okc

What do you mean not just propaganda?

The Chinese nationalism you talk about has strong roots in propaganda. Its the very purpose of propaganda.

Its also the same communist party which caused the great famine that are in power now. Different people, same party.

The amount of doublespeak in your writing makes me question if you really believe what you write. why are you defending propaganda?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak

For clarification:

"In 1945, following the end of World War II, the Republic of China (ROC), led by the Kuomintang (KMT), took control of Taiwan. In 1949, after losing control of mainland China in the Chinese Civil War, the ROC government under the KMT withdrew to Taiwan and Chiang Kai-shek declared martial law."

- From wiki's 'history of Taiwan'

(I'm not making a point, I just think this context is important to the discussion)

A sadder reflection is how Taiwan still isn't considered a country internationally. Due to China's international influence. For exmaple: The Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States, which is quite a long winded way of saying embassy without saying embassy.

regardless of what you mean, can I just put phrases like: "hysteria about terrorism after the attacks in Xinjiang" into context:

"Rather than embrace lawyers, writers, and whistleblowers as allies in an effort to deal effectively with rising social unrest, the government remains hostile to criticism. The government targets activists and their family members for harassment, arbitrary detention, legally baseless imprisonment, torture, and denial of access to adequate medical treatment. It has also significantly narrowed space for the press and the Internet, further limiting opportunities for citizens to press for much-needed reforms."

Specifically on Xinjiang:

"Following the Urumqi attack, the Chinese government announced a year-long anti-terrorism crackdown in Xinjiang. Within the first month, police arrested 380 suspects and tried more than 300 for terror-related offenses. Authorities also convened thousands of people for the public sentencing of dozens of those tried. In August, authorities executed three Uighurs who were convicted of orchestrating an attack in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in October 2013. Fair trial rights remain a grave concern given the lack of independent information about the cases, the government’s insistence on expedited procedures, the fact that terror suspects can be held without legal counsel for months under Chinese law, and China’s record of police torture.

While there is reason for the government’s concern with violence, discriminatory and repressive minority policies only exacerbate the problem. In January, police took into custody Ilham Tohti, a Uyghur professor at Beijing’s Minzu University critical of the Chinese government’s Xinjiang policy. Tohti remains detained and is charged with “separatism,” which can result in life imprisonment. In August, Uighur linguist Abduweli Ayup was given an 18-month sentence for “illegal fundraising” after trying to raise money for Uighur-language schools."

Sources: Human rights watch: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-chapters/china...

and again: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2016/country-chapters/china...

It appears these sources are blocked in China. Source: http://www.greatfirewallofchina.org/

I totally agree. I find it fascinating and appreciating it for its better qualities is important too. My time in China, made me realise just how different what you think someone is saying can be to what they actually mean.

In my experience China is a very peaceful and safe country. I also see the darker underside: take Tiananmen Square for example.

I get annoyed by debates that say something like.. well China is bad but so is the USA and x and y and z country. Sometimes comparisons can legitimise some horrific practices and make them seem OK. They aren't.

I'd disagree on your assertion that censorship hasn't gone to far. Mainly because the censorship is part of a bigger context of fear and control, not culturally comparable to the US and its government. For example: I know someone from China (who doesn't live there anymore), and cannot admit Tiananmen Square happened. It runs deep.

Agreed, with both of you. I like this hackernews forum, as false arguments tend to be articulately called out and discussed.

The irony of the thread is that the fundamental debate is about if such a forum should be allowed to exist without government mediation and control.

How about the article we are discussing?

would that be censored? how about if the facts underlying a case are seen to provoke something like racism - is it then legitimate to change the facts or censor them to the public.

"If the government or the law making process can be considered as an emanation of the citizen, it becomes legitimate for them to control the public expiration to some extent"

Unbelievable paradoxical statement: Starts with an If.. Ends with a vague to some extent.. and sticks the massive assumption of "it becomes legitimate for them to control the public expiration" - Why? Why is that legitimate?.

Perhaps in a democracy you might very carefully start to make such conclusions, but the Chinese people don't pick their government. There only chance of change is rebellion. Perhaps thats why news is suppressed?

Please, elaborate your statement - in laymans terms if possible, as I find the semantics in your statements quite difficult to follow.

The question is how much are the local views influenced by the government and also how much people are willing to disagree with the government view.

The local perspective you present, is a good example of a perspective which sounds like it endorses government activity but also identifies it as a case of government suppression. It says noting as a personal opinion.

I'm not sure that Chinese people are "understandably" horrified at CNN. I actually think theres a big cultural gap in understanding between both countries, perpetuated part by both governments.

Either way, its government propaganda of news set against a backdrop of fear and conformity. That means that the very idea of presenting a 'local perspective' is one intimately linked to government control. Its nothing to do with kittens on CNN.

You don't outright say it, but the way you wrote this seems to be saying that government controlled news ain't that bad compared with CNNs 24hr coverage of kittens. What do you think, personally?

I think the key difference is the government not cooperations are behind it. I think if the American government were mass employing graduates to make fake posts, then it would be scrutinised massively. (graduates, because social control is an academic discipline)

Comparatively, between the two nations, I don't think the role of the Chinese state in controlling the thoughts of its citizens can be easily compared with American free market capitalism. In reality, China also has similar model of capitalism which operates in a similar way.

The government creating fake posts, the Chinese fire wall.. Tiananmen Square.. people with anti-goverment views at local level - regularly going missing.. official and unofficial snithches on nearly every street.. I could go on.

The unique role of the Chinese government (unlike America) make their social media habits interesting.

Now of course American social media habits are interesting, but not for the same reasons, and I would argue: American social media habits aren't as important in areas like human rights.

To put it in another context: if I was making this post from china or was Chinese - I would be looking over my shoulder and perhaps writing more ambiguously.

I got a phone in Taiwan 1 year ago which was a third of the price of a recent laptop/tablet I purchased in England. The phone had far better specs.

Check out the Redmi Note 3, on sale in India for about £100:

The Xiaomi Redmi Note 3 is available in two RAM and storage versions - one including 2GB of RAM and 16GB of inbuilt storage, and other 3GB of RAM and 32GB of inbuilt storage. The 2GB variant is priced at Rs. 9,999, while the 3GB variant is priced at Rs. 11,999.

The highlight of the new Redmi Note 3 is it packs a hexa-core Snapdragon 650 processor (four Cortex-A53 cores clocked at 1.4GHz and two Cortex-A72 cores clocked at 1.8GHz). Other specifications of the smartphone are identical with the original, including a 5.5-inch full-HD 1080x1920 pixels IPS display and offers 178-degree viewing angle. It runs MIUI 7 based on Android Lollipop and supports dual 4G SIM cards (Micro + Nano).

The Redmi Note 3 packs a 4050mAh battery with fast charging support that can charge up to 50 percent in 1 hour. On the camera front, the Xiaomi Redmi Note 3 sports a 16-megapixel rear camera with phase detection autofocus (PDAF) and two-tone flash. It also houses a 5-megapixel front camera. It measures 150x76x8.65mm and weighs 164 grams.

For connectivity, the handset supports 4G LTE (compatible with Indian LTE bands), VoLTE, Bluetooth, 3G, GPRS/ EDGE, GPS, Glonass, Wi-Fi, and Micro-USB options.

Source: http://gadgets.ndtv.com/mobiles/news/xiaomi-redmi-note-3-to-...

I only see it as a matter of time before brands like Xiaomi make cheaper and better products for sale beyond their current dominance in 'developing countries'. We need to catch up.

This is a great discussion. What is it about the English language that makes it so much easier to oppose someone than express nuances in general opinion? I would like to see more discussions like this based at implementation level, surely something valuable and innovative is being grasped at by both sides.

I dont't search for facebook. Its hardwired into my brain.

I would like to think FB has had its day. But globally, and for different age groups, its probably just begun. - Even if it is declining in meaning for the t(w)eens and generally those over-exposed to it.

I cant see any of it developing any further, augmented style or by making it business relevant - these things aren't anywhere as powerful as its basic concept. It is often easier than email to use, so perhaps their is some mileage in a startup that takes a new angle on email - rather than snapchat being the obvious 'next thing'. Its also kinda cool as a news feed of interesting memes, but once again - this could be done better.

FB was always contrary to the ideals of the internet, but thats why people like it; FB imposes a protocol of communication, unlike myspace which was all about being an individual expressing yourself - people seem to like a forced top down order to expression.. (twitter being the ultimate useless expression of this) If FB wants you to log in, its probabaly because everyone on FB prefers it that way. of course, usually everyone is wrong. I would liken FB to the roman empire, it doesnt have any one big downfall, just a gradual decline exploited by various factions of smaller powers.

For the internet, the joy of all of this, is that in the end, freedom, choice, and exchange of information win out. right? right??

>Climbing is a hobby for a rich guy from Google. Maybe it's even spiritual. But for Sherpas it's like plumbing or driving a taxi. They do it because it provides resources they can use to support their families.

There is so much wrong in this statement. Climbing is for everyone, and that includes a rich guy from google and Sherpas. The mountains are the spiritual homeplace for Sherpas, and for climbers. Sure, guides on Everest, deserve far more protection in working conditions but the Sherpa summiteers of Everest I have met, are also incredibly proud of their achievements. Ideally Everest, can provide the opportunity of bringing the west and Asia together in mutual benefit, just like Sherpa Tenzing Norgay and Edmund hilary did.

The idea of dyslexia that has always resonated with me, is that the brain is thinking in more than one dimension, or direction, at parallel times. Thinking dynamically, when being asked to do a linear task. I don't know where I heard this, but I have taken a little poetic license with the idea.

In the example of mixing letters up,a it would be more about seeing potential possibilities and not just selecting one.

I'm not proposing this as a model for all, but it certainly makes sense with how dyslexia isn't necessarily negative.

Ok, that makes sense. But is it an absurd proposition to say that people who release non-open articles should not be allowed to directly build on the work of those who did it for free?

So how about if part of the agreement of accessing an open article was that any published work citing it would have to be open too. is that absurd in principle? and is it really non-enforceable?

An offshoot of this would be that anyone who goes on to cite something in a non-open article, could academically be accused of not reading the article their citing, and therefor mis-attributing information. This could lessen there creditability or even be grounds for a specific type of plagiarism.

Couldn't it form part of the access agreement to the free article?

A simple fair circumvent: Any freely published article should not be allowed to be cited by a non-free one.

This puts the power into the hands of the author, who could decide if they want this as part of the open license. Rather than the current robinhood type system.

Does this already exist, anyone seen anything similar?

(edited, typo)

I was replying to the someone, who it seems has misunderstood what Huxley meant by filters - I wasn't defending or affirming them, let alone discussing in what context they are 'appropriate'. I used the quote to give the 'filters' being discussed a context. Are you saying Huxley really meant: If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would not appear infinite but just 'processed differently'?

Why would it follow that less filters would infer less brain activity? - even partially. Surley any cleansing/removing of the filters would excite all the brain, as it reacts to new stimuli.

To quote Huxley "If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern."

Hi Adam, Thanks for the response.

I know it was a vague question of mine, but I didn't realise the detail you were prepared to give it. So thanks, again. I'm no expert (my background is more musical), but I do understand most these concepts and perspectives involved. To articulate better my question: Technically how are you manipulating audio and what effect does that have on brainwaves. Your answer, understandably, was more contextual than specific. so let me specify the parts I am hoping to understand.

How do you manipulate audio?

I am in right in understanding your disguising a basic and specific pulse throughout the music. or... are you modulating it rhythmically (very slightly) out of phase with the rest of the music. If you are only applying it to certain frequencies then it seems you may be creating binaural beat like tendencies in the ears abillity to create implicit tones (Hidden frequencies, not physically present).

What effect does this have on brainwaves?

You stated in general you are matching rhythms to that of the brain. Can you expound this? What theory of Rhythmic psychological organissation are you purporting/ascribing to? how is your audio intereacting with this model? What is the effect of your audio on the model?

I understand you may have a whole toolbox of tricks going on here and that you don't want to give away your product entirely. Feel free to gloss over introducing technical terms, though its helpful for all reading, I think most people here can quickly come upto speed on stuff. I'm not asking you for the secrets of your product - just more specifics on how it relates to the research you are citing.

Thanks for the article link, it looks very interesting reading.

A couple of reflections on your product: I personally don't like the music and therefore can't listen to it. It doesn't sound human to me and therefore my brain rejects it. Have you heard of the theory of "participatory discrepancy" (Keil C. and Feld, S. (1994). It highlights the value of discrepencies (randomness) rhythm for creating groove. I think cognitivly there is a similar principle at play (perhaps you know it, I can't find reference to it right now - will dig it out if this area interests you). I also feel, on the website, that the lack of actual specifics twinned with a large scholary general body of work, is ultimately devaluing your product. Though that may, quite rightly, be your choice in promotion, to engage me a couple of pages about whats actually going, twinned with a couple of very specifc to your model studies, would make me give this product real integrity and longterm value. For example Stober's powerpoint on the MIIR EEG dataset here (http://bib.sebastianstober.de/2015-01-31_NEMISIG.pdf - illustrates complex concepts that your describing, very simply. Incidentally I think lifetime subcriptions after a long trial period would probably have the most chance of getting my support.

Hi Could you explain, technically, how and by what you think the brain waves are being manipulated? Thanks

Neurological disorders are often related to periodicity of body rhythms and I think its generally accepted that resonance theory on internal oscillators are still in an infant stage, especially regarding their long term and cross cultural capability for variance. All the promises stated are possible. But, I'd also like to see a simple summary of the theory underpinning this music, even just defining the type of entrainment would make the product far more interesting and valuable. This coupled with the in-your-face-sales, promises and gimmicks whilst casually alluding to studies (with no reference for technical points) makes me get the feeling I'm being duped.

I'm trying to provoke some thought about how we ascribe value to living things (and trying to relate it to the views of the person I was responding to). I was also trying to keep the debate relevant to the original article. Does that make any more sense?

Its an interesting set of qualities you ascribe to being human. does lacking all these (or some) of these make you worth less as a human? does it make you a 'cockroach'?

Some cultures certainly treat people with learning difficulties worse than cattle. Others love, support and engage them - understanding the world through their eyes too.

> See, your whole argument boils down to 'why aren't you more like me? Isn't being like me better than being like you?'

If you want to make that point, please support it with an explanation to why and how I have led you to believe that? because I genuinely don't follow your logic.

>Ok let's be very clear about this - I stomp on a cockroach because I feel like it.

And you call that respect?

That isn't what I call a basic respect for living things. Finding a rabbits neck breaking "icky", also isn't a basic respect. If you could provide a reason for killing, like a health one, I might start to understand.

Let me try another tack thats a bit more 'on topic'. What behavior would a cockroach have to exhibit before you treat it like a human?

(Edited: formatting.. again)

>Here's a question to ponder: what are morals and these 'should's you describe meant for? For people to share common values so that we get along better, right?

Thats not really how morals are defined. That is just one oversimplified and fairly self serving definition of ethics.

But lets try this with your own view point: Try pondering the question you posed:

>what are morals and these 'should's you describe meant for?

Now since you believe common values help us get along, and you therefore believe that forms the basis of ethical decision, then your question needs to be:

"What common values do other people hold that may be different to mine?"

It may come as a shock to you, that there is whole world of people and even animals and insects, that don't share your views - that see the world through totally different eyes. If they don't contribute to your idea of a common value, does that make them worthless and irrelevant to the world, the world they live in.

By stomping on the cockroach (for no reason beyond what you like and don't like) - you are saying it has no value in your life, and therefore should not exist.

To be honest, this isn't about morality - its about having a basic respect for anything that lives. Why, given the chance, would you not have this respect?

(Edited: formatting)

The underlying debate isn't technological, its social and requires a more abstract paradigm of thinking - beyond "with us or against us mentality". Everyone involved has been and will be negotiating boundaries that fits with their own moral focus.

> Anyone that stands up to the police-state-mentality is honorable.

Theres a difference between a police state and a police state mentality. The latter is a subjective and abstract point of view, not so easy to stand up against.

Remember this subject includes foreign policy and war making, not just domestic governing.

The 3rd picture down @ http://www.aworldtowin.net/reviews/JohnPilgerphotos.html comes to mind:

"American officers in their air-conditioned headquarters in Saigon, with a computer that "proved" they were winning the war. A reliance on machines and unreality characterised the American presence in Vietnam." - Philip Jones Griffiths, 1970

Yeah thanks, all these points are valid.

Re Landlord (and house) refs: references have lots of pitfuls. Ideally even in a boom town, being able to ref you landlord could warn you off the repeatedly terrible ones. The real problem is authenticity, it may get abused heavily by everyone.(imagine a hydrid anarchical version of all the rating problems inherent in eBay and TripAdvisor).

It seems a fair idea but difficult to implement. Would a simple message board based system be enough for a discerning reader? Any solutions for a system like this?

I generally follow the logic. Though, if salaries are not enough to support a mortgage application this model will trap people in a renting cycle. A precarious one at that. The interesting part in the model you present is the use of investment portfolios to get on the housing ladder. Its as if working hard isn't enough, you need some extra device, with a degree of risk and luck to make the leap to home ownership.

Its great to imagine what would happen if people couldn't buy second homes, or being innovative over how a special tax rate could be applied to young people. No-one really knows the answers until it happens. My gut feeling is that renting is unethical - I know I couldn't bring myself to make money out of someone renting if I had my own house and enough money already. But that's it, none of these issues are based on isolated models.

My crude knee jerk ideas: A maximum cap on rental prices indexed to minimum wage.

A preference model where first time buyers get 1st picks.

A trusted simple well thought out online platform that makes buying and selling a house as easy as possible (replacing the trickery of estate agents).

And for Landlords: Absolutely robust laws always favouring the right of the tenant, so landlords are forced to acknowledge a social responsibility to their tenants - what bigger responsibility could you have for another human being then being a Landlord.

An online platform where tenants can request references on Landlords from old tenants.