Moderator: Community Team
macbone wrote:Sorry, Plato, not Aristotle.
My point still stands. You've avoided my question and have failed to explain the correlation between democracy and creativity/stability/innovation.
And I understand that you disagree about my point on whether we can logically determine the best form of government, but why can we not logically? Is it because it is too subjective? Then let's deal only in what we can objectively discuss? Is it too complex? There is no issue too complex that logic cannot address.
mrswdk wrote:Civil liberties in China are none of America's (or anyone else's) concern, and in any case the US doesn't have any kind of moral high horse to speak of when it comes to human rights.
Metsfanmax wrote:mrswdk wrote:Civil liberties in China are none of America's (or anyone else's) concern, and in any case the US doesn't have any kind of moral high horse to speak of when it comes to human rights.
Not too long ago, this would have condoned letting 11 million innocent people die. After all, the US was putting some Japanese folks into internment camps, so they clearly had no right to stop a genocide!
General_Tao wrote:Nietzsche, don't you think that you live in a narco-dictatorship? You are blinded by your patriotism. Your country is run by drug cartels that have killed more than 76,000 citizens in the last decade (and up to twice that much), including countless journalists and activists. If China had the same problem, they would have had nearly a million people killed off by ruling bandits!
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2 ... hobia.html
mrswdk wrote:
Reform is a gradual process
DoomYoshi wrote:mrswdk wrote:
Reform is a gradual process
Therefore Great Leap Forward is an oxymoron?
notyou2 wrote:Apparently mrswdk is against civil liberties, freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom in general.
Why are you such a mouth piece for Beijing?
mrswdk wrote:notyou2 wrote:Apparently mrswdk is against civil liberties, freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom in general.
Why are you such a mouth piece for Beijing?
I am all for freedom, as I have said before. If I compare China and the UK (the two countries I know best) there are many ways in which I am more free in China than I was in the UK. I am free to walk down a dark, quiet street or alley late at night without the fear of becoming a victim of crime. I am free from having a vast amount of rules and regulations governing every aspect of my daily life. You talk about freedom of association - I'm free to travel around my city without ever finding that pavements, roads or entire districts have been closed down by protestors.
Different people value different kinds of freedoms, and it's kinda ignorant to accuse me of being a mouthpiece for the Chinese government just because I say that. No one I know in Beijing has any interest in talking about politics, or democracy, or anything like that. No one gives a shit. No one cares that they can't go protest in Tiananmen Square or denounce the Party on the internet, because no one wants to. Maybe in Canada people's number one priority is being able to kick out against the authorities, but in China people have different interests. Why that concerns you (or anyone else abroad) is beyond me.
mrswdk wrote:Shut up and make me an enchilada.
mrswdk wrote:I am free from having a vast amount of rules and regulations governing every aspect of my daily life*.
Six Chinese citizens, including three professors who trained together at the University of Southern California, stole sensitive wireless technology from U.S. companies and spirited it back to China, the Justice Department charged.
The six individuals allegedly swiped trade secrets from U.S. companies Avago Technologies and Skyworks Solutions Inc. relating to how to filter out unwanted signals in wireless devices, according to an indictment unsealed late Monday.
They then set up a joint venture with China’s state-controlled Tianjin University to produce and sell equipment using the technology, according to the indictment, and won contracts from both businesses and “military entities.”
The U.S. companies supply components for Apple’s iPhone, among other devices. Authorities said the case demonstrates persistent efforts to steal American technology developed in places like Silicon Valley, where Avago’s U.S. operations are based.
--------------------------------------------------
The charges come amid a heightened Justice Department focus on suspected economic espionage, especially by the Chinese. In May of last year, the department brought charges against five Chinese military employees who allegedly hacked into U.S. companies to steal trade secrets. In March of last year, the U.S. won convictions of two engineers who allegedly stole secrets to manufacturing a white pigment from DuPont Co. and sold them to a Chinese firm.
Last week, network security firm FireEye Inc. said it determined through forensic analysis that Chinese hackers broke into systems at Pennsylvania State University’s engineering college and could have accessed research on U.S. military technology.
--------------------------------------------------
All three of the professors charged in the case received electrical-engineering degrees from the University of Southern California in 2006. After graduation, they split up, with Pang Wei going to work for Avago in Fort Collins, Colo.; Zhang Hao to Skyworks in Woburn, Mass.; and Zhang Huisui to Micrel Semiconductor in San Jose, Calif.
Soon they began emailing about plans to create a business that would sell thin-film bulk acoustic resonator technology in China, but ran into a glitch, according to the indictment.
Intellectual property “is our biggest problem,” Zhang Huisui wrote in an email to the other two, the indictment alleges.
“My work is to make every possible effort to find out about the process’s every possible detail and copy directly to China,” Mr. Pang, the Avago employee, wrote the group a month later, the indictment says.
In another email, Mr. Pang mentioned that their company would have an advantage over rivals because it wouldn’t need to pay for research and development, according to the indictment. Mr. Pang is said to have joked that the company should be called Clifbaw—short for China lift bulk acoustic wave, referring to the technology they are accused of stealing. According to the indictment, Avago had spent 20 years and $50 million to develop its technology.
----------------------------------
In the ensuing months, the professors and their alleged co-conspirators worked to set up companies and file patents in the U.S. and China that the Justice Department says were based on stolen technology. To hide their tracks and avoid tipping off their former employers, the scientists responsible for the theft didn’t file the patents in their own names, according to the indictment.
Avago learned about the thefts from the patent applications in the fall of 2011, according to the indictment, which states that on a trip to China later that year, Mr. Pang’s old boss, Rich Ruby, dropped by his former colleague’s new lab, where he recognized technology stolen from Avago and confronted Mr. Pang about “stealing and using Avago trade secrets.”
notyou2 wrote:OK mrswdk, Canadians are not in favour of their government invading another country and killing it's citizens. Canadians would be screaming at the top of their lungs if Canada invaded Tibet.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users