我回来了
| « 1 | < | > | 8 » |
It is all a shade of each porperty. A half ass Buddha like Wen is much better than full blown demon like Saddam. (There is an in-between like Bush) | |||||
原帖由 onlyaaaa 於 2008-3-31 16:10 發表 first ThANKs again , due to b extremely////extremly in meeting various deadlines of my own net projects , there4 , sorry , i could start to resume 'the grammar's suggestion only as early as tomorrow , sorry | |||||
原帖由 onlyaaaa 於 2008-3-31 20:46 發表 #1. really very sorry 4 lateness in replying here , due-to being extremely////extremly busy in meeting my own various deadlines of net projects , please accept my sincere apologisations , sorry cheers ThANKye --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- i never say that Communist party done very well. i never say that Communist party has////have done very well. [[[[[ the ,,,,,have'''' here is in sense of the grammar of the reported speech ]]]] [[[[[ first , please nourish up a habit : : to write nothing but just only 1.000% correct english ]]]] [[[[[ ,,,,,1.000'''' e.t.c. in continental europe = ,,,,,1,000'''' e.t.c. in english speaking area ]]]] ,;--^)) --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- what i said is"it`s hard for him to do things to become what like is now." better to be rewritten as ````` what i said is "it`s hard for them to do things to bring our motherland up to its current prosperity ." """"""""" --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- party really did something that was wrong andhurt the people as well the country. party really did something that was wrong andhurted the people as well as the country. [[[[[ ,,,,,,,,, as well as ''''''''' being instead of ,,,,,,,,,,and''''''''' @here , mmmmmmmmm great !! great english language usage !! --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- we have reasourses. we have reasources. --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- but U know the quality of the coal found in the mainland? but do you know the quality of the coal found in the mainland? [[[[[ i'm aware of fact of that thou hast known :: there should be a place for the ,,,,,do'''' here ]]]] [[[[[ but ]]]] [[[[[ first , please nourish up a habit : : to write nothing but just only 1.000% correct english ]]]] [[[[[ i.e. , please nourish up a habit : : to render out only the best practices ]]]] --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- our teacher give us a funnystory: our teacher gave us a funnystory: --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- we just talk about the heating duringthe burning will make at that lesson. we just talked about the heating duringthe burning which would be made at that lesson. --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- but i take this example is justwant to say: but i took this example out to just intend to say: --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- YEAH~we looks like have many . YEAH~we look like have many . [[[[[ i.e. the ,,,,,look'''' here must b with out 'the ending ,,,,,s'''' ]]]] --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- but U know how the precentageof the coal in the stone(矿石）. but do you know : : how high is the percentageof the real coal contained in the raw stone (矿石）.? --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- most coal we have is low quality. most coal////coals we have are of low quality. --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- 1 KW/Hpower need about 60g coal(foreign coal) [[[[[ somewhat right grammar ]]]] [[[[[ but ]]]] [[[[[ a native english language speaker would express in this format : :::::::::: it takes about 60g of foreign coal to get 1 KW/Hpower ]]]] --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- but more about 80g(our coal). [[[[[ a native english language speaker would express in this format : :::::::::: it takes more , about 80g of our coal to get the same 1 KW/Hpower ]]]] --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- we dont seems like have many oil(油田) we dont seem to have many oil(油田) [[[[[ the ,,,,,seem'''' here must be infinitive , i.e. with out any grammaticcal////grammatical marker ]]]]] ]]]]] ]]]]] ]]]]] ]]]]] ]]]]] --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- when i was in middle high school the geogrefic bookwriten when i was in middle high school the geography bookwas written as --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- now more and more professor suggestthat detlete the word "地大物博" now more and more professors suggestto delete the word "地大物博" --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- cause it take a wrong cenexpt(概念）. because it took////takes out a wrong concept (概念）. --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- and it"brainwash " many chinese time and time(一代代）. and it"brainwash " many chinese people from generations to generations (一代代）. --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- sorry4inconveniency sorry for any inconveniency --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- p.s. : :::::::::: more in comin' , coming up [ 本帖最後由 prussianz 於 2008-4-6 19:35 編輯 ] | |||||
原帖由 onlyaaaa 於 2008-3-31 21:07 發表 but i really dont know when it begin, but i really dont know when it began, and idont think it can began before the OPENING THEROY. sorry un-able to get thy meaning here the things about japanese left in CHINA. the things which japaneses left in CHINA. weapon,is maybe . weapon,yes , maybe . but factory and tech,is possible? but factory and tech,possible? [[[[[[[[[ i.e. thy ,,,,,is'''' here ......... may sound redundant ]]]]]]]]] "We have Russia (and its bloc) as friends and technical support".isture. "We have Russia (and its bloc) as friends and technical support".yes true. but U know how long it last? but , do you know how long it lasted? [[[[[[[[[ sorry , the uppercase ,,,,,U'''' in english , does usually stand for ,,,,,University'''' ]]]]]]]]] [[[[[[[[[ please , better to keep the habit to use the ,,,,,you'''' , rather than ,,,,,u'''' ]]]]]]]]] then they take almostevery things back, then they took almostevery thing back, only left the half consruction and machine notfinished. only left [[down]] those semi-constructed and machines unfinished. [[[[[[[[[ the ,,,,,half'''' .... would hardly be used as adjective , the ,,,,,semi'''' should be instead ]]]]]]]]] but i think every common people all will have this a little. but i think every race of people all will have this a little. ps : :::::::::: to be continued , cheers ThANK ye , very sleepy sorry [ 本帖最後由 prussianz 於 2008-4-11 08:33 編輯 ] | |||||
First of all, you do realize the fact that we never had 1.3 billion people in the past right?XD And about natural resources, it's hard, if possible, to compare China with other countries - the EU and US had been prospering beyond its limit of natural resources and technology for the last three centuries predorminately because missionaries run into African and MiddleEast countries to give them bible and rob their land. Especially for EU it is still the case to this very day - they The case is the same for China, we've been losing tremendous natural resources since late Qing dynasty because "colonizers" (ironically, as most Christians lies to cover it up, they're predorminately missioners) had been laying waste to China's natural resources basically as bad as they were doing to the African countries. While the damage is not permenant (well, maybe semi-permenant), it is not anyone's ability to recover from all the environmental damages from a civil war, a world war, and 200 years of "colonial" abuse (I would keep quotationing that term to signify that its modern purely political formulation is by itself false) 原帖由 dye 於 2008-3-31 18:32 發表 The Japanese left overs were, let's face it, pretty, left overs. The Zero fighters by then was no match with the US Jets. Russia is basically as brain drain as bull crap in terms of civilian infrastuctures, though yea, thanks to them we now have nukes, thus finally stops the missioners from coming behind the armies, well, maybe now they come behind the tourists. The Japanese huge sum of charity is doubtful, considering the damage done in WWII. And the China VETO in UN comes pretty late. Though, that being said YES, that does not take away the mistake on the communist government. But then again, mindsets are built by decades of cultivation. And we had missionaries into China since 300 years ago till today, guess what did they seed? Yea, nothing but hate. Hate to one's self. Thus the cultural revolution. You have to realize most countries do not have that many people. Having less population create other problems as dire as over-population. Human power is an assets in and of itself. With human power, things can get done. People can make their fortune. With no human power, nothing gets done and everyone has to live with whatever they start with. Yea, but most country you'll want to compare with China, don't have as much a problem. Only when a person is mongering war do they speak of nationism. The time when people speak of protecting "my country" against "your country" is also time when our home (a very small place) is never in conflict with each other. I mean, please, it's not like we've a lot of choices when Texas was speaking about "kill the atheists else for God" , German is talking "great for God and die Muslims", Japan is talking "look at all those inferior Chinese people", and even India is talking things like having a piece of their wrath. Take the "Fishing Island" China fight with Japan for example, Chinese keep speaking of protecting their "home country" but how much will it hurt them if they let go of the island when it is not populated at all? How much would YOUR home gain from trading peacefully with Japan if we sit and coolly discuss the issue? Most of time, I see them protecting a ideology (nationalism), just like the US citizen. See the whole problem in the Fishing Island instant is NOT as mcuh a problem of ideology but, the following, 1. literally, the fishing benefits from there. According to international law somewhere like 150km from the coastal line belongs to the country as their water territories, so the country basically has the sole fishing right in there, it also gains you strategic territory to deploy ships. 2. It's a slippery slope argument, if their country can take an island today, they'll take another tomorrow, then Taiwan, then maybe Canton. It's a prominent thinking after WWII. 3. NO, we will not gain trade advantage even if we let go everything - the Japanese government's long list of "political struggling with China" wasn't even a representation of Japanese interest, but rather a political command from the power hungrying Republicans in the US, believe it or not. After all, don't you realize how the Japanese government changes in sync of the US government? Sorry, if I need to "remember" who I am, I am only partially Han, and hence partially Chinese. My blood has a country long lost in history, conquered by Chinese as "barbarian". Let's face it, that Chinese is a race is A MYTH. The Country of China was at least consist of as many as 47 races like a few thousand years ago, it's only elaborate exchange within the continent that dilutes any independent gene pool, so as what is called Canton people. Plus, most major army generals in the late dynasties comes from one of "ours" (canton), so you're saying that they're all half-Chineses? Have you realize that the current prosperity occur after communist somewhat let go of their control over the economy (under Tang's command)? Do you realize that people have and will feed themselves if you leave them alone? Do you think China has always been in a famine before the communist? Have you heard that a China feast for a feudal lord during Ch'ing is better than a pricess wedding feast for a European country? Wait wait now step back a bit. The predorminant "not letting go" problem MOST western countries was talking about were enterprise ownership, currency control AND "freedom" of religion spreading (which is essentially propaganda). If you give them all these "freedom" they asked about, oh yea guess what? China will have over 80% of its property owned by priests, coperations and other governments and you think they will "take care of the people and let them feed themselves"? No, we'll be as poor as the African countries which has 90% of the population believing in Christianity and just as high percentage of people having AIDS. Then the people will still be illiterate and even less scientific literate than HK (which has minimal scientific strength in Asia, when compared to Shanghai, Japan and Beijing). Remember, HK is scientific literate because the people who runs the education fears the communist government, without them, basically every student in HK will believe that earth is flat and evolution is a myth. Like, EVERY one. Tang's economical reformation is not really "free", rather, it's a gradual opening of the country that relies heavily in state ownership, state controlled education and military support (YEA, the PLA has been more skillful in manufacturing, construction, dancing, passing sand bags person to person to block breaching damps and sucidal fire rescue by infantry running into the fire than fighting as an army, and dude, no kidding, among the 5 UN VETO countires, PLA is like suffering the least casualities from war (when had we fought one?) and the most casualties from flood rescue.) If you wish a comparison in the mordern period, a typical one is India. There are the truely have-not. But, it also manage to feed itselves no matter which parties takes over, no? Is there major famine over there like in China? (Even after China defeated them in battle? Pakistan seperates and threaten them with nuke under support of China?) No, because on the other hand, India got military support from US. But they do block people from seeing outside. Dude let's face it. Even the US governemtn does censors quite a lot. I mean, no kidding. We too can't read some of the news from China. Censorships has been trendy since the cold war where the US government allied with the church so that they will preach people that it does not matter even if they nuked the world. So unless you're living in a state where people will kill and die for press freedom (like Masschusetts, which is like one of the last strongholds of intellectuals admit the entire country of fundamentalist), both the state government, the church controlled white house and the local churches are doing just as much an effort in censorship as the communist government. YES, they're not as successful in doing so because there's still that little piece of paper called constitution that flows around which will pretty surely be teared into pieces if the next president is still a Republican. So yea, I'm pretty satisfied that the Communist Party did a pretty good job. I mean, think about it, if the party is switched to US Republicans and communism replaced by the church, we're most probably illiterate, still in proverty, and what is called China might have became a desert due to soil errosion, etc (think about how these people can screw their own country while leveling others, and that China tends not to screw someone else). | |||||
原帖由 Nomad 於 2008-4-11 11:58 發表 o華 , so long ..... long .... long ..... ````` so ..... so long '"""" 此刀不出鞘 此刀真不肖 , 此刀 = i ,;--^) | |||||
原帖由 dye 於 2008-3-31 18:32 發表 having no time , sorry 4 late reply >>>> Sorry, if I need to "remember" who I am, >>>> I am only partially Han, andhence partially Chinese. >>>> My blood has a country long lost in history,conquered by Chinese as "barbarian". sorry , couldest thou shed the light a-little-bit hither : ::::: which country was thy ancestor's land ? 樓蘭 ? cheers ThANK ye , 禪師 , | |||||
原帖由 onlyaaaa 於 2008-3-31 21:23 發表 do canada have 新疆?前苏联，日本，韩国，越南，印度，南亚诸国。dont U think that`s not threaten?(fact prove that they was is and will be) dont U think that`s not threaten? dont you think that`s not threatened? [[[[[[[[[ the ,,,,,ed'''' is the must////MUST in sense of passive voice ]]]]]]]]] --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- 你可以在youtube search a vedio about TIBET you can////could search youtube for a video about TIBET [[[[[[[[[ ,,,,,could'''' would be preferred in diplomatic circumstances ]]]]]]]]] --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- u can see how large the map is when in YUAN MING QING DNASTY. [[[[[[[[[ doest thou mean that ````` u can see how large was the territory of Yuan , Ming , or Qing Dynasty respectively////respectivly '''' ?? --------- --------- --------- [[ again , ,,,,,could'''' would be preferred in diplomatic environments ]] --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ------------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- more in comin'[[coming]] , coming up cheers ThANKing greeting good morning , sorry for any offending [ 本帖最後由 prussianz 於 2008-4-14 06:27 編輯 ] | |||||
This trade balance have not change from the beginning until a) They introduce opium b) The government lose a war and need to pay for it Surely we have lose a lot in the years, but China is also one of the richest country in the world in many ways for many years. Surely we do not have 1.3 billion in the past, but we do not have much of a technology or backbone structure in the past neither. ----------- Japanese also left over a) factory b) skills The "enemy" we are facing is no in a good shape. How many plane do we really need? (Many of those powerful' country is bomb to ashes and is in a recovery phase.) ----------- For the fishing Island, how much trade would you trade for the fishing rights around the island? If two country is at a hostile relationship, it become bvery difficult to conduct business. If two country is at war, it will make business nearly impossible. The trade volume between China and Japan is quite large. Many people's job and livelihood DEPENDS on the two governments not turning hostile. (The current trade at stake here by 2006 is around USD200b, at 2007, USD260b. How many fish is needed to fill in the gap if the two government turn hostile and we lost 10% of the deal?) How many LIVES would you trade for the fishing rights? (If they declare a war. A single bombing raid is all it takes to kill a couple thousand living at the coastal area.) If they want to claim Guangdong, it will be different. There are a huge population on land. PEOPLE make up a country. They have a right to decide which country they belong, no? ---------------------- Talk about strategy today is strange. Converntional fighting simply does not work between powerful countries. If China fight a war with Japan, we will be talking about a nuclear winter very soon. (Unlike Taiwan, Japanese has assets across the globe to make an influence, their assets are also owned across the globe to magnify the influence.) We will need CAVES, not island. -------------- Many what we consider Chinese today is consider not Chinese in the past. Indeed, they are half Chinese IF we need to look at history. Why is it that after living generations in China (my client), whites in China is still called "Lao Wei"? ------------- In DNA, when a Yellow and a White have a child, neither White or Yellow gene will disappear. The way to make the gene pool shift (to Yellow) is to have a natural selection against Whites. Otherwise you can keep breeding for thousands of years and there will be the same portion of the population that is White. With no natural selection, a population with 90 Yellow and 10 White will remain 90%Yellow and 10% White. The Yellow will not be able to dilute the White as the population grow or shrink. Work out the math and you should see what I mean. From how most people look simliar today in China, you can already know what has happen in the past. ----------- When people speak of leting go, it mean capitalistic economy. Where MOST but not ALL of the economy is controlled by private sector. Why is there a famine in China under communist? Because the government command everyone to grow cotton instead of food item. Because the governemnt command everyone to 'try' refining their tools into steel in their backyard. In my village in particular, because the government commanded everyone to use their techique and damage the soil (When everyone in the village know the techique will not work). ----- If you let people act freely, the price of rice will skyrocket (in fact it has in black market), farmer will farm more food item, merchant can purchase some from our neighbour (or smuggle as is used in those time in black market) How do you believe the population get to so large in the first place? I have much more confidence in Chinese picking wisely and against the priest when they are allow to act freely. ----------------- Looking at staistics, country who open trade and get foreign development investment do get improvement in health and education. It is simply a fact. The African countries that do not get an improvement are exactly those that do not open up. As Adam Smith would say, people get their meat from the butcher not because the butcher is merciful. It is because mutually beneficial to do so. Foreign investor gain a benefit from educating their workers on health, skills (including science), etc. If US owned a huge part of China (which is possible by going in backdoor, through various different country, and mayby they already has), they will pay for Chinese education not because they love us, but because it benefit them too. How do Shanghai becaome the top city in China in Qing when they are 'govern' by so many foreigner? Precisely because of a concentrated foreign investment. (Oh, yes the city is almost controlled by foreigner. Oh, yes the enterprise is owned by foreign enterprise/government.) Looking at history, when did Guangdong begin to prosper? When we begin to trade with foreigner. (At Gunagzhou, as written in the museum in Gunagzhou) ------------- PLA fight A war with UN/South Korea in Korea (tie) Chinese lost anywhere from 152k to 422k life. US lost from 32k to 60k life. A war with (communist) Vietnam (partial success) A war with India (Won), why do India lose a war if they really get a military support from US? I have a hard time believing the number who publish number but not held accountable for it. ----------- Now back to HK. The place is highly commerce-literate. Karl Marx would have said the mode of production dictate the culture of its people. HK mode of production IS commerce. If HK try on natural science research, its success is limited. A world class research project requires more money than a single city's budget. Even Bristish government itself is unable to fund a project on its own and relies on EU to cover the bills. For China, it would ask the question of why HK among many other city? For its above average living cost? (When a research cost 5k, in HK, it cost 13k?) For its lack of water resources? (How do you build a fresh water facility if the city is already buying water from GuangDong?) Lack of space? (If you can sell the piece of land for billion, you are going to make a experimental farm on it?) Think about launching a rocket in HK..umm. But HK do have research, little ones like surgical technique, medical treatment (the hospital is there anyway) Cell phone technology (Beta tester is everywhere here!), etc.. [ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2008-4-13 16:59 編輯 ] | |||||
a) no service provider? (no demand?) Well, I have watch CCTV in US. b) government banned it? If it is b, you know that you can sue the government. Do the censorship in US include a) jailing/executing people who spread the wrong idea? (On the latest news) b) blocking a whole horde of foreign news agency? (part of CNN, BBC, TVB, ATV...etc) c) jailing/executing/fining people holding "books with wrong idea" for passing the border? (As is written at custom of China) All these is done legally. Not some fanatics killing on the street. Richard Dawkins can walk through Bible belt and stay alive (even protested). But UN observer is not allowed in China at all. There are always people who wish to censor the press. But it is legally censoring and censoring using government budget that is the problem. [ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2008-4-13 16:26 編輯 ] | |||||
原帖由 onlyaaaa 於 2008-3-31 21:23 發表 [[[[[[[[[ ,,,,,could'''' would be preferred in diplomatic circumstances ]]]]]]]]] #.1. whether thou being in the capacity of a diplomat外交官 or not , but , thou wouldest still be needed to deal with ,,diplomatic外交式'' circumstances in thy daily life , e.g. when-ever thou go out外 of thyselves to befriend交友 with any other person , then , thou art already in dealing with ,,,,,外交'''' , then , thou better to learn some ,,diplomat's外交官'' 的 english in advance , --------- a part of the ,,diplomat's外交官的'' english : : `````````could.........''''''''' + `````````would.........''''''''' et cetera --------- thou better to pay attention to be prepared to be well versed w/ some ,,diplomat's外交官'' 的 english , it pays - to be continued - dont U think that`s not threaten? | |||||
a) The diplomatic group is commerce in nature. In businese world, welfare and money speak by itself. Words only lubricate the main course. As business world (at top level) is full of deception, words no longer translate from my experience. Too many word, too little action is a common problem of people (including me). b) I am already the more polite within the group. Consider the rest of te group, I always wonder why they do not get arrested in US. (Anything from sexual harrassment, racial discrimination to vandalising public property..) c) Anyone that can give us better life is our friend. As one of the 'dude' we meet said "word is nothing" It is the same idea on Fishing Island. If letting Fishing Island be an 'international' open sea, or share the policing/management duty around the island between the two nation can avoid conflict, who care about the ownership? Or even leaving it alone as buffer zone? Chinese government at the moment already has their people welfare at heart and try to downplay the issue just as they have done in the border issue with the other southern nations. Least you realise, Japan is not the only country that has an issue with us on the ocean border. YET there are hot headed nationalist (both side) that keep bringing it up with 'fanatic' behaviour... I have my own view on the island. I think it is a mis-understanding from the beginning. We own it, but we show no presence on it for such a long time (no inhabitant, no visible activity) that Japanese 'mistaken' it as an unclaimed island. They have been fullfilling the 'duty' of policing the area for quite some time while we are being an abensentee landlord. When we finally settles the scores, it becomes very difficult to explain to Japan as each is only seeing from their perspective. (Sounds exactly like some housing case in HK) [ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2008-4-14 09:02 編輯 ] | |||||
原帖由 dye 於 2008-4-14 08:32 發表 It is the same idea on Fishing Island. If letting Fishing Island be an 'international' open sea, or share the policing/management duty around the island between the two nation can avoid conflict, who care about the ownership? Or even leaving it alone as buffer zone? very happy ThANKye's for always keeping on being concerned with ' The Fishing Island 2 the contrary , i care it not too much [[thou]] art great --------- thy humble servant do line up himself////myself,;--^) on the same line as thine , over here , i.e. i agree with thee 1.000% = 100.000.000% yesterdays was i the f**ker////fighter , todays do i b' the money-maker , todays 'do i b' the peace-maker , --------- cheers ThANK ye , --------- p.s. : ::::: sorry again 4 not replying thy posts , reason 1 : : too busy w/ my own net projects , reason 2 : : 't would b better 4me2response2those new members @first , 對不起，禪師 [ 本帖最後由 prussianz 於 2008-4-14 16:57 編輯 ] | |||||
At the end of the day, We play PS2 made by China, designed by Japanese Sony TV made by China, designed by Japanese. On the street, the trucks are made by China, designed by Japanese. We love Japanese car because it fit our body size, it fits our crowded road. Japanese import our food, and love our Lai Chi. They import our iron and refine them to top grade steel for the building we live in, the car we drive, etc. We like their goods because they are comparatively great. They like ours because ours is comparativly cheap. Their management model is well adapted to Asian culture. We learn the modernity from them, they learn our ancient wisedom from the past. ------------------ ALL these will be gone if we have a war with them. Some of it will be gone if our relationship is sour enough. At minimum trust and a buffer zone, the environment on the island will face total destruction. (public goods is usually abused) If we can stop the ideologue and get to the ground, we should see how silly it has been all along? When two brothers fight (China and Japan or Taiwan or many Asian countries), only the lawyer (aka USA) win. | |||||
原帖由 onlyaaaa 於 2008-3-31 21:23 發表 some strong recommendations of english set phrases 4[[for]] thy must-reading in english learning : :::::::::: 原帖由 dye 於 2008-4-14 10:07 發表 [url=redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=17138&ptid=1606] indeed indeep , i'm also assimilating ' the materials from My Dear 禪師 , cheers ThANK ye [ 本帖最後由 prussianz 於 2008-4-14 17:18 編輯 ] | |||||
原帖由 dye 於 2008-4-13 16:15 發表 It's a ip ban from mainland websites. By the way, AOL had been known doing it for the Republicans for some time already. And, seriously, do you have the money to sue them? | |||||
If it is a public company, it is market force you are against, not government. If there is enough demand for mainland websites, AOL will have to open up by the order of their stock holder. | |||||
原帖由 dye 於 2008-4-13 15:16 發表 And the whole problem of as of now (2007), China does not have a stable economy for investors to play around. Remember the financial crisis. (And seriously, if China don't control its own currency and 原帖由 dye 於 2008-4-13 15:16 發表 Remember, they had McArthur to aid them back then, we don't. 原帖由 dye 於 2008-4-13 15:16 發表 Nope, most wars we are talking about today (if feasible) are regional wars for natural resources. And in fact, nuclear war will be very unlikely even if Japan invaded China again. (Though the fundies in US? Well ... now I'm worrying if McCain gets up there) 原帖由 dye 於 2008-4-13 15:16 發表 That's exactly what I MEAN. There's no definite definition for "Hans" because they've been mixing with others so much due to ease of transportation in China. 原帖由 dye 於 2008-4-13 15:16 發表 Dude, there's a limit of natural resources and maximum possible production on the economical presumptions. And considering how much China invested on foreign going students and how many of them became missioners and in term screwed science in their own country, NO, I'm pretty in distrust in the central government on this issue - they're over confident with the effects. 原帖由 dye 於 2008-4-13 15:16 發表 If Gaungzhou "opened" to let priests give them bibles in exchange of land (in fact it happened in Qing Dynasty), then, well, see? NO. We "opened" door by Qing dynasty to foreigners to "invest" completely freely. Now remember, boxers don't rebell because they're so bored. 原帖由 dye 於 2008-4-13 15:16 發表 Dude, you're mixing state ownership with superstitious government officials and throwing science into the gabbish bin. 原帖由 dye 於 2008-4-13 15:16 發表 A hell lot of the African countries has literally everything owned by Chinese, European and US and THEY ARE THE SOURCES to keep their government closed to their own people by funding corrupting government. And you called that "not opened up to foreigners". I mean, dude, WAKE UP. They've been "opening" since colonial times and all they achieved were having their very people shipped to Europe as slaves with missioners selling them. Look at Indonesia which serves as the major factory yet workers are paid literally nothing, forever. The list goes on. And it's the same deal. If US enterprises which are predorminantly right (fundie) leaning has owned much of China there'll be a price tag on every Chinese's life and freedom. And no, rather than educating the Chinese they'll let their own unemployed useless people come and rule over. Again, remember how most people actually SUFFERED in Qing dynasty and the early National government. Rather, enforcing Chinese ownage of firms and requires foreign coorporations to actually deal with the local people on fair, local terms which in turn requires them to give out more technology and mutual cooperation in exchange. In the end it is a bitter choice when the local people cannot compete with foreign corporations which in turn due to destruction of the country by wars engineered solely to colonize, rob resources and spread religion. 原帖由 dye 於 2008-4-13 15:16 發表 I really feel sorry to say about this. But I don't really support Karl Marx's theory because if HK's culture does reflect its mode of production, then HK must be living on selling their country and political benefits to the US Republicans. Considering how the so-called top schools educated the kids, I mean, seriously. 原帖由 dye 於 2008-4-13 15:16 發表 WRONG. If our colonial left behind government has the least amount of responsibility to abandon Noah's Ark (which is 800 million government money) and give that to Science, it can fund at most 100 basic plasma physics research projects. And that's just ONE government transaction (that violates separation of church and state and has NOTHING to do with commerce) alone. 原帖由 dye 於 2008-4-13 15:16 發表 Because HK has the so called best international connections with other countries and thus serves a bridge between the Chinese academia and foreign academia. I'm sorry, but you might have left the academia so long not to notice that. And seriously, what are you selling if you don't have anything to produce? And NO, no one lauches any rockets nor planes in Boston yet aerodynamics and rocket science is quite a subject there No one fights war there too. Yet Robotic warfare research is huge in Boston University. They don't do nuclear tests and laser bombardment experiments there as well, yet it's a big thing in MIT And land in Boston, SF California and Chicago are VERY expensive. Want more of this? | |||||
原帖由 dye 於 2008-4-15 14:38 發表 Well it becomes a problem when you have only so many providers. And problem with market force is you can ALWAYS buy off someone's freedom only because you've more money. And again, who has more money in the states? Banks, corporations, churches. | |||||
>A war with (communist) Vietnam (partial success) >A war with India (Won), why do India lose a war if they really get a military support from US? Remember, UK and US had fought like an order of magnitude more wars than the list. |
| « 1 | < | > | 8 » |