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!

China Systematically Developing New Technologies

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the having-goals-is-a-great-idea dept.

Science 261

newsblaze writes "China, having recognized there are major gaps in its science and technology arsenal, released their Technology Development Plans. The plans cover five main areas — geology, mechanical engineering, metallurgical engineering and aeronautical engineering. Three areas are prioritized in space technology and six major goals are announced. All this comes after having first set out their 100 Year Vision of Greatness. They appear to be giving themselves a breathing space, telling the world they are interested in cooperation and also giving themselves a major target, in much the same way as John F Kennedy did for the USA."

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

What's the fourth main area? (5, Funny)

eggsurplus (631231) | more than 7 years ago | (#18636697)

The plans cover five main areas -- geology, mechanical engineering, metallurgical engineering and aeronautical engineering

I know! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18636713)

The plans cover five main areas -- geology, mechanical engineering, metallurgical engineering and aeronautical engineering
Wait for it...

WAIT FOR IT...


|
Spoiler
|

Uranus

edit: FIFTH (1)

eggsurplus (631231) | more than 7 years ago | (#18636725)

Ironic

stealth technology (5, Funny)

cyfer2000 (548592) | more than 7 years ago | (#18636863)

Apparently. But most people simply couldn't see it.

The fifth one gets revealed next season (4, Funny)

wiredog (43288) | more than 7 years ago | (#18636887)

After the Dylan song finishes playing.

Re:What's the fourth main area? (2)

Reason58 (775044) | more than 7 years ago | (#18636923)

The plans cover five main areas -- geology, mechanical engineering, metallurgical engineering and aeronautical engineering
Counting.

Re:What's the fourth main area? (1)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637009)

Kindergarten math.

Hey, they did say they were a bit behind!

Re:What's the fourth main area? (4, Funny)

treeves (963993) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637087)

Steganography.

Re:What's the fourth main area? (4, Funny)

cybermage (112274) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637111)

ruthless efficiency?

Re:What's the fourth main area? (5, Funny)

sentientbeing (688713) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637185)

and an almost fanatical devotion to the pope.. I mean party.

Re:What's the fourth main area? (4, Insightful)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637119)

Ecconomic Warfare of course.

This is just a shot fired across the bow of globalization. But since the globalists are all worshipers of Mao, this resurgence of national identity for China will go unnoticed.

The ??? step (2, Insightful)

novus ordo (843883) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637121)

Importing technology by exporting artificially cheap goods made with that technology?

Re:What's the fourth main area? (3, Funny)

ZombieRoboNinja (905329) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637179)

Surprise?

Re:What's the fourth main area? (2, Funny)

cjdkoh (991723) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637409)

they can't reveal the fifth area. if they did then people would know the step that comes before profit. we can't be having that.

Mathematics (2, Funny)

Elad Alon (835764) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637421)

The fourth (fifth) area is apparently mathematics.

Fifth Area: Suppression of Human Rights (1, Offtopic)

reporter (666905) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637445)

Regardless of how technologically superior China might be, technology alone does not create a high-quality society. To this day, many members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) continue to emigrate to the United States (even while their relatives and other comrades in the CCP brutalize North Korean refugees). They could live like kings in China due to their CCP-derived wealth, yet they choose to go to the USA.

Look closely at Vietnam [usembassy.gov] . Though it is still an authoritarian society, the Vietnamese have made significant strides towards democracy and human rights. We rarely hear of pompous national goals like "First Vietnamese in Space" from Hanoi. The Vietnamese focus on things that matter: economy and social liberalization (e.g., human rights). In fact, "The Economist" reports that the strongest voices of support for democracy [economist.com] is coming from the membership of the Vietnamese Communist Party.

The Chinese focus on pompous national goals (e.g., space weapons and the like), but the Vietnamese focus on the things that matter to the common people. Note that the Vietnamese are specifically not developing nuclear weapons while Beijing is spending huge sums on aggressively developing nuclear-tipped missiles.

With the new national technology program, the Chinese may create the most advanced robot in the world, but their society will be socially impoverished. Meanwhile, the Vietnamese create a liberal democracy.

15 years from now, in which society -- China or Vietnam -- would you prefer to live? Another bowl of Pho please!

Re:What's the fourth main area? (1)

hazee (728152) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637795)

I wasn't expecting the spanish inquisition...

I think... (1)

grnrckt94 (932158) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637829)

maybe they were counting in Chinese.

Re:What's the fourth main area? (4, Funny)

happyemoticon (543015) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637831)

THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!

Intelligent Design (0, Flamebait)

anand78 (832850) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637907)

HAHA! you see we have a charter as well. Darwinian theory will be replaced by Intelligent design. Eliminate Science and Engineering from Schools and teach theology. Attack another little known country and claim to get freedom for them.

Cultural differences (5, Funny)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 7 years ago | (#18636705)

The fact that China is pursuing a 100-year plan for greatness underscores the difference between American and Chinese culture, and shows why American culture is superior. Why bother planning for the next 100 years when the rapture is immanent? Instead, they should be teaching the Bible in schools like we do here, so that they might be saved when Jesus returns.

Re:Cultural differences (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18636835)

dude, it's 2007. the rapture was seven years ago.
everyone who had a hangover on jan 1, 2000 was left behind...

Re:Cultural differences (2, Informative)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637435)

Why bother planning for the next 100 years when the rapture is immanent? Instead, they should be teaching the Bible in schools like we do here, so that they might be saved when Jesus returns.

It will no doubt shock you to know this, but the majority of Christians in the world do not believe in the rapture and quite a few of us really have no desire at all for the Bible to be taught in schools. Churches and parents can do the Bible teaching quite nicely on their own. The problem is that the people who do believe in the rapture and want the Bible to be taught in school make an awful lot of noise and while they are in very large numbers in the USA, they are not in the majority in other places. Catholics, Orthodox and other Christian groups totally reject the idea of the rapture as a misunderstanding of the Bible. But I suppose you probably think we all spend our spare time bombing abortion clincs too, don't you?

Re:Cultural differences (2, Insightful)

rbarreira (836272) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637617)

That's like telling the dead man "there are not many killers". What good does that do to him?

Re:Cultural differences (1)

LunaticTippy (872397) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637613)

Your joke has an element of sadness. Xianity is the fastest growing religion in China.

Why is that a troll? (1, Interesting)

wsanders (114993) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637643)

This is the second modded-troll (or attempt at humor, whatever) I have defended in two days. If you peek into who runs the US government (well at least the executive branch), you will find that this concept has some support. Why conserve natural resources when Jay-zuss has given us all these abundant natural resources to plunder?

Although I would still give 1000x more credit for the pillaging of the world by American business not because Jay-zuss is coming to take us all home, but because executives don't get any credit for planning anything beyond pump and dumping the end-of-the-quarter's stock price, thus justifing the next bloated paycheck. Propose a 100-year plan for an American business (or even for government) and you'll just get ridiculed.

"imminent" (1)

Elad Alon (835764) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637815)

kthnxbye

It's easier when you have a target (2, Insightful)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 7 years ago | (#18636709)

It's a lot easier to make technological gains when you're essentially trying to copy the technologies already in use in other parts of the world.

Re:It's easier when you have a target (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18636797)

Copy what? Technology that does not exist yet? Just hope they allow the US to license it too or the EU and China will dominate the world together.

Re:It's easier when you have a target (5, Insightful)

qwijibo (101731) | more than 7 years ago | (#18636821)

It worked well for Japan and the auto industry. They started with making inferior copies cheaply, figured out how to improve the quality without substantially increasing the cost, and now American manufacturers are second rate.

Though, there have been some impressive contributions to the crypto community from chinese researchers recently. They're already ahead of the curve in some fields.

Re:It's easier when you have a target (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18636931)

Not just American manufacturers, the German ones (being the major manufacturer of cars, other European countries produce less) are also second rate too, in the meantime -- if you are looking at reliability at least.

Re:It's easier when you have a target (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18636985)

figured out how to improve the quality without substantially increasing the cost

That's simply not having unions.

Re:It's easier when you have a target (2, Informative)

CyberLord Seven (525173) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637803)

It's not that simple.

You have to have a reason for your people to not want unions.

From what I understand Toyota and Nissan take much better care of their employees than GM and Ford. At Toyota and Nissan if you come up with a great idea that will eliminate your responsibilities you do not lose your job!

Of course not all the blame goes to the auto companies. They were working within the framework of the society at large and it's laws. And they were also dealing with their own history towards their own employees.

Funny that you say that (2, Informative)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#18638021)

The American autoworkers in the Japanese plants ARE unionized. In fact, they are making as much as the folks up north. Personally, I have always thought that if a company such as GM or Ford or United Airlines is heading downwards, it is the management that should the blame. But like our politicians, those at the top try hard to shift the blame to those below them. I would guess that it is the lack of personal responsibility that is costing America. I wonder if we introduce Seppuku for our top leaders in Gov. and Business that fail, if that would help.

Re:It's easier when you have a target (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18637339)

And it's easier to write drivers for BSD if you just copy them from Linux [theinquirer.net] , right?

Personally I see nothing wrong with legal copying. Otherwise there never would have been an industrial revolution. However, fair's fair, and one should try to be consistent.

Hooray (2, Insightful)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18636711)

America needs more propoganda like this.

They got any plans to start respecting human rights?

Re:Hooray (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18636807)

and do we?

Re:Hooray (1)

JordanL (886154) | more than 7 years ago | (#18636841)

I think that comes sometime after the brain control waves.

Wait... (3, Insightful)

sepharious (900148) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637073)

are you talking about our government or theirs? I get confused these days...

Re:Wait... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18637577)

are you talking about our government or theirs?

If you dislike the stereotype of Americans being ignorant, stop assuming everybody you talk to on the Internet is American. You do realise that they have the Internet in other countries, don't you? And other countries also speak English? The World-Wide Web isn't like your "World" Series, where the only people included are American.

well ANONYMOUS COWARD (1)

sepharious (900148) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637955)

its kinda hard to get a fix on where you're from, you'll pardon my assuming nature, I won't make the same mistake again. my question was a tongue-in-cheek remark about the state of human rights under the Bush Administration and how we can't be high and mighty about our "American values" these days. but perhaps you really are from another country and me English are confusting you're brians...

Re:Wait... (1)

CyberLord Seven (525173) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637979)

HEY! Be careful tossing around that word like it applies to only one nation!

Mexicans, Canadians, and others are all Americans!

If you're refering to people from the United States refer to them as...Californians? North Carolinians? USians? WTF do you call us?

Oh, yeah! I remember, immigrants!

Re:Hooray (0, Flamebait)

king-manic (409855) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637867)

The major difference between china and the US is that China sends anybody to a place to guitanamo while the US only send brown people. I guess it makes China more equal opportunity? That and the government in modern china tend to be less invasive of it's average citizens life then the US governments. China has no high ground to stand on but the US is slowly slipping down to the same level.

this is all well and nice but (3, Insightful)

xlurker (253257) | more than 7 years ago | (#18636767)

it would be nicer if they also started investing more interest in human rights, democratic ideals, freedom of speech, free press, no censorship, political pluralism, open competition of ideas and on and on and on.


Science is a system and culture based on open discourse, accountability and merit. A culture that strives for good science should also honour these values in itself.

Re:this is all well and nice but (5, Insightful)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 7 years ago | (#18636907)

Forget China, I'd like to see the USA start "investing more interest in human rights, democratic ideals, freedom of speech, free press, no censorship, political pluralism, open competition of ideas and on and on and on!"

Re:this is all well and nice but (2, Insightful)

hax4bux (209237) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637459)

Some science leadership would also be nice

Re:this is all well and nice but (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18637661)

Freedom cannot be achieved through any "investment" by government. Freedom is defined by the lack of organized coercion, not the presence of it!

Human rights preceded government, not the other way around. Human rights are derived from human nature -- first and foremost the right to self-ownership of mind AND body -- not from authority as government wants you to believe. Authority, derived from coercion, is the logical opposite of freedom.

human rights ... freedom of speech, free press, no censorship ... open competition of ideas

Each one of those ideals (note that I excepted "democratic ideals" and "political plurism") will be achieved ONLY by reducing -- not expanding -- the powers of government. By calling for "investment" you are falling straight into the trap prepared by the power elite who control government: they want you to believe, of course, that your ideals can only be achieved by appealing to authority -- not by abolishing authority!

While I strongly agree with your ideals of freedom, I strongly suggest considering just what government is before calling for even more of it. Government is coercion, plain and simple. Everything and anything government does is backed by force or the threat of force -- quite unlike the relationship you have with your friends and family. Clearly, government is the enemy of freedom, not the champion of it as the power elite want you to believe.

Purple Mustache (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18637799)

Hey, nice purple mustache from the kool-aid you've been drinking.

To excercise some sort of moral equivilency like that, you have to be seriously deluded.

Yes, America, Britain, France, and even Canada have issues, but Tianneman Square would have never happened in those countries. None of these countries round up Falun Gong members and "re-educate" them. We have serious political pluralism. Loyal opposition parties, and a fairly frequent exchanging of roles between executive and legislative branchs for the parties.

The Seattle WTO protests, while problem plagued, where protestors destroyed property, poluted the streets, and harassed by-standers (yes, I was there), would have been shot down in Shanghai or Beijing.

The fact that in these major countries, you are free to express, to purchase, to travel, to procreate (or not), to disagree and write ludicrous crud without government reprisal shows what a deluded, kool-aid drinking nut job you are.

You can't impose liberty. You grow it. (5, Insightful)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#18636911)

human rights, democratic ideals, freedom of speech, free press, no censorship, political pluralism, open competition of ideas and on and on and on.
These things will all come with a middle class who demand them. You have to build that middle class up first. This is what a lot of people don't get. It's the middle class, who are financially independent, not the working class who demand change. Funnily enough, it's money which allows freedom to flourish.

 

Re:You can't impose liberty. You grow it. (4, Interesting)

tempestdata (457317) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637131)

I disagree. I'm not saying you're wrong, but from what I've seen (yes its my subjective view point) financial wealth breeds apathy. I've seen this in more than one country and more than one society. The middle class and the rich by definition have something to loose. They are the last people to want any kind of uncertainty and change always brings uncertainty. The middle class and the rich would only throw their weight in to help the poor if they themselves had something to loose by not doing so. America is a great example of apathy due to financial wealth. I read this somewhere, (I cant remember where, so cant attribute it correctly, but I wont take credit for it) "The Chinese government has basically made a deal with its people, let it retain its place of power and in return it will bring them financial wealth". That is exactly what has been happening in China. People have been trading freedom for prosperity. There are thousands of protests in China each year, but its not the middle class and the rich protesting.. it's the poor who haven't benefited from China's prosperity.

Re:You can't impose liberty. You grow it. (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637169)

You have a reason for your disagreement? My take is that it's the opposite. The wealthy in the US are the most politically active.

Re:You can't impose liberty. You grow it. (1)

Apotsy (84148) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637423)

Yes, but their goal is to either preserve the status quo, or actively restrict freedom of the lower classes.

Re:You can't impose liberty. You grow it. (1)

tempestdata (457317) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637543)

Yes. I am sure that the rich as very politically active (albeit in a different way). Through corruption, cronyism, gifts and other means, the rich in China are very politically active. But the rich use their wealth to make the existing authority act favorably towards them. When they do try to use their wealth to defy the authority, Mikhail Khodorkovsky stands out as a warning to all. The rich are concerned in perpetuating their wealth and status, as long as the government can be coerced into letting them achieve that goal, why on Earth would they want to challenge it?

Re:Overcoming apathy (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637269)

You are using loose where you mean to use lose, and you did it twice, so it wasn't a one time thing.

Re:Overcoming apathy (1)

tempestdata (457317) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637405)

Thank you for pointing that out :) I'll be more careful next time.

Re:You can't impose liberty. You grow it. (2, Insightful)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637539)

The middle class and the rich by definition have something to loose. They are the last people to want any kind of uncertainty and change always brings uncertainty. The middle class and the rich would only throw their weight in to help the poor if they themselves had something to loose by not doing so.

"Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!"

Maybe, but the leaders of the revolution are usually comfortable middle-class intellectuals and student cadres, people freed from the daily necessity of earning their bread and with the leisure time to, say, debate ideology and distribute progressive literature.

The workers do have a great deal to lose. The British miners in the 1980s were highly motivated, politically informed and highly idealistic, but enough of them were prepared to scab once they saw their families suffering because of the strike; in the end Thatcher won. A 25% drop in the rich man's pay means he drives a smaller car and goes on holiday only once a year, or only within his home continent. A 25% drop in the worker's pay means his children go hungry. Not to mention that the rich man's wealth gives him substantially greater resources which he can use to make a difference.

Re:You can't impose liberty. You grow it. (1)

tempestdata (457317) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637679)

You are absolutely right, the workers will throw their weight in if they have something to lose financially. The scenario you described is in support of my argument. They were not fighting for a different system of government or a freer society or any such abstract concept. They were fighting for financial well being. If the chinese government were to suddenly impoverish its middle class, they would surely rise up against it. But that is not the case, China's present government is creating a middle class, not destroying it.

Re:You can't impose liberty. You grow it. (0)

king-manic (409855) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637953)

The poor are insignificant in all spans of history. If you look closely, every revolution is spear headed by a upper middle class/ upper class person leading the middle class with the poor as cannon fodder. Mao, Lenin, etc... The poor do nto have any inate value and contribute the least to society. Unless some leader wishes to exploit them the poor will remain nothing.

Definition (3, Insightful)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637219)

These things will all come with a middle class who demand them. You have to build that middle class up first. This is what a lot of people don't get. It's the middle class, who are financially independent, not the working class who demand change. Funnily enough, it's money which allows freedom to flourish.

This must be some strange meaning of the words "middle class" of which I have not previously been aware. Last I saw, "Middle Class" in the United States was defined as having incomes in the $36,000-$120,000 range; which while certainly comfortable and able to afford a few luxuries and assets, is certainly NOT what I'd call "financially independant" or "not working class".

Other than that I agree with you- as did George Orwell. The working poor can't afford to revolt- 100% of their time is spent just trying to survive. The rich are profiting from the status quo, they aren't going to change anything. Only with a middle class, who suffer due to worker conditions and prosper with a robust economy, can these changes be made.

Re:You can't impose liberty. You grow it. (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637237)

So you're saying if a society doesn't have a sufficiently large middle class, that they must accept totalitarianism instead? Could it be instead, that a large middle class arises out of freedom? That it is freedom that diminishes the power of the aristocracy while simultaneously reducing destitution?

Re:this is all well and nice but (4, Interesting)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637155)

Yes. Once they get those, then the progress will follow. Science and technology doesn't happen in a vacumn, it happens in an environment where men are free to engage in intellectual curiosity.

This program recalls to mind China's earlier experiment with statist progress. "The Great Leap Forward" was an unmitigated disaster.

Re:this is all well and nice but (1)

cyfer2000 (548592) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637249)

China just passed [washingtonpost.com] the property law [wikipedia.org] . I think this is a big step.

Re:this is all well and nice but (1)

homer_s (799572) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637335)

Yeah, it will also be good if the US and UK stop invading countries, supporting dictators, etc

I don't disagree with you about China, but pretending that the West has some sort of moral high ground is ridiculous considering their acts in the last 300-400 years.

Typical mistake (1, Interesting)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#18636779)

They'll spend a fortune developing research resources when they could have just announced a prize for a winner and allowed business to get on with it.

Still. Just goes to show you can't tell politicians, they need to be controlling things. Same the world over.

 

Read as... (0, Flamebait)

DrWho520 (655973) | more than 7 years ago | (#18636825)

China Systematically Stealing New Technologies

And I don't care if you mod me down! Damn the man!

Bill O'Reilly: Carnie +1, Revealing (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18636879)

Bill O'Reilly is just a big blabbering piece of protoplasm.

  need to tell you a little about how I am fed up to the back teeth with Bill O'Reilly's gormless flimflams. And so I shall. Let's review the errors in O'Reilly's statements in order. First, O'Reilly's revenge fantasies are worse than the Black Death of olden times. Have you ever stopped to consider the enormous havoc and ruin that has been wrought in this world by O'Reilly and his cat's-paws? I have. That's why I say that he just reported that his way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't. Do you think that that's merely sloppy reporting on O'Reilly's part? I don't. I, for one, think that it's a deliberate attempt to invent a new moral system that legitimizes his desire to insult the intelligence, interests, and life plans of whole groups of people.

Not to belabor the point, but the central paradox of O'Reilly's tirades, the twist that makes O'Reilly's ramblings so irresistible to insufferable so-called experts, is that these people truly believe that violence and prejudice are funny. If Fate desired that O'Reilly make a correct application of what he had read about fogyism, it would have to indicate title and page number, since the diabolic, duplicitous quiddler would otherwise never in all his life find the correct place. But since Fate does not do this, I have a New Year's resolution for O'Reilly: He should pick up a book before he jumps to the self-deceiving conclusion that the worst classes of cynical, sleazy vagrants there are make the best scout leaders and schoolteachers.

Sooner or later, O'Reilly might be diagnosed with a special type of mental illness that is not yet recognized. But for now, be aware that the last time I told his flunkies that I want to defy him, they declared in response, "But you and I are inferior to addlepated maniacs." Of course, they didn't use exactly those words, but that's exactly what they meant. This probably does not affect your daily life, but it is a fact. No one has a higher opinion of him than I, and I think he's an imperious fastidious-type. Tell me something: Is there anything that O'Reilly can't make his disciples believe? On the surface, it would seem to have something to do with the way that there is a cost, a cost too high to calculate, for messing with the lives and livelihoods of thousands of people. But upon further investigation, one will find that his causeries are not witty satire, as O'Reilly would have you believe. They're simply the immature ramblings of someone who has no idea or appreciation of what he's mocking. For better or for worse, his jibes are like an enormous pharisaism-spewing machine. We must begin dismantling that structure. We must put a monkey wrench in its gears. And we must initiate meaningful change, because O'Reilly decries or dismisses capitalism, technology, industrialization, and systems of government borne of Enlightenment ideas about the dignity and freedom of human beings. These are the things that he fears, because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility.

Impulsive vigilantism is the shadow cast on society by O'Reilly's canards, and as long as this is so, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance. O'Reilly believes that his attitudes are good for the environment, human rights, and baby seals. That's just wrong. He further believes that at birth, every living being is assigned a celestial serial number or frequency power spectrum. Wrong again! Fortunately, if you ever get into an argument with some of his advocates about whether or not ruthless cockalorums like O'Reilly tend to conveniently ignore the key issues of this or any other situation, I have an excellent sockdolager for you. Simply inform the other party that O'Reilly spouts the same bile in everything he writes, making only slight modifications to suit the issue at hand. The issue he's excited about this week is prætorianism, which says to me that if O'Reilly believes that his opinions represent the opinions of the majority -- or even a plurality -- then it's obvious why he thinks that the ancient Egyptians used psychic powers to build the pyramids.

O'Reilly's goal is not to oppose frowzy, pushy plagiarism but to reinvigorate it with a headlong new purpose. Although others may disagree with that claim, few would dispute that the law is not just a moral stance. It is the consensus of society on our minimum standards of behavior.

When surveyed, only two percent of O'Reilly's serfs agreed with the statement, "O'Reilly will just moan and groan until we give him permission to promote group-think attitudes over individual insights." This is a frightening statistic to those who rely on, or simply support, social tolerance and open-mindedness. His values are a spiritually destructive propaganda instrument aimed at our children, by which I mean that Nature is a wonderful teacher. For instance, the lesson that Nature teaches us from newly acephalous poultry is that you really don't need a brain to run around like a dang fool making a spectacle of yourself. Nature also teaches us that O'Reilly is an interesting character. On the one hand, he likes to formulate social policies and action programs based on the most abhorrent sorts of credentialism in existence. But on the other hand, his argument that we ought to worship shallow dopeheads as folk heroes is hopelessly flawed and utterly circuitous. We all have an obligation to stand up together and forcefully oppose O'Reilly's belligerent newsgroup postings. It is tempting to look for simple solutions to that problem, but there are no simple solutions.

Lysenkoism is the answer, but only if the question was, "What's the moral equivalent of letting O'Reilly impose a one-size-fits-all model on how society should function?" I am sick of our illustrious "leaders" treading on eggshells so as not to upset O'Reilly. Here's what I have to say to them: If O'Reilly is going to interfere with the most important principles of democracy, then he should at least have the self-respect to remind himself of a few things: First, his continuous and deliberate misuse of the word "ultraphotomicrograph" in an attempt to defy the law of the land is both subversive and warped. And second, he presents himself as a disinterested classicist lamenting the infusion of politically motivated methods of pedagogy and analysis into higher education. O'Reilly is eloquent in his denunciation of modern scholarship, claiming it favors incontinent card sharks. And here we have the ultimate irony, because I normally prefer to listen than to speak. I would, however, like to remind O'Reilly that his criticisms of my letters have never successfully disproved a single fact I ever presented. Instead, O'Reilly's criticisms are based solely on his emotions and gut reactions. Well, I refuse to get caught up in his "I think ... I believe ... I feel" game. If you agree, read on. One of the great mysteries of modern life is, Do devious politicasters like O'Reilly's adulators actually have lives, or do they exist solely to take a condescending cheap shot at a person that most fickle couch potatoes will never be in a position to condescend to? To help answer that question I will offer a single anecdote. A few weeks ago, I overheard some ignorant braggart tell everyone who passed by that O'Reilly is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. Astounded, I asked this person if he realized that thought should precede any attempt at intellectual writing. Not only was his answer "no" but it was also news to him that there's something fishy about O'Reilly's overgeneralizations. I think he's up to something, something gruesome and perhaps even cankered. Although it's easy to sit in the press box and criticize, in order to recognize and respect the opinions, practices, and behavior of others, we must speak out against obscene brigands. And that's just the first step. Remember, when I first became aware of O'Reilly's covert invasion into our thought processes, all I could think was how O'Reilly is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to his magic-bullet explanations. O'Reilly's stories about quislingism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility. Should we sit back and let O'Reilly trade facts for fantasy, truth for myths, academics for collective socialization, and individual thinking for group manipulation, or should we build bridges where in the past all that existed were moats and drawbridges? That choice sure sounds like a no-brainer to me.

Society as a whole should act as a unifying force to provide a positive, confident, and assertive vision of humanity's future and our role in it. But let's not lose perspective. Every time O'Reilly utters or writes a statement that supports racialism -- even indirectly -- it sends a message that O'Reilly can be trusted to judge the rest of the world from a unique perch of pure wisdom. I feel we mustn't let him make such statements, partly because the best gauge of the value of my attitudes, the sincerity of my convictions, and the force of my will is the hostility I receive from piteous personæ non gratæ, but primarily because I, not being one of the many uneducated wheeler-dealers of this world, want to unify our community. O'Reilly, in contrast, wants to drive divisive ideological wedges through it. Please let me explain that there is a format he should follow for his next literary endeavor. It involves a topic sentence and supporting facts.

Perhaps O'Reilly has never had to take a stand and fight for something as critical as our right to launch an all-out ideological attack against the forces of Comstockism. But he is a master of psychological manipulation. That said, let me continue. I can only maximize our individual potential for effectiveness and success in combatting him if his contemptuous junta is decimated down to those whose inborn lack of character permits them to betray anyone and everyone for the well-known thirty pieces of silver. He has only one goal: to let down ladders which the soporific, temperamental, and disruptive scramble to climb.

O'Reilly attributes the most distorted, bizarre, and ludicrous "meanings" to ordinary personality charcteristics. For example, if you're shy, he calls you "fearful and withdrawn". If, instead, you're the outgoing and active type, O'Reilly says you're "acting out due to trauma". Why does he say such things? I'll tell you the answer in a moment. But first, let me just say that his witticisms are saturated with the birdbrained rhetoric that will truly construct the spectre of a terrible armed threat. Period, finis, and Q.E.D. I guess that my take on this is that the ultimate aim of his beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments) is to restructure society as a pyramid with O'Reilly at the top, O'Reilly's yes-men directly underneath, polyloquent slobs beneath them, and the rest of at the bottom. This new societal structure will enable O'Reilly to grasp at straws, trying to find increasingly offensive ways to declare martial law, suspend elections, and round up dissidents (i.e., anyone who does not buy his lie that all it takes to solve our social woes are shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical 1950s Shangri-la), which makes me realize that he is guilty of at least one criminal offense. In addition, O'Reilly frequently exhibits less formal criminal behavior, such as deliberate and even gleeful cruelty, explosive behavior, and a burning desire to teach the next generation how to hate -- and whom to hate. That's all for this letter. For those that don't like my views, get over it. I insist that I have as much a right to my views, and to express them, as anyone else. So when I say that a day of reckoning is coming, and Bill O'Reilly will be called to account, you can agree with me or not. That's all there is to it.

Sincerely,
Geraldo Revolver.

Meh! Seriously. (1, Flamebait)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 7 years ago | (#18636849)

China is in the process of reverse engineering, embracing and extending, and using purchased technology to come up to par with the rest of the world.

"New" technologies are a bit of a stretch.

When I worked at Cymer and Lam Research, we had tons of Chinese engineers and scientists who, although not stated, were placed in U.S. corporations for what amounted to industrial espionage. Well, espionage by cooperation for those that weren't out-right spies.

Yes, the Chinese are advancing, but "new" is a strong term. Maybe "new for them"?

Re:Meh! Seriously. (1, Troll)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637055)

I'd mod you up if I had points....
I get a list of recalled products on a regular basis and >90% of those are manufactured in China. I don't really think that China is up to the standard that you need to be on par, never mind above par with the rest of the world.

The fact that there are reports of thousands of industrial spies in North America from China backs up what you say. Without political and social reform, China is a boiling pot that is about to spill over and put the fire out beneath it.

Re:Meh! Seriously. (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637611)

China is in the process of reverse engineering, embracing and extending, and using purchased technology to come up to par with the rest of the world.

I can't speak for all subjects, but have you seen China's internet backbone diagrams? It is a three-tiered full mesh out of a textbook. Would that the US would aspire to bring out communications infrastructure up to the same standard.

All country do it (1)

aepervius (535155) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637669)

If you think the US does not have a myriad of people all over where emergent new tech could be interresting, you are fooling yourself or buying into your own country propaganda. Neither do I fool myself into thinking my country does not do it, and isn't adverse to a bit of wet work (google for rainbow warrior). Don't paint china as the big evil, don't cry wolf during the whole day. After a while people will not hear to you since you were so biased all the time, then when a true horror and human right violation they will remmember how the whole time you painted China as THE DEVIL and will then dismiss you as again crying wolf.

Re:All country do it (1)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637943)

Don't paint china as the big evil...

Exactly where did I do that? The point of my post was that China is developing nothing new. They are simply trying to catch up.

If you think the US does not have a myriad of people all...

I think you are trying to read too much, way too much into other people's words. I never said the U.S. doesn't do it. I was pointing out the concerted effort that China is making to grab technology.

By the way, how's that knee. You know they have medication so it doesn't jerk as much.

We can all breathe easier (3, Funny)

Volatile_Memory (140227) | more than 7 years ago | (#18636875)

If you can't trust the Red Chinese, who can you trust? Besides, they don't plan to crush us for 100 years! That's like 700 in dog-years.

v.m

Um.... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18636881)

...telling the world they are interested in cooperation...

*cough*BULLSHIT*cough

They're biding their time and developing the necessary technology for the when the US loses its super power status. The Chinese will be right there to step in.

Then, we'll be seeing all of the America haters wishing we were still around...because, if the Chinese have a problem with some country that harbors terrorists, they'll go in and kill them all and let Buddha(1) sort them out.

Mark my words!!!

1. Yes, I know Buddhists do not consider Gottama (Buddha) to be a GOD and neither do the Chinese. It was used in that context as an illustration for my speculation of how China will act as a Super Power.

Note: Posting as AC because I'm expecting the pedantic flames from your typical /.'er and the inevitable Troll moderations.

Meanwhile, in the US.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18636917)

... the President advocates teaching Intelligent Design in science classrooms, and Bill Gates funds it.

We are so hosed. Anyone know a good online course in Chinese languages?

And if anything is sure to succeed... (1)

Cr0w T. Trollbot (848674) | more than 7 years ago | (#18636921)

...it's certainly a top-down mandate handed down by Communist Party officials in a one-party state! Why look at how well all those Soviet Five Year Plans did at burying us in mountains of wheat...

Alternately, China could stop dicking around with piecemeal reform and institute capitalism, democracy, and the rule of law. If China had half the per-capita GNP of Tiawan, they could easily surpass the United States economically. But as long as they cling to the vestiges of a totalitarian command economy, they won't do it.

India has already woken up and figured out that socialism doesn't work. Unless China does the same, it could well be India that supplants the United States as the world's biggest superpower by the end of the century, not China...

Crow T. Trollbot

they have realized it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18637113)

Actually you have the situation reversed .. China knows that socialism is all about false promises, whereas India hasn't fully realized it. The problem is that China's ruling party is named "communist party" .. so to save face they have to introduce reforms bit by bit. A large part of which includes the slow redefinition of the word "communism" and "socialism" since a large segment of the population is so "educated" about the virtues of the word rather than the meaning.

Want an example of a country blatantly redefining words: North Korea's official name is DPRK - Democratic People's Republic of Korea .. Now when the hell did was the last election there?

Re:And if anything is sure to succeed... (1)

Viceroy Potatohead (954845) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637515)

Alternately, China could stop dicking around with piecemeal reform and institute capitalism, democracy, and the rule of law.

A massive, system-wide change is best done slowly, erm, piecemeal. Radical, fast changes in China's economic, political, or social systems wouldn't likely help the Chinese much. Look at the USSR. Rapid change there led to years of crappier life quality for many people, caused a huge debt (partially defaulted on, IIRC), a thriving criminal economy, political destabilization, and more foreign control of industry.

I hope China does become a lot more democratic, but I hope they do it slowly (and I think they are). In the end, it'd be in the best interest of both the Chinese people and China as a country. Economic collapse would cause a lot of damage inside and outside China. The only people who would really benefit would be the vultures with enough capital to buy out assets at rock bottom prices.

They want to cut the umbilical cord to the USA (2, Interesting)

The Media Mechanic (1084283) | more than 7 years ago | (#18636993)

Bottom line is China wants to make the United States as just another trading partner, but not THE ONLY trading partner for certain key technologies. Right now they are buying and importing our good technology in a few key areas where there is no domestic Chinese substitute, namely big equipment. Stuff like Caterpillar monster trucks and General Electric Hydroelectric Turbine Generators. Everything else they can create domestically. Now their central government (which incidentally has a heavy representation of civil engineers) wants to cut the umbilical cord with the United States on these key systems. So this will ultimately give them more flexibility and wiggle room when negotiating on the world stage.

Chinese Diplomat: For motherland, we want Taiwan now. We now annex Taiwan to Greater China.

American Diplomat: Well, then, I'm sorry to inform you that the discount wholesale price on those new Boeing 787s you ordered is now NULL and VOID ! You have to pay Full Price + Extra Tariffs ! Take that, LOL !

Chinese Diplomat: We have satisfactory improved domestically manufactured Chinese copy of Tupolev 9000 airplane. We now cancel all orders for 787s. Please to be refunding our initial deposit.

American Diplomat: Oh sh*t

Chinese Diplomat: For motherland, we want Mongolia now. We now annex Mongolia to Greater China.

Watch out USA! (4, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 7 years ago | (#18636999)

Like it or not, believe it or not, at the present pace, the Peoples' Republic of China will wield more power and influence as compared to all other major powers including the USA within two decades.

Let's look at some of the facts here:

1: They, (the Chinese), are responsible for keeping our currency (the dollar) afloat since they are holding a good chunk of our debt.

2: They are the world's greatest manufacturer now and are not about to stop.

3: They produce most scientists and engineers than all major powers combined.

4: Because of the above, they managed to shoot a satellite from orbit. The US and Russia thought they were the only ones capable of this.

5: They keep low, just like the Russians, and are planning to manufacture their own [wide body] passenger planes.

6: The USA is helping China in a way because its leaders and government are running massive deficits and on top of this, spending huge amounts of cash on munitions, creating no value at all.

Guys, the red dragon is rising and we cannot stop it!

Re:Watch out USA! (1)

krbvroc1 (725200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637045)

Guys, the red dragon is rising and we cannot stop it!
Actually, we helped build it, fund it, perpetuate it, outsource to it, and legitimize it... Hoisted on our own petard.

Re:Watch out USA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18637233)

Hey - I call shenagigans. site your sources!

"1: They, (the Chinese), are responsible for keeping our currency (the dollar) afloat since they are holding a good chunk of our debt."

The Chinese hold about 4% of the US debt. (see this chart [optimist123.com] ). The popular-but-false rumors about China's share of our federal debt being a major contributer to keeping the US Dollar "afloat" are just wrong.

China owns about half as much US Debt as Japan, 1/7th the debt owned by US tax payers, and only 15 percent of the debt owned by forgien countries.

Sure, I'm not thrilled with a communist regiem owning 4% of our debt, but that's not enough to significantly affect our currency.

There is, however, and argument that China 'free-floating' the Yen could cause some nasty world wide banking issuess...

Re:Watch out USA! (3, Informative)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637259)

1: Check, though a bit oversimplified. The Chinese can't just dump their reserves out, because the impact on the world will be too drastic. They're in a better position than the US, but can't really take advantage of it.
2: If by greatest, you mean largest by volume, then check.
3: No. And please define "all major powers". If you say it's the US and a smattering of European countries, I'd be tempted to agree. Though that's like bragging that the US got more gold medals at the Olympics than Luxembourg - misleading, not to mention irrelevant.
4: Wrong. They shot down a satellite to demonstrate they were able and willing to do so. Any country with ICBMs can achieve this, it's just that most are a bit more concerned than China about creating a huge mass of space junk.
5: China keeps low? That's news to Taiwan, the US, Japan, Tibet, and pretty much the whole world. I'd also assume that China would take offense to being compared in any way to Russia. Russia is a two-bit thug on the world stage, while China plans on being the super-power. And since when is a wide-body passenger plane anything to brag about? Airbus would love to forget its latest venture in that area.
6: Wrong. Military expenditures by China: 4.6%. Military expenditures by the US: 4.06%. And this is from heavily understated official figures.

China will be the world power by the time the second half of this century rolls around, but only one of your reasons will have even remotely something to do with it.

Re:Watch out USA! (1)

z4ce (67861) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637299)

Alternately, one can hope that as they continue to embrace capitalism, eventually the people will overthrow the government and start wanting "rights".

It's a bit of a farce to say the chinese are "keeping our currency afloat." What the heck does that mean? It would become weaker relative to other world currencies? Yes, that's true. So what? It also would bring manufacturing jobs to the USA. That's why China is trying to "depress" their own currency.

It's not like we went out and were like CHINA.. please finance our debt. No, their currency was getting stronger.. exports were declining so they devalued their currency to keep exports up. Of course, this also means their people cannot buy much abroad with their dollars.

People get way, way too hung up on wanting a "strong currency." Its not necessarily a good thing to have a strong currency if your goal is to bring jobs to your country. Strong and weak currencies really just describe the ebb-and-flow of purchase power parity.

Re:Watch out USA! (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637317)

1: They, (the Chinese), are responsible for keeping our currency (the dollar) afloat since they are holding a good chunk of our debt.

China spent billions to get those billions. This is an investment for them. While they could go nuts and sell off all their US investments, the results would end up hurting them a lot more than it would hurt the US.

Re:Watch out USA! (1)

Canthros (5769) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637473)

Even if that's all true, China's going to be staring down a pretty serious demographic within the same time period. It's entirely probably that they peak within twenty years and decline thereafter. Whether they will really wield more power or influence than the US in that timeframe is going to be very difficult to predict. I can't say I'd bet on it.

no wonder (5, Funny)

AlgorithMan (937244) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637011)

The plans cover five main areas
1. geology
2. mechanical engineering
3. metallurgical engineering
4. and aeronautical engineering.
No wonder China has major gaps in science and technology - if they can't even count to 5...

Every country should have a vision and a plan (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637079)

If only every country had a realistic vision of where they wanted to be 10, 25, 50, and 100 years from now and planned accordingly.

Obviously, the goals for China will be more lofty than, say, Mongolia.

Re:Every country should have a vision and a plan (1)

Viceroy Potatohead (954845) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637619)

Obviously, the goals for China will be more lofty than, say, Mongolia

That's what you think! My hundred year plan for Mongolia has North America being renamed "Mongolia Minor", and most of the world's population living in yurts. Don't even get me started on the strategic uses of yak's milk.

Re:Every country should have a vision and a plan (1)

Harinezumi (603874) | more than 7 years ago | (#18638023)

Obviously, the goals for China will be more lofty than, say, Mongolia.

Yeah, the goals for China probably also include Taiwan, Korea, and a good chunk of the Russian Far East.

right (1)

papar (893096) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637139)

I assume '100 Year Vision of Greatness' will be followed by '1000 Year Vision of Nuclear Winter'.

Just what the doctor ordered (4, Interesting)

oldwindways (934421) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637201)

Honestly, a more competitive China is the best thing that could happen to American science. We need the impetus of a threatening adversary to not only motivate the practitioners of science, but also to open the floodgates of private/corporate/government funding.

And on a related note, people need to stop dismissing China simply because of their political system. I hate communists just as much as the next red blooded American, but saying they can't do science in a one party government with a control economy is simply short sighted and naive. Doesn't anyone remember the cold war? I seem to recall the Soviets putting the first satellite in orbit, and the first man (and woman) in space. Just because we beat them to the moon doesn't mean they were inept. If anything, history should remind us how effective the concentrated efforts of the government, the economy, the military and civilians of a nation can be. Political freedom does not by default lead to progress, nor does a lack of it guarantee regress.

Their Five Year Plan... (1)

Vexler (127353) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637231)

...is being updated, that's all. If you read your history, you will see that the reason China has a habit of making large, grandiose plans is that they are desperate to address embarrassing deficiencies. When the nation's space agency announces that outer-space seeds have higher mineral contents [slashdot.org] , I cannot help but chuckle. Of course, their 100-year time line does say something about the practicality of the plan.

Sounds like Lenin and Stalin's (1)

pfortuny (857713) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637303)

Quinquennial plans in steroids, doesn't it?

Ah, the advantages of living in a free country...

hm (2, Funny)

JeanBaptiste (537955) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637377)

good thing they're doing it systematically. wouldn't want it to be all haphazard and shit.

Don't Pay Attention To What They Say (1)

MCTFB (863774) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637395)

Pay attention to what they do. The same thing goes for any government, including our own. Corrupt governments, regardless of what corner of the earth they happen to be exist on, only tell the truth when it is convenient for them to do so or else when they can gain a propaganda advantage against their adversaries by being only truthful enough for their big lies to seem plausible.

China says they mean no harm and they only want peace, yet they brazenly shine lasers on our satellites and single handedly add 10% more space debris to earth's orbit through destroying one of their own. China says they are all for innovation, yet they have armies of spies in the United States and Europe conducting industrial espionage on a grand scale, rather than spending the money they use for espionage operations on home-grown research. China says they are all about socialism and equality, yet wealth is even far more concentrated in the top 1% in China than here in the United States (and by a wide margin). I could go on and on, but the point stands that every piece of state propaganda coming out of Beijing should be taken with a grain of salt.

Duplicity and doublespeak is China in a nutshell. After the 2008 Olympics, expect China to start making its real moves, now that George Bush has successfully run our military into the ground and thanks to military espionage, the Chinese now have the military capability to keep our pacific fleet in check and threaten any nation they wish in the Pacific.

Kennedy dreams (4, Insightful)

sepharious (900148) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637447)

I find it interesting that the submitter brings up Kennedy and long range goals and visions. I've been pondering on this subject for some time now and it seems that America has lost its vision. We're trapped in a day-to-day shitfest wondering what celebrities are doing while waiting on our next paycheck to go buy some other piece of junk manufactured in said Red Country. What happened to dreaming of putting men in places they've never been and returning alive to tell the tale? Our government of today has paid the due lip service of "man on Mars....eventually", but where is the far vision? Why have we not heard something of this ilk: "First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of reducing the percentage of energy we import and continuing that trend until such time as we are energy independent"? Or "First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of balancing our budget and wisely investing surpluses in areas to maximize American potential in perpetuity." Werner von Braun thought we could have gone to Mars in the Eighties. Instead we're mucking around on planet Earth fighting a combat technique as if it were a thinking, independent entity. I want something to work towards, a dream to live. I don't want to go nine to five for forty years so I can plop my fat ass on the couch and watch the Britneys and Paris' of the future on my SuperTivo(tm). I want a country that's worth living in and living for. But maybe that's too much to ask...

Good Thing I Married One (5, Interesting)

DumbSwede (521261) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637525)

My wife is a Chinese National and an Economist. I don't know where to start on how naïve most of today's comments are on this topic. I myself have been to China four times. It is a vibrant growing area. Disparaging their accomplishments is far from productive.

What amazes my wife most is how much America cares about what are internal Chinese matters, while we, Americans, meddle in every affair across the globe. I can attest that the average Chinese is non too concerned about internet censorship nor political activism. They all assume (rightly or wrongly) they will all have more rights and freedoms as their wealth increases. Modern Chinese care about wealth and security. Obtaining an education is almost a mantra for them.

While the majority of rural Chinese live in property, it will not take too many more decades of double-digit GDP growth to correct this.

While I prefer living in America and believe in Capitalism and Democracy the current Chinese brand of socialism is working well. It is a hybrid system of Capitalism and Central Control that for now is working. It may breakdown in the future, but not necessarily. Communist dogma is not allowed to get in the way of economic planning. That they can plan for the long run should be envied. Chinese patience is an amazing thing.

I am not prepared to say China will eclipse America and the West soon, but am also disinclined to say they could not be the major Super Power in the world 30-50 years from now.

Of course I've hedged my bets by having a Chinese wife ;-)

Where's Intelligent Design? (5, Funny)

NFN_NLN (633283) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637911)

If they want to keep on par with the US they better not omit the important areas like "Intelligent Design". Clearly, the US will dominate in this field in the coming years! :)

+5 flamebait, +5 sad but true

100 Years? (1)

DeltaQH (717204) | more than 7 years ago | (#18637925)

I never trusted any grand plans from a central authority for development of science.

Go back 100 year and try to plan ahead major areas of science development.

I still remember the Japanese 5th generation computer plan to bring us AI. Where is it now?

It is extremely difficult to plan ahead where major breakthroughs will take place.

Could you imagine 100 years ago the transistor, internet, the www?

It is much efficient to build up a society which encourages free flow and discussion of information, that is what make science really advance. Such a society does not exist (still?) in China.

I society bent in thought control and freedom restrictions is not the best place for real groundbreaking innovation

The Chinese problem solving algorithm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18638025)

As adapted from Murray Gell-Mann's Feynman Problem Solving Algorithm

(1) Write down the problem
(2) Look at what others have done
(3) Copy shamelessly and claim it's your own
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?