would affect you/your government/your country. The same way your father-in-law beating his daughter/your wife would affect you.

Then his metaphors and similes fail. Tough luck.

2. If you say you'd gladly trade with them, you're contradicting what you said earlier: "one should be careful about who to wed" which in the context of this conversation means "one should be careful about who to trade with" and that implies you'd be weary about trading with China, but then you say you'd gladly do it. Which is it?

Err... you must marry all the people you trade with?

I'm not afraid of anything when trading with them. They take my stuff I beat the crap out of them and vice versa. Since both are rational, there is little chance that absurd scenario would ever happen.

Now, I won't venture into endorsing "democracy," "freedom," "human rights" and such within their country. They can nuke their own people if they want, and no one should give a rat.

Trading is just a goddamn civil activity. Now it is perceived as some kind of privilege granted to those who contribute to the betterment of humanity, a case of libertards running amok.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

article said since bush



why are you dragging bill into it.

I'm dragging Bill Clinton into this because his administration was the first to try and censor the internet.

The ACLU sued (and won) against COPA back in the 1990s because that law was unconstitutional.

From ACLU website:
ACLU and Others Challenge Internet Censorship Bill Signed by President Clinton

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-l...sident-clinton

Thus, Bill Clinton does share some of the responsibility for this trend in US law.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by iLney

Then his metaphors and similes fail. Tough luck.

When one or two people don't get it and the rest do... there's a different answer the forum readers might have. Especially when the repeated demonstration of it provides precise examples of Jinto's observation.

Back to relevant topics, Gundam does have a point -- both major parties have been to some extent co-opted (bribed, etc) to police the interests of the entertainment gatekeepers (RIAA, etc) running roughshod over the rights of the general community. Often they'll cloak it in "think of the children" language... but the actual use of any related laws has been more often used as privacy erosion hammers.

[flying ^]

speaking of lil childrin....

will my monthly internet fee go up because of this...?

The Justice Department wants Congress to mandate that internet service providers retain data on their users' internet usage for a longer period of time. And to illustrate how important the feds think the having access to that IP data is, they're using the story of how law enforcement failed to track down the maker of a video depicting the rape of a two-year-old girl..... http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...-retention.php



edit: my guess is longer retention = more need for storage devices..... and if ISPs aren't big shots like Comcast then they'll just pass the cost to subscribers

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by flying ^

speaking of lil childrin....

will my monthly internet fee go up because of this...?

The Justice Department wants Congress to mandate that internet service providers retain data on their users' internet usage for a longer period of time. And to illustrate how important the feds think the having access to that IP data is, they're using the story of how law enforcement failed to track down the maker of a video depicting the rape of a two-year-old girl..... http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...-retention.php



edit: my guess is longer retention = more need for storage devices..... and if ISPs aren't big shots like Comcast then they'll just pass the cost to subscribers

Its funny since this is not an USA only problem. We had the same thing called colloquial "Vorratsdatenspeicherungsgesetz" (in reality the name is a lot longer... "Gesetz zur Neuregelung der Telekommunikationsüberwachung und anderer verdeckter Ermittlungsmaßnahmen sowie zur Umsetzung der Richtlinie 2006/24/EG" ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecom...data_retention.
Anyway, our constitutional court shot it down in 2010. Tools like retention of telecomunications data should not be used in a democracy imo. Its not per se bad, but it reduces the hurdles for the conversion into a police state (corporate police state) by at least one step and is inherently dangerous for a democracy. So I am basically less conerned about higher costs actually (storage is kinda cheap these days).

[ganbaru]

Pakistan and questions over foreign aid
http://blogs.reuters.com/bernddebusm...r-foreign-aid/

In the flurry of statements on the killing of Osama bin Laden, a remark from Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington, Husain Haqqani, spoke volumes about how U.S. foreign aid tends to be perceived by its recipients. It’s not enough.

“The United States spent much more money in Iraq than it did in Afghanistan,” Haqqani said in a television interview. “And then it spent much more in Afghanistan than it did in Pakistan. So were there cracks through which things fell through? Absolutely.”

That twisted logic suggests that if only Washington had given Pakistan a few billion more than the $20.7 billion it provided over the past decade, bin Laden, a man with a $27 million bounty on his head, would not have “fallen through the cracks.” Those cracks were wide enough to swallow bin Laden’s one-acre walled compound with a three-storey building in a garrison town near the Pakistani capital.