China slams US criticism of Internet controls

BEIJING – Beijing issued a stinging response Friday to Hillary Rodham Clinton's criticism that it is jamming the free flow of words and ideas on the Internet, accusing the United States of damaging relations between the two countries by imposing its "information imperialism" on China.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu defended China's policies regarding the Web, saying the nation's Internet regulations were in line with Chinese law and did not hamper the cyber activities of the world's largest online population. His remarks follow those made by the U.S. secretary of state, who in a speech Thursday criticized countries engaging in cyberspace censorship, and urged China to investigate computer attacks against Google.

"Regarding comments that contradict facts and harm China-U.S. relations, we are firmly opposed," Ma said in a statement posted Friday on the ministry's Web site. "We urge the U.S. side to respect facts and stop using the so-called freedom of the Internet to make unjustified accusations against China."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100122/ap_on_hi_te/as_china_google_18

But this is how they will continue to unwind. The comments from us piss themof precisly because, it echos and reinforces the growing will of the people in China to have unfettered access to the world as most other countries do. Sure they will bitch. It goes both ways on other topics. But you dont stop pressing for the things that will slowly unwind their grip and closed society, eventually leading to greater feedoms by its people. Think a decade from now.

That said. Little by little they adopt or comply with more western rule-sets on being a global player.

Please your honorable majesty lordship som-ach the Hun Sen, protector of all Cambodians from the communist Khmer Rouge, please sue this Chinese ambassador for her lies!

-----------------------

China Played No Role in Khmer Rouge Politics: Ambassador

 By Kong Sothanarith, VOA Khmer
Original report from Phnom Penh
22 January 2010

Agree.

Who would have thought, a decade ago that they are  where they are now? And who dare to speculate what might be for the next decade?

They may call themselves communist party or whatever, but they are no commies, especially in people like Hu Jintao.

And perhaps we can learn something from them, in the process. Rather than trying to piss each other off.

For I thin(like it or not and Lou Dobbs might have something different to say), China had played a very important and HUGE role in the collapse of the Soviet(evil) empire. And rid the world from the grip of Communism.

America saw that chance. they took it, and now they are paying the price for that success(in bringing down the commies) and security. China saw the chance, they took it and now they are rewarded for what they scarified.

Now, as American or anyone from the "free world" who had used to the comfort and complacency of the past, that the supplies of resources and jobs security is as abundance now as it used to 15, 20 years ago, start to think again, or better yet start to re-educate oneself. The government can only protect you for so long, for so much. There will be time when that wall is chopped down by the very sword that had won us the bread and butter for long time: the freedom, and now(in economic term)  it simply means globalization.

The word globalization, in place like America, Canada, Australia or EU, it simply mean: get up our rear end and work harder,  compete smarter, get used to the idea of working for Japanese/Chinese/Korean/Kuwait etc.. company, rather than waiting for miracle from Ford/ Chrysler, GM or VW etc...AND SAVE some $$$.

Since I am already going down that road, let's take auto industry for example. Just in the last ten years, car makers in China sprung up like mushroom, financed by non other than American Bank like Goldman. This is added to the already crowd market of car companies in the US, from Europe, Japan, and Korea. Like Geely Automotive, its founder is compared to that of an America icon Henry Ford, has seen its success skyrocket and has just bought Volvo from Ford(how ironic!!!). While Ford, is taking the defensive position by taking up Honda's philosophy of keeping it small and simple while maintaining the market share and keep its customer base happy.

Let's say for the sake of argument,  what if  American car makers saw it 20 years ago and not making fun of the smaller and more fuel efficient, high quality  Toyotas and Hondas and now the ever improving Korean cars, and thus had convinced their unionized workers to a less perks and benefits, BUT work harder and smarter with better design, quality  and technology,  would that make any different today..?

If your answer is NO, then we have more work to do.

If, however, your answer is YES, then we are on the right path. 

PRL,

Surely, you already know that Buddhists like Samdech Decho and the CPP only sue people like Mu So Chua and Sam Rainsy for telling the truth. 

Yeah, not like other countries hey? I mean look at the good ol' US of A. They had soooooo much respect for SE Asia, they made it the wonderful place it is today. They continue to show such respect to other idealogies and cultures, just ask Afghanistan or Iraq! I mean the US is the ONLY country to have used nuclear force against anyone and hey, lets not do it once, lets wait a couple of days and hit the poor bastards again. Now the US stands with it's 'nuclear deterent' and tells everyone else they're not allowed to play the same game. SUCH RESPECT!

Praise the humble man!

Ohh Sorry! Did I make you think? My bad! Som Doh!

Whether you like it or not under the US hegemony we have had a good 60 yr run of peace and prosperity. Billions lifted from poverty. No more world wars. All this is not without a cost as greedy corporations want to steal other people's resources. 

Terrorists? Some one has to get them. but Iraq is clearly more in the interest of black gold.

To quote our old friend j-Mon "could someone plaese explain to me what exactly a terrorist is?"

Came accross this chunk of an article by a defense analyst. It basicly makes the point I've been making on here for some time, about the mainstream meadia getting all bent out of shape over Chinas emergence. When in fact China is just BEGINNING to face it's biggest hurdles to get over, if it wants to join the developed worlds old core countries as a global leader.

A key point not in this article is the medias tendency to confuse and misrepresent the notion that "Supply" dominance equils real power. When in fact it's "Demand" that calls the shots.

Here it is. The birth aging demographics challenge they face. Hense Barnnets bit about, "China will grow old, before it grows rich".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In short, time is most definitely on our side.

Consider the demographics: Thanks to our unusually high fertility -- for an advanced economy, that is -- and our continued willingness to welcome immigrants, America is headed into an extended demographic boom. As noted by Joel Kotkin in his forthcoming book, "The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050," we'll increase our labor pool by 25 percent over the next couple of generations, something no other industrialized nation could even dream of doing.

Meanwhile, China's "golden moment" is slipping away, and fast: 2010 will mark the apogee of its working population's size in relation to its pool of dependents (kids and retirees). Thanks to its one-child policy, China has shrunken its demographic inputs for the last 30 years, while the share of its elderly population held steady. But from here on out, far more elders will be disgorged from the working-age cohort than those replaced on the front end, meaning China's worker-to-dependent ratio will fall -- and keep falling through at least mid-century. By 2050, China will have more retirees than America will have people. As far as unfunded mandates go, that's one King Kong-sized monster.

More generally, understand that China's emerging economy is just coming upon its greatest stress test, otherwise known as the shift from extensive to intensive growth. When it comes to catching up to advanced economies by copying their well-worn developmental pathways, single-party states can -- under the right conditions -- most definitely outperform sloppy democracies. But that's simply extensive growth, or adding more inputs (capital, infrastructure, resources, and labor), something a bunch of guys sitting around a table in the capital city can pull off -- decision-wise. So long as the outside world offers no serious threats or resistance, authoritarian capitalism works.

But only to a point. When the economy starts to mature -- meaning the country can't simply pour in more stuff but needs to become more efficient, productive and innovation-based -- then we're talking intensive growth. And that's something that nobody's ever been able to plan, because it lives and breathes on fierce competition, which only a truly free market, accompanied by democracy, can supply.

How so?

I've spent the last five years serving as senior managing director of a technology-driven, start-up company. Though now mature, in our hard-bitten journey, we were enabled by a small army of "angel" investors who answer to nobody but themselves. Made up of self-made types who've built business fortunes, this league of extraordinary gentlemen enjoy replicating their success through others whom they fund. Beyond them lay a host of deal-making firms whose entire existence revolves around piecing together innovative small firms to produce tomorrow's industry-transforming behemoths. They, too, don't answer to the government in any real sense. But without them, business innovations would rarely make it to market, and we'd all suffer as a result -- both as consumers and jobholders.

On the far side of that upward trajectory lies a large constellation of firms that do nothing but spot slow members of the herd for destruction, picking off inefficient and unprofitable firms, then dismembering them and selling off the pieces. Without their ruthlessness, our economy would be chock-full of deadbeat, uncompetitive, and state-sponsored players -- just like China's. Nobody on top of our political system orchestrates this small universe of aggressive players, who -- God bless 'em -- are free to lobby and influence their government to keep it that way.

The combined result of all these independent actors is a competitive edge that explains why, all things being equal, democracies significantly outperform autocracies when it comes to intensive growth. China is right on the verge of bumping into that far-more-level playing field, meaning that, over the next generation or so, Beijing's bosses will be forced to choose between higher rates of growth or maintaining their singular grip on power. So while, in our current fears, we imagine China will win every hand from here on out, the truth is, we hold all the face cards: a more responsive political system, a freer economic system, better and more flexible rules (our greatest advantage), and -- most undeniably -- the more favorable demographic trajectory.

Despite our current bout of self-destructive populism, which amounts to cutting off our nation's nose to spite its face, we still have nothing to fear. Instead, Americans should turn confidently toward a future we most definitely still own.

^no wonder.

im a believer that a certain population can only be a maker not a thinker and there's no shame in that (i.e. mid western states)

the problem is there's nothing for them to make anymore, we've lost our manufacturing base

most people who r unemployed r blue collar workers. there is actually a shortage of qualified people in certain undustries like health and high tech.

i agree with our demographic growth. it's incredible. also i think in terms of socially, we're 100 yrs ahead of china.

but in terms of how-to do things, china imports innovation and expertise from the west. you can spend 100 years creating/investing in an environment that fosters creativity and innovation OR spend 1 day to copy it (e.g. intellectual theft of google) or piracy of so many other products. i think eventually china will have their own smart people and will begin to innovate. it will be sooner than we think.

when u have no manufacturing base and no production of rare metals that is an enabler of high tech, you do not hold any face card. the only cards you have r a house full of cards.

a healthy economy would have a balance of service, export, and manufacturing (atleast 20%). if shit hits the fan aleast u have some ways to make ur own stuff.

Move to West Oz, they got all the resources China wants and none of the bullshit you guys have created over the last 60/70 years in the US!

China already owned most of the OZ natural resource's land...

What came around, go around:

*********************************

Few substances in history have had as profound an effect on human history as gunpowder... and its discovery was an accident!

Ancient alchemists in China spent centuries trying to discover an elixir of life that would render the user immortal. One important ingredient in many of the failed elixirs was saltpeter, also known as potassium nitrate.

During the Tang Dynasty, around 850 A.D., an enterprising alchemist (whose name has been lost to history) mixed 75 parts saltpeter with 15 parts charcoal and 10 parts sulfur. This mixture had no discernable life-lengthening properties, but it did explode with a flash and a bang when exposed to an open flame. According to a text from that era, "smoke and flames result, so that [the alchemists'] hands and faces have been burnt, and even the whole house where they were working burned down."

Many western history books over the years have stated that the Chinese used this discovery only for fireworks, but that is not true. Song Dynasty military forces as early as 904 A.D. used gunpowder devices against their primary enemy, the Mongols. These weapons included "flying fire" (fei huo), an arrow with a burning tube of gunpowder attached to the shaft. Flying fire arrows were miniature rockets, which propelled themselves into enemy ranks and inspired terror among both men and horses. It must have seemed like fearsome magic to the first warriors who were confronted with the power of gunpowder.

Other Song military applications of gunpowder included primitive hand grenades, poisonous gas shells, flame throwers and land mines.

The first artillery pieces were rocket tubes made from hollow bamboo shoots, but these were soon upgraded to cast metal. McGill University professor Robin Yates notes that the world's first illustration of a cannon comes from Song China, in a painting from about 1127 A.D. This depiction was made a century and a half before Europeans began to manufacture artillery pieces.

By the mid- to late-eleventh century, the Song government had become concerned about gunpowder technology spreading to other countries. The sale of saltpeter to foreigners was banned in 1076. Nonetheless, knowledge of the miraculous substance was carried along the Silk Road to India, the Middle East, and Europe. In 1267, a European writer made reference to gunpowder, and by 1280 the first recipes for the explosive mixture were published in the west. China's secret was out.

Down through the centuries, Chinese inventions have had a profound effect on human culture. Items like paper, the magnetic compass, and silk have diffused around the world. None of those inventions, however, have had quite the impact that gunpowder has, for good and for bad.