Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google+ Unblocked In China; President Obama's Page Flooded With Comments

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the bottleneck-opening dept.

Censorship 187

An anonymous reader writes "Google+ has recently been unblocked in China and Chinese netizens have found their way to President Obama's G+ page. The result is that topic after topic has hit the limit of 500 comments, most of them in Chinese. Some express political views, but many are just everyday banter or showing off."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Stupid chinks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39165405)

n/t

Re:Stupid chinks (0)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165781)

G+ Xi Fa Choi!

China unblocks Google+ (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39165417)

China unblocks Google+ Figures no one uses it anyway. Myspace is next to be unblocked.

Re:China unblocks Google+ (5, Funny)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165941)

If the Chinese completely took down the Great Firewall, many other sites would start to howl in pain. Think how useless lots of corporate feedback pages would become (e.g. on Facebook). Consultants would make a fortune implementing anti-Chinese firewalls all over the place...

Re:China unblocks Google+ (2)

Errtu76 (776778) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166021)

Hm, so actually what you're saying is that the Great Firewall of China is protecting us from the Chinese?

Re:China unblocks Google+ (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166417)

Just like Hadrians wall protected the Romans from the Scots

Re:China unblocks Google+ (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166207)

G+ has ~54mil daily users. Nothing to sneeze at, but still small compared to FB's 400+mil daily users.

Re:China unblocks Google+ (0)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166325)

I think the interesting thing is the demographics. Facebook was once the place to be because it started off as only college students, so everyone on there was respectable. Now G+ has got a bunch of professionals posting about software development and politics and Facebook is full of people's moms playing farmville.

Re:China unblocks Google+ (2)

biodata (1981610) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166375)

>small compared to FB's 400+mil daily users. which is nothing compared with China's 1.3 billion people

Re:China unblocks Google+ (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166359)

Google is failing with G+ in the west so is trying to make it popular in the east. Google loves all regimes as long as they're green.

Widespread interest (5, Informative)

sdw (6809) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165437)

Interesting how much of the world is interested in our politics.
Several years ago, I was walking around Porvoo, Finland, taking pictures. I talked to a few teenagers doing skateboard tricks. In their perfect English, they were very curious how we could have elected Bush II twice. It's all they wanted to talk about.

Re:Widespread interest (5, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165467)

What's more interesting is how little interest we have in our politics. At least, little interest in finding out for ourselves what's going on rather then blindly following our parties marching orders.

Re:Widespread interest (5, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165523)

The US now seems to treat politics like just another reality TV show.

Re:Widespread interest (3, Insightful)

JimCanuck (2474366) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165729)

No mod points, so commenting, if anyone saw the debate yesterday you'd have realized how right Nerdfest is.

Re:Widespread interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39165917)

Oh i think I got a pretty good idea how right he is even without seeing the debate...

Re:Widespread interest (3, Insightful)

muindaur (925372) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166029)

Was there another final debate?

After the final debate?

That followed the final debate?

That was really just childish bickering, pointing fingers, and attacks instead of an actual debate?

Re:Widespread interest (4, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165923)

No, we care who wins reality TV shows. More people vote for American Idol then for their representatives.

Re:Widespread interest (2)

BillX (307153) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166097)

The difference being that on a reality show, even if you're not crazy about any of the contestants, voting for one and having them win is mostly harmless...

Re:Widespread interest (4, Funny)

surgen (1145449) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165525)

Are you trying to say ignorance of foreign issues and jingoism isn't a the best way to form opinions on international matters? You're such a communist.

Re:Widespread interest (2)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165629)

As if the population in other countries don't actually make decisions in exactly the same way.

Re:Widespread interest (2, Funny)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165667)

To a certain extent that's true. However, the US raises it to high art...

Re:Widespread interest (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39165827)

On the other hand, few Europeans can place and name all 50 American states as well as their capitals, yet they somehow feel Americans should be able to do this for Europe. They don't realise that the pride they take in keeping track of what happens in Germany when they live in Spain is just like an American reading news about the state next over.

Re:Widespread interest (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166027)

There are only 35 (give or take one or two, I can't count) states in America.

Re:Widespread interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166045)

European here: Try me. Your extrapolation from your state border is inadequate.

Re:Widespread interest (0)

Edzilla2000 (1261030) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166103)

No, actually, us Europeans would find it good enough if you US-Americans could name Europe on a map...

Re:Widespread interest (5, Funny)

therealobsideus (1610557) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166205)

You guys are over near Japan, right?

Re:Widespread interest (1)

JSombra (1849858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166441)

Place Europe on a map? Aiming a bit high there for them i think, would settle for them recognising that Europe is not a country

Re:Widespread interest (3, Insightful)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166657)

In fairness, there are a number of eurocrats in Brussels, etc. who don't recognise this either.

Re:Widespread interest (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166299)

Name all EU countries? No. Name the major US allies and trading partners and their categories, yes. US states? Sure, any EU citizen can name all of the ones that are constitutionally allowed to define foreign policy on their own...

Re:Widespread interest (0)

alonsoac (180192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166495)

I'm from Central America and would be happy for people in the U.S. to realize America is the name of a continent which includes some other countries.

Re:Widespread interest (2, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166557)

Show me one other country in the world with the word "America" in its name and then you'll get some sympathy.

Re:Widespread interest (5, Insightful)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165557)

What's even more interesting, is how little interest our politicians have in us.

As opposed to their own careers and their paymasters.

Re:Widespread interest (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39165853)

What exactly are you impling?

Re:Widespread interest (5, Interesting)

apt142 (574425) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165589)

I blame this on only having two political parties. Since each party only really has one competitor, it boils down to us versus them rhetoric.

With a viable third or fourth party, I think we'd see less "that party wants to eat your children" attacks and more stands on what they believe in. Because it's much harder to go on the attack against two or three opponents, the merits of a particular stance would have to take center stage or least get out of the back alley behind the concert where it's drinking it's cheap whiskey and crying itself to sleep.

But, for that to happen we'd need to have less of a winner takes all approach to our election system.

Re:Widespread interest (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39165849)

Hi, UK here.

We had a third party, the Liberal Democrats.

It all kind of went downhill when they did the exact opposite of the thing that they explicitly said that would do. [telegraph.co.uk] They pretty much do everything our highly unpopular Conservative Party tells them to. In doing so, they forfeit the tiny bit of credibility that fell to them mostly by default, after our previous highly unpopular Labour government departed.

Re:Widespread interest (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166307)

Seriously? So far the Liberal Democrats, with about 30% of the popular vote and about 20% of the seats in Parliament have achieved about 70% of their manifesto pledges. And yet somehow the press lambasts them for not achieving everything. Meanwhile, no one complains at the number of election pledges that Tories have broken...

Re:Widespread interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39165859)

When two people disagree, one at least one, and possibly both, are wrong. This is true in our politics as well- hopefully we don't elect the one that is almost certainly wrong.

Re:Widespread interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39165973)

Or how about we actually start talking about topics individually instead of having to claim we belong to one party or another (or another) which will paint a broad brush of what we should do in support of all topics.

IE. Where does someone who supports gay rights, supports contraception and maybe early term abortion but not late term abortion, doesn't want to see tax rates raised but would like to see tax reform so that more people are paying taxes (and not finding loopholes), wants to give people a hand-up and not a hand-out, and many other topics, fit in?

Answer is no where. Of course, I prefer to claim I'm Libertarian than either Democratic or Republican (or Liberal or Conservative for that matter) than continue to fall into the 2-party label system.

Re:Widespread interest (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166125)

That's... actually pretty much exactly the Democratic position, with the exception that they're somewhat more libertarian on abortion.

Re:Widespread interest (0)

Warhawke (1312723) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166015)

The problem with adopting a multi-partisan system over a bipartisan system is that it's inherently undemocratic. A bipartisan system, while it presents an either/or scenario on issues, does have the advantage of the elected official being a representative of the majority of the people. If you had five parties running, the winner might win with 22% of the voting population's support, and then the 22% would be able to impose their political views on the remaining 78% because the 78% couldn't choose to back a single candidate. This is essentially what happened to the democratic party every time a green party candidate would run. A bipartisan system forces compromise for the sake of ensuring that a candidate represents, at least tenuously, the majority of the population.

I am aware that the U.S.'s bipartisan system is a result of the winner-takes-all electorate system, that shifting to a party-proportional representation system would reduce the centric pressures of the winner-takes-all system, thereby preventing a tyranny of the majority that I mentioned above. However, party-proportional representation systems have their own flaws as well, particularly that of legislative gridlock and the problem of a "cacophony of voices," whereby the number of increasingly differing political opinions worsens the signal-to-noise ratio in the legislative system. Inevitably it boils down into an argument about the benefits/disadvantages of the Electoral College, which would derail the topic further; but I will point out that as "unrepresentative" as the indirect Electoral College may seem, true democracy, over a republic, has never lasted more than a few centuries, due to legislative gridlock and the tyranny of the majority.

Re:Widespread interest (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166167)

In Finnish election system, when electing president, we have second round where we have the only two most voted candidates from first round.

This year top 2 candidates got 37% and 19% of votes on the first round. On the second round they got 63% and 37%.

Re:Widespread interest (3, Interesting)

MagicM (85041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166197)

If you had five parties running, the winner might win with 22% of the voting population's support, and then the 22% would be able to impose their political views on the remaining 78%

That is indeed what happens with "winner takes all". If instead the winner wins a 22% stake (say, 22 seats in a 100-seat house) then the result is representative of the electorate.

So a multi-partisan system for Congress and the Senate would not have to be undemocratic at all. The Presidential election would, by your definition, but if the President is able to "impose their political views on the remaining 78%" then that's a flaw with the Presidential powers, not with the election process.

Re:Widespread interest (2)

TheSunborn (68004) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166231)

What??????

Here is how to solve that problem:
First: don't let the people elect a president. The president/leader of the goverment should be elected by the parlement. Having the leader of a country which does have a majority of the parlement against him/he is such a problematic concept that it should just be stopped.

Now to be the leader of the goverment, you need to form a coalision so you get at leats half the parlement not to vote against your goverment. So if the largest party get 22% of the votes, it need support from other parties in order go be the goverment. This mean that in the end you end up with a goverment and leader, which at least half of the parlement did not vote against. Seems fair to me.

And that you are the largest party does not mean that you get to be part of the goverment. It is quite normal for some of the smaller parties to form a coalition, which together have more then 50% of the parlement.

Re:Widespread interest (4, Informative)

drawfour (791912) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166261)

It's called a run-off election. In most countries that have multiple parties, unless one candidate already got an absolute majority, there is a second election between the top two candidates, so that someone has to win by an absolute majority.

It could easily be extended to more rounds, where the least popular candidate is eliminated in each voting round until there is an absolute majority for one candidate, but it's usually simpler to just take the top 2 winners and have one more election between them.

Re:Widespread interest (1)

lexman098 (1983842) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166361)

A run-off is the right solution, but you can do even better than that. We have an apathy problem in this country when it comes to getting out to the polls, so "instant" run-off would be even better. You just order the candidates by preference when you vote.

Re:Widespread interest (1)

lexman098 (1983842) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166345)

I don't know how you got +3. See drawfour's reply and down-mod this please. The last thing we need is someone who doesn't know what they're talking about convincing people that a 2 party system is the best available option.

Re:Widespread interest (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166561)

You're making the false assumption that in a bi-partisan system that everyone who votes for party "A" actually wants party "A" in office. The reality is that most people that vote party "A" simply don't want party "B" to be in office (lesser of two evils). With multi-partisan, the same number of people are actually *happy* about the outcome. The people that voted parties C through G are just as unhappy/relieved as when they were forced to vote for party "A" simply to keep party "B" out of office.

* Replace "A", "B", etc with your preferred parties.

Re:Widespread interest (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166391)

I blame this on only having two political parties. Since each party only really has one competitor, it boils down to us versus them rhetoric.

Kind of like our ISP situation, then?

Re:Widespread interest (1)

The Lord of Chaos (231000) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166429)

I completely agree. I find two party systems encourage going negative. It doesn't matter how bad you make yourself look when attacking the other party, as long as you make them look worse.

Re:Widespread interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166489)

Having two major parties is the stable state emerging from our one-person-one-vote system. Scoring each candidate (kind of like Olympic judges do) would allow voters to "vote for" "third parties" without "throwing their vote away". It would require a little (more?) thinking on the part of the voters. See rangevoting.org [rangevoting.org] .

Re:Widespread interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39165759)

Its not that Americans have a lack of interest in our politics, its that they get bombarded with it so much and so often that they tune it out.

Once you get out of that 24/7 news cycle, what information you DO get sounds fascinating and intriguing.

Re:Widespread interest (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39165577)

they were very curious how we could have elected Bush II twice

Because the alternatives were Al Gore and John Kerry.

Re:Widespread interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39165597)

yeah, just like obama is likely to face a total loon this year.

it's almost as if it was planned ^^

Re:Widespread interest (3, Interesting)

Leafheart (1120885) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165651)

I can only speak for me, but I wage that it helps to a lot of other Brazilians. Your politics reflect on ours.

Recently, one of our center-right parties renamed themselves Democrats (yeah, you read right, center-right) and have tried to mirror the Democrats politics here. And even without taken them into considerations, a lot of politics and companies keep an eye on what is going on there to try to mirror it on national legislation. Thing about things like SOPA, had it passed, there would be a hard push to implement similar language here. So your politics directly influence ours indirectly. And also directly.

Let's say for example that Grinch becomes president and he works on his campaign promise to invade Iran. Suddenly it is a new Middle East war and again we are thrown on the Iraq war cycle of problems on the international scales. So yeah, we need to pay lots of attentions to your politics.

Re:Widespread interest (2)

divisionbyzero (300681) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165843)

Interesting how much of the world is interested in our politics.
Several years ago, I was walking around Porvoo, Finland, taking pictures. I talked to a few teenagers doing skateboard tricks. In their perfect English, they were very curious how we could have elected Bush II twice. It's all they wanted to talk about.

They were probably interested because it directly impacts them. It's something I think our politicians don't think about enough. If we decide to go start a few wars around the world we bring all of our allies with us whether they like it or not.

Re:Widespread interest (4, Interesting)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165857)

If your government and corporations didn't interfere with the rest of the world's nations, believe me, we wouldn't give a shit about American politics.

Re:Widespread interest (3, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165871)

Did you point out that we're only give 2 choices every 4 years and those 2 choices are usually almost identical?

Re:Widespread interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39165955)

Bush II

I like to call him Bush the Lesser. Never really liked his father, but in retrospect Bush the Elder was a huge step up from monkey boy.

Re:Widespread interest (1)

theheadlessrabbit (1022587) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166051)

Interesting how much of the world is interested in our politics.
Several years ago, I was walking around Porvoo, Finland, taking pictures. I talked to a few teenagers doing skateboard tricks. In their perfect English, they were very curious how we could have elected Bush II twice. It's all they wanted to talk about.

I thought Bush was only actually elected once, for his second term... (As a non-American, I can't complain about his presidency too much, as his decisions made my country's economy much stronger by comparison.)

Same thing when I was living in South Korea. So much attention is paid to American politics. There were massive protests in the streets during August's protest season over some American policy.

I find it odd how defensive Americans get when we talk about their politics. Just because you happen live in an isolated bubble where other countries don't exist doesn't mean the rest of the world lives like that. We are saturated with your news, movies, music, tv, radio, products, etc. It wouldn't surprise me if a good number of foreigners were more knowledgeable about American politics than many Americans are.

Re:Widespread interest (3, Interesting)

Idimmu Xul (204345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166195)

Seriously, it's a form of voyeurism for a lot of us non-Americans. How badly can you fuck things up this week? Tune in 24/7 for as much as you can read!

The really scary thing is watching our own governments follow your mistakes after :(

Re:Widespread interest (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166373)

On vacation in India I met 2 Norwegians and a Dutch guy that were on holiday from working in Dubai. (Oil). They were very interested as well. They were actually super freaked out about Palin being on the ballot (this was 2 weeks before the election). The best thing I could do was just talk about America, while they sort of understood US politics, they really didn't have any idea how non homogenous the US was in terms of everything. I also had to explain how large and spread out.

Re:Widespread interest (4, Interesting)

alonsoac (180192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166503)

Part of this is because of the influence the U.S. has on our countries. I guess we need to keep an eye always looking at you to know if you are planning to sign a free trade agreement with us, change the amount of monetary aid you send our way, pass some law that makes us outlaws, try to change our style of government or just bomb us. You have the power to change our lives maybe more than even we do.

I hope Obama... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39165443)

collects all their IP addresses and forwards them all to China's government.

And then says something along the lines of "Keep ur fucking yellow subhumans from posting on my Google+ page! This is for Americans only, and if you can't speak, read, and write American English, you aren't good enough to be posting anywhere near me! African-American Vernacular English is on the same level as the Chinese language! There, I said it! I am the President and I speak the truth! Now I'm gonna go eat some Oreos."

Re:I hope Obama... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39165613)

How violent you are... You buy the iPhones and all kinds of stuff built there under this totalitarian regime, but you still allow yourself to write that... And you don't even think that forwarding the IP adresses may cost someone his life.

Obama is a communist (2)

funtapaz (1406785) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165447)

Apparently a commenter added that Obama could, and should, be a member of the communist party. It would be fun to see fox news take that and run with it.

Re:Obama is a communist (1)

sdw (6809) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165487)

Would he be eligible to run for Premier?
This could have some possibilities in 4 years...

Re:Obama is a communist (1)

zill (1690130) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165793)

In case you didn't know, he was referring to the Communist Party USA, not the CCP.

Santorum should join KKK and be happy. (-1, Troll)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165495)

Santorum should join KKK and see what happens when they fid out he is a mormon.

What other impossibilities are out there? Sara Palin as the suggested vice president for Romney?! I'd like to see that nomination.

Re:Santorum should join KKK and be happy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39165603)

Robert Byrd, as a leader ( maybe former ) of the KKK might have a problem with that.

Re:Santorum should join KKK and be happy. (2)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165677)

True. For the most part, the KKK was founded and run by Democrats.

Yes, the Democrats were much different than what they are now, but it is funny to hear people pointing to the Republicans as the ones who would join the KKK. In the old days, it would be the Republicans calling out the Federal troops to put down the KKK. How times change.

Re:Santorum should join KKK and be happy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39165737)

I thought the whole point was the Repubs and Dems changed party lines back around the turn of the century and it was only in like the 60s-70s that they turned into the modern Left/Right parties that everybody either roots or loathes.

Re:Santorum should join KKK and be happy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39165907)

That's what the Democrats would like you to believe; the reality is, a person who lives cradle to grave on government largesse does not have a multiparty vote -- they have only one option to keep their livelihood -- and that is the Democrat party that keeps that largess flowing. It is not a 'choice' situation, no more than it was a choice situation 100 years ago.

Re:Santorum should join KKK and be happy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39165753)

Santorum should join KKK and see what happens when they fid out he is a mormon.What other impossibilities are out there

Santorum isn't Mormon that's why it's an impossibility. I've never seen so much ignorance not posted as AC. You've, by your comment ratified the above about how little we know of our politicians.

Re:Santorum should join KKK and be happy. (0)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165965)

Sorry, he was Roman Catholic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum#Catholic_Online_article_regarding_sexual_abuse_incidents).

But he acts a bit goofy. So I misjudged him. It is hard to keep up with all these Palin-like oddballs.

Re:Obama is a communist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39165519)

"Obama has yet to decline an invitation to the communist party, a display of how unpatriotic, and socialist, the traitor of an president is", or something like that, i guess.

Re:Obama is a communist (1)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165713)

FOX would never say that. That would imply he isn't already a member of the CCP.

500 is a lame limit (5, Interesting)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165477)

(it's per post though).

pretty nice way of "occopying" something though. one comment explaining something..

We have no chance to occupy our president Hu. He hates Internet and has no account on any sns website, so we can just occupy Obama, forgive us.

This is a good thing! (2, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165479)

Brazilians use Orkut, Chinese use Google+. Good for them, but great for everybody else -- we just continue not using Orkut or Google+.

Not surprised. (4, Informative)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165507)

I seem to recall plenty of people milling about when the Berlin wall came down. When you give people access to something formerly restricted, plenty of people will show up just to say they were there.

The Internet will be an interesting place on the day the "Great Firewall" finally gets shut down for good.

Re:Not surprised. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39165591)

Maybe we can trade some of our debt to the Chinese in exchange for the yellow gold they stole from us back in the 1900's.

We should send all of the Chinese-Americans back to China and build a huge wall around the country, and then add an airtight ceiling, and then steal all of their air so everyone in China will die and we can take their precious resources for ourselves. It'll be like pulling a bunch of carrots out of the ground and eating them. It's not like the Chinese have souls.

Re:Not surprised. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166009)

Yeah, Berliners being able to move from east to west is no big deal. They really only showed up for the novelty value.

This makes me think about Diaspora. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39165547)

Whenever the topic of social media comes up, even when it's about Facebook or Google+, I immediately think about Diaspora.

Diaspora is one of the most spectacular open source failures to have ever happened. In fact, I think it's as close as the open source community has ever gotten to a so-called "perfect storm" of failure.

It was built on the weakest foundation possible: a foundation of fads. Its very purpose is a fad (social media), and its architecture is a fad (peer-to-peer networking), and it was implemented using a fad technology (Ruby on Rails).

The implementation itself was rife with security holes of all sorts. This isn't surprising, though, considering that Ruby on Rails was used. Rails "developers" aren't exactly known for caring about performance, reliability, and security. They're often all about cranking out one web app after another, to take advantage of every new buzzword that is coined.

The complete lack of adoption by anyone is extremely laughable, especially given the huge amount of hype and media attention that Diaspora got. Never before have we seen an open source software project get that much hype, but fail so miserably.

Re:This makes me think about Diaspora. (0)

hey (83763) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165697)

Not to mention the suicide of one of the guys. I think it was built on such faddy stuff because the developers were in college.
Lets start again with COBOL ;) Java might actually be a good choice.

Re:This makes me think about Diaspora. (0)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165839)

Lets start again with COBOL ;) Java might actually be a good choice.

No, no, no! Use APL [wikipedia.org] . After all, APL is easy! [amazon.com] .

Confession: I have long had a soft spot for APL. It and Fortran IV were jointly the first programming languages I learned.

Totalitarian regimes today... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39165561)

I feel solidarity with these chinese people who wrote to Obama just to say "we need freedom"... (This theme is also relevant to me as I was born in another totalitarian regime, the soviet one, a year before it broke; now we still have to build our country and resurrect its culture, persisting against all the pro-soviet-russian forces (i'm from Ukraine.)

Re:Totalitarian regimes today... (3, Funny)

bit trollent (824666) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165601)

The Ukraine is weak. [youtube.com]

Re:Totalitarian regimes today... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39165725)

Here's some music for you...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRzeRlg_3BI

Re:Totalitarian regimes today... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166041)

wrote to Obama just to say "we need freedom"

You mean like Iraq or Afghanistan?

Re:Totalitarian regimes today... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166187)

No. Freedom ain't war...

Important questions for our leader (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39165605)

Dear Mr. Obama. I am told that the black man loves the asian girls and the asian girls like the larger penises of the black man. The Communist Party says that asian girls do not like the black man. Can you verify, as the world's most powerful black man, if your harem includes the asian girls? Respectfully yours, Mao Ding Dong

Re:Important questions for our leader (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39165811)

Instead of Mao Ding Dong, it should've said Mao CHING CHONG. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Get it?! GET IT?!?! :)

Seriously though, I think some yellow women (screw it, let's just say "girls" because we all know black guys don't like girls over the age of 14) might find it painful to have a 19 inch penis inside of them... I'll bet even the prepubescent males that are sold as sex slaves to black men don't enjoy it much either. They probably LEARN to love it, but they don't really have a choice.

Unlike the American black man, who does have a choice to not rape little Asian boys. He doesn't have to do that. Why don't you rape your own children, Mr. Black Man, and leave the Yellow Boy alone?

Re:Important questions for our leader (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39165945)

Nobody likes black men.

Chinese girls prefer white men for their larger penis, true, but mostly because they're don't want to live in China. I've been on sex tours to half a dozen asian countries. Pound for pound, I think China has the best pussy (Japanese pussy comes in second or third, but there's too much bitch attached to it).

I guess the best part about China is the population advantage. If 99% percent of chinese girls look like dogs, that still leaves millions that are banging hot.

Somehow, I imagined.. (2)

Higgins_Boson (2569429) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166089)

Somehow, I imagined about 3,000 posts telling Obama where he can get "cheapest WoW goldz and Diablo III beta invites with special pet!" and lots of replies like "ni hao" and such.

I was very disappointed in not seeing those.

Freaked out! (1)

linuxdude96 (1382885) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166129)

Obama was probably freaked out when he was told that there were thousands of comments in mandarin.... would have freaked me out!

still banned (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166149)

...dont know where ya getting your news but i am in china and still cant go to G+

Unblocked? (1)

BillX (307153) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166155)

I'm far more interested in why G+ has been unblocked, while FB/Twitter/etc. are still firewalled. Did the Chinese gov't realize every post having a real / potentially verified name attached is more convenient than the site being inaccessible?

Dunno why the Chinese bother... (1)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166237)

The Best Way to Rule a Country (3, Insightful)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166259)

Force choices onto the electorate and make those choices bad. Many will quickly grow cynical and weary, finally giving up on the process. That leaves the few to rule, using the 'elected leaders' as front men who can easily be replaced due to their lack of credibility. Of course, that would never happen here.

Only 500? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166297)

Ah... those were nice days... when I got only 500 mails in Chinese.. HTML was new back then...

DOS (3, Insightful)

goodmanj (234846) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166671)

Interesting. Half a billion people exercising free speech is indistinguishable from a denial-of-service attack.

Our society and the way we structure our conversations, both on the Net and off it, aren't really equipped to deal with the problem of billions of people trying to have a conversation in the same room. We need a new way to think about mass communication in a way that doesn't cause information overload. I wonder if self-moderating systems like Slashcode are part of the answer...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?