<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on How China exposed Google's hypocrisy ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-23T02:52:22-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Merci]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3246106]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I was in a mood that day and needed to vent about people with LOCS disease.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3246106]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[unhappyuser]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:53:58 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[True]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3244137]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[It is a decoy from the severity of the subject which is really about what China stole in the attacks and what they will do with the stolen information they targeted. I am certain that any &quot;dissident&quot; in China according the Chinese government knows the meaning of the word and it has life threatening connotations.When does the crossing of the borders to also attack an American student in California as a &quot;dissident&quot; of a government not her own, become a life threatening problem for her?Politically correct speech has not worked very well and neither has legaleze. Perhaps Obama should borrow a few lines from Apotheon and write them on his hand the next time he has to bust up a money laundering meeting.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3244137]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[femtobeam@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 03:31:54 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[What foreign policy?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3244134]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[It seems that our so-called foreign policy is to trade with and sell out to China while they steal everything to avoid payment. This is to reverse engineer our own inventions and sell them back to us so they can buy what resources they do not yet currently own. Who is conducting foreign policy?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3244134]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[femtobeam@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 03:18:04 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[The same was true of HDTV]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3244133]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[In the 80's the same was true of HDTV. Everyone thought it was a bad term because it put all of the emphasis on the display.It became confusing to those involved in the &quot;wars&quot; over distribution standards and storage medium. The fact that &quot;HDTV&quot; equipment is the same thing as broadband internet was totally lost on most people and the first HDTV broadcasts were analog. When the digital industry began, the name still stuck, even though it started as an analog broadcasting system that never materialized. The name stuck and so did the confusion over systems architectures. Now those architectures are connected and are called cyber, cloud computing and electronic cinema, among other things.I will venture a description of where we are today as: &quot;A global, terrestrial and space based, horizontally and vertically integrated, multi-point to multi-point, interactive, advanced broadband, digital optical network system with biological and robotic peripherals.&quot;I wasn't disagreeing with you about the use of Cyber. I see the whole thing happening all over again but now, the end result is an enhanced warfighter.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3244133]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[femtobeam@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 03:11:54 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[That was Yahoo]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3244129]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Neon,That was Yahoo. They filtered and turned in data on their own customers to the Chinese government, which Google refused to do. Those people were rounded up and are in prisons now. In some of those prisons people are organ harvested.And so, China responds with accusations and withholding rare earth elements needed for every type of manufacturing and attacks a California student who was organizing for Tibetans rights after the slaughter.They targeted specific persons in the US as well as China. They were also inside corporate firewalls at Northrup Grumman.The real problem lies ahead. What will they do with the information they have aquired? Build a better Airship? Shut down the grid?This is the important discussion, in my opinion. That is what it is all about. China crossing borders, confusing the issues, and killing people for their opinions online.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3244129]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[femtobeam@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 02:48:17 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Pearl Harbor]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3244106]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Thanks. That was one I had not heard, Neon. Have you read the book by James Bamford on that? He has a really good description of all the people working on that at the time. Interesting that pinging through wireless networks is similar if a computer is hacked. You can erase all of the ping times except one and it is almost always early on Sunday mornings. I wonder if there is a correlation?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3244106]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[femtobeam@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 02:10:39 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[spelling police]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3244100]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[In advance of you claiming I can't spell with only 2 braincells, as you put it, the extra u in erroneous is a typo. Some things are just not spell checker worthy.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3244100]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[femtobeam@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 02:02:58 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I stopped fighting with little boys a long time ago]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3244088]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[You are the one who is insulting and your erroneuous characterization of me from my comments are almost as perplexing as your emotional outbursts. I don't waste time arguing with immature individuals like yourself, especially when you assume all sorts of things for no reason at all. I decided not to correct them as I decided it might be good for my career.In any event, I am glad I am no longer in Fort Collins. I would be afraid you would wreck my car for defending Google. By the way, you obnoxious individual who speaks for others as though you are the supreme ruler of TechRepublic... I also wrote programs 3 decades ago and yes, I did think you were under 20.I am glad I got out of it and into networks instead. It gives me a much clearer view. Good luck with your quest for knowledge, Rand Quixote. Watch out for the roadblocks.Have you considered fiction? I'll bet you could write a great scary movie that does not have a plot.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3244088]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[femtobeam@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 01:58:59 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I agree with you EMD]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3244086]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I agree, it's a bad article. It did not deserve much of a response and time is wasted on logical discussion with a vicious personal attacker who makes absolutely no sense at all, like Apotheon. I notice I cannot re-respond to his unbelievably illogical assumptions and responses at this time. It saved me the time and aggrivation of defending privacy WITH security and Google standing up FOR privacy by pointing out attacks BY China. Hypocracy indeed.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3244086]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[femtobeam@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 01:36:04 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Us other old-timers are fed up with wackaloons]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3243673]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[and their incoherent, far-off-subject, sometimes mutually contradictory, unsupported ramblings. Are you yet another formerly intelligent person who went bat* insane, or were you always that way? (The preceding sentence here is, in fact, an attack, just to satisfy both your blatant paranoia and the accusation you've made. Now you're  vindicated!)]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3243673]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[seanferd]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 00:21:29 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I guess not.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3243670]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[You have some sort of point? What are you even saying?Otherwise, I commend you on your excellent comment.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3243670]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[seanferd]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 00:09:48 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Good riddance.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3243649]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[No. He said: Neon Samarai: ?why are they &quot;cyber&quot; attacks? Why not just &quot;attacks&quot;? Are you unable to understand how English works?  He asked why you don't just call them &quot;attacks&quot; when calling them &quot;cyber-attacks&quot; doesn't accomplish anything other than increasing the buzzword noise level of the conversation.  I already explained this.  Please go back and read the  whole  explanation.  Do it two or three times so maybe something will click and you'll understand (finally). A discussion about cyber is known immediately. A discussion about descriptive parts and components of network systems requires entire sentences and paragraphs to accomplish the point. &quot;A cyber-attack&quot; could mean almost anything.  To make it more meaningful, you'd have to say something like &quot;a cyber-attack on Google's network&quot;.  Now, consider that leaving out &quot;cyber&quot; doesn't hurt anything, and actually makes the statement more succinct: &quot;an attack on Google's network&quot;.Your argument, like a sieve, holds no water. Who are you apologizing for? China? What have I said that could possibly give any reasonable human being the idea that I'm apologizing for China (or anyone, for that matter)?  Are you developmentally disabled?  If so, I'll apologize for thinking you're being intentionally obtuse. What could you possibly mean by the following comment:Apotheon: ?how anything Google did to set up this situation in the first place was right.?? Read the article.  Actually read it without looking for excuses to accuse people of things.  It's pretty clear. Wrong again! The words were in response to:Neon Samarai: ?Some have been surprised by the accusations against China?? That's a statement about China, and not about Google.  Where you get the idea that this means China did nothing wrong, or that it's an attack on Google, is beyond me.  You really seem to see hidden agendas in every shadow, imagining slights and surreptitious attacks from every quarter, the way you just magic up something to claim Neon Samurai was trying to say when the much simpler and more direct interpretation of what he said was right there, obviously displayed in his words. I had a good laugh at the following attempt by you to rewrite centuries of US law, as an Eastern philosopher, posing as an IT specialist? What the hell are you talking about?  That doesn't even make any sense. totally wrong. If I wanted to say copyright or registered trademark I would have. Intellectual Property rights are protected by US Law as are Trade Secrets, without patents, and in fact have much longer protection than patents do. This in no way makes a case for the term &quot;intellectual property&quot; being anything more than a term of propaganda.  Show me where there's any basis for &quot;intellectual property&quot; in the Constitution, please, if you wish to disprove my statement. Apotheon: ?makes two unsupported assumptions: Femtobeam: These are your assumptions, not mine and are irrelevant: That you cannot recognize the premises on which your own arguments are predicated would be shocking if I thought you were able to reason your way out of a wet paper bag, but you've pretty well proven you do not have that capacity. Femtobeam: Disks, flash drives, paperwork etc? are physical property and carry copyright anyway. A flash drive is not a copyrightable work.  Please try to avoid confusing two separate concepts. Apotheon: This raises two problems: Femtobeam: Problems? For whom? That should be blatantly obvious if you actually read the description of the problems in question. Femtobeam: What? First, there is no ?argument? between Neon Samarai and I, although you are trying very hard to make that seem so. You clearly do not understand the formal meaning of the word &quot;argument&quot;, either.   1. A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating     truth or falsehood: presented a careful     argument for extraterrestrial life.  2. A fact or statement put forth as proof or     evidence; a reason: The current low mortgage     rates are an argument for buying a house now.  3. A set of statements in which one follows     logically as a conclusion from the others. That's from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.  Feel free to check out the  Wikipedia article  as well. There is an argument between you and I. Actually, what exists  between  us is a  debate  and  disagreement  -- though, based on your inability to actually employ any kind of logical reasoning with any consistency at all, I'm hesitant to call it anything so ordered and meaningful as &quot;debate&quot;. Validity or invalidity of IP rights I said nothing about the &quot;validity&quot; or &quot;invalidity&quot; of &quot;IP rights&quot;.  I did, however, say something about the ridiculous invalidity of your supposed arguments (which you seem incapable of recognizing as such, due to ignorance of basic terms of English and how they are properly used). Real world ethics is another matter entirely and your premises are not true. Unless you can enumerate my supposedly untrue premises and dispute them effectively using evidence and/or logic, I'll be happy to just pretend you have no clue what you're talking about. This is because they are your words, not mine. That's because they were  implied  by your words -- not explicitly  stated .  Is that so difficult to grasp?If you really think you have some other set of premises on which your statements can be reasonably predicated, please tell me about them.  I suspect you don't even know how to identify a premise effectively, though. No. Read the reports for yourself if you have clearances, which you do not. Ahh, the old &quot;I am privy to secret knowledge and you must trust me in order to understand the secret truth and, thus, learn to trust me&quot; routine.  Yeah.  Um.  My answer to that line of BS is &quot;no&quot;.  No, I will not just blindly trust whatever nonsense comes out of your pie hole just because you claim to have access to deep and vast secrets. Or just watch the ?data? about anonymous victims of ATM theft, brought about by those who have access to Government systems as foreign subcontractors and have compiled information, for example; on all the Businesses and their bank account numbers in California. I find it ironic that you can refer to the way government creates one-stop shopping for criminals by violating individual privacy as &quot;proof&quot; of some very poorly defined point of yours about how anonymity creates victims.  Did it not occur to you while you were writing this drivel that you were providing a strong piece of evidence for how letting government invade individual privacy created those data stores that were then improperly accessed by others was an enabling factor in and of itself? Anonymity is not a guarantee of Privacy, only a guarantee of anonymity. True.  On the other hand,  disallowing  anonymity is a guarantee that privacy will be  violated  -- because a desire for anonymity  is a desire for privacy . Expressing dissent is a Constitutionally protected right in the US. Yes, this is true.  It does not, however, mean that government agencies and representatives are incapable of interfering with, or directly violating, that right.  Further, a lot of Constitutional guarantees are rapidly approaching the point of not even being worth the paper on which they're written, and all three branches of US government erode our rights steadily. This statement above clearly shows your anti-US Government sentiment Oh, so now you're just trying to paint me as a &quot;terrist&quot; or as &quot;unpatriotic&quot; as if insinuating that I am such a thing proves anything.The most loyal patriot is the man or woman who tries to fix what's wrong with the country, rather than supporting it when it's in the wrong. Data kept about a person has to be kept private by law, but is not so for law enforcement, who can have access to data in order to solve crimes, also the law. There are some clear misunderstandings here.  You seem to have completely missed the fact that representatives and agents of the government are specifically disallowed from accessing such data without just cause sufficient for a warrant.  You might want to start your education with the Bill of Rights, which is not meant to protect people from themselves, but rather to protect them from the excesses of tyrannical forces in government.  The Constitution was written the way it was because of the Constitution's framers's profound distrust of government, and anyone who tries to claim that the Constitution of the United States exempts government from the Constitution's protections of the individual is either severely misguided or a thoroughly reprehensible liar of the first order. If anything, our elected officials? ability to solve the issues are hampered by false information about privacy issues versus security issues. That's interesting, coming from someone who clearly doesn't really understand the first thing about security. I have been in Information Technology, HDTV technology, Networks, etc? probably longer than you have been alive. I know way more than you incorrectly assume I do. What you said proves nothing about your grasp of information theory.  Also . . . I rather suspect you have *not* been working in such fields as long as I've been alive, or even involved in information technology fields of study and work longer than I have.  Do you think I'm only twenty years of age?  Considering you have an online profile that announces your involvement in information and broadcast technologies for roughly three decades, and I wrote my first computer program close to three decades ago, you seem to be overconfident in your ability to out-experience me. Micro-profiling is prohibited by the US government and this is the reason for the PII laws, outlined in NIST reports. With the right level of clearances, for the right reasons, Government agents can find out what the name is behind the number. This is all done for the purpose of protecting privacy and it works very, very well. It's weird how you can so easily claim secret knowledge of the world of information security, espionage, et cetera, and at the same time display such reeking ignorance of the failures of such prohibitions and systems of protection that infest the news -- including the NSA wiretapping scandal of the Bush administration. It is you who are ?willfully? ignorant when you find it convenient, such as pretending that you are not aware of the disinformation ?campaign? against the citizens and the government by China. I never pretended such a thing.  I never claimed Chinese government disinformation campaigns don't exist.  You are lying about what I've said, as if I do not remember my own words.  I don't know if you are mind-bogglingly stupid or a pathological liar, but whichever it is, you really take the cake when it comes to being incapable of carrying on a reasoned discussion while claiming Ultimate Knowledge. You are part of the disinformation campaign, repeating ?privacy? over and over again as though that is the issue. Your inability to recognize the value of privacy is clearly never going to crack. Affect and benefit. Gee, it seems like 3rd Grade. Why?  Did you have difficulty differentiating &quot;affect&quot; and &quot;benefit&quot; in third grade, too?  Benefit implies a strictly positive relationship.  Affect does not.  Neon Samurai probably believes, as I do, that violation of privacy provides a net negative effect on safety and security -- which means that he, as I do, believes that relinquishment of privacy  does  affect privacy.  Your statement that he believes the opposite is pretty certainly either misunderstanding or misrepresentation on your part. You made my point and the correct English is ?general sense?, not case. Both are correct, depending on the intended meaning.  One is a reference to the &quot;sense&quot; (or meaning) of the term or description, and the other is a reference to the abstraction of a set of circumstances to which the term or description applies. China has compromised our safety greatly by invading our privacy. China has invaded many people's privacy.  I do not know that it has invaded my own.  If you have specific knowledge of China having invaded my privacy in particular, I'd like to know about it. Law enforcement needs a number and a name. Your IP address is a number, that is all that is needed to hurt you. Thanks for making one of my points for me.  Too bad you didn't realize that was the point I was making -- that some malefactor within government ( any  government) can hurt someone without even getting access to that person's name when that government is engaged in collecting informatoin about that person. For example, those engaged in child pornography and rape scenes are always the most concerned about Privacy issues. Please prove that these people are  always  the  most  concerned about privacy issues.  Please prove that, for instance, Chinese protesters against Chinese governmental policy, or North Korean protesters against North Korean governmental policy, are not at least as concerned about privacy, for fear that they'll be &quot;disappeared&quot; by their respective governments.  Otherwise, please stop making such broad, sweeping, and insulting comments about how anyone with a strong interest in privacy must be a child molestor.If I was not such a strong supporter of free speech, I'd be advocating for someone to shut you up right about now. Until there is a clear understanding of the dangers involved in anonymity for criminals as opposed to the rights of privacy, which are not related What kind of bizarro world do you call home, that you can so throughly fail to grasp how keeping one's identity while speaking truth to power private is not a matter of privacy? I am de-friending you on TechRepublic.Good.  I wouldn't want anyone seeing you listed in the list of my &quot;friends&quot; on TR and thinking I endorse any of the cockamamie BS you peddle.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3243649]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[apotheon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 14 Feb 2010 23:35:37 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[What are you on and where can I get some?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3243653]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I do not recognize the &quot;established authority&quot; of China.  Go back and read what I said again.  Notice the &quot;scare quotes&quot; around the word &quot;authority&quot;.  The Chinese government is definitely established, and it definitely  claims  authority.  This facile statement of yours in no way contradicts anything I said. Your response was indeed judgemental and was also an insult. US citizens who are human rights activists for the &quot;organ harvested&quot;, enslaved population in China, are not dissidents of China.  You don't even know what the heck you're talking about.  All I can do is direct you to read an effing dictionary and educate yourself at this point.  I explained what the word &quot;dissident&quot; actually means just for people like you who are obviously too lazy to actually educate themselves about what words mean before using them, but that apparently wasn't enough.  Go learn something or trouble me no more with your ditherings about the subject of what &quot;dissident&quot; means, since you are clearly and obstinately without any understanding of the actual meaning of the word.  I find such willful ignorance completely contemptible. They are US citizens excercising their Constitutional rights to free speech, rights to assemble, and organize around the cause of freedom everywhere, in their own country. I never said otherwise.  Your insistence on trying to assign arguments to me that I never actually made so you can paint me as some kind of evil ogre is quite disgusting.  The dishonesty of your arguments is flabbergasting.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3243653]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[apotheon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 14 Feb 2010 22:23:54 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Who knows for sure?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3243652]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Ayn Rand very specifically opposed forms of government with characteristics of fascism.  In fact, her opposition of fascistic policy was second only to her opposition of socialistic policy.  Claiming she might have been a fascist specifically because she isn't around to reiterate what she has said thousands of times to defend herself from your own accusations is one of the most ridiculous pieces of sophistry I've ever encountered.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3243652]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[apotheon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 14 Feb 2010 22:17:28 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3243650]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The article in no way blames Google for China's crimes.  China committed crimes, and those are on China's head.  What the article points out is that the fact China committed this crime (and got caught) highlighted another crime (not in the legal sense, but in the ethical sense) that was committed by Google.  It is possible that both Google  and  China did bad things.  Anyone who pretends that one cannot be critical of Google's creation of an automated privacy violation portal without also defending China's direct violation of both individual privacy and Google network access policy (all in pursuit of worse crimes against China's own citizens) has his head up his fourth point of contact and is so dead-stupid set on seeing China in black and white &quot;for it or against it&quot; terms that such a person is completely without two reasonable braincells to rub together.That means you.To make this simple for you, so you'll understand it:Google did a bad thing.  China did a much, much worse thing.  Telling me that saying Google did a bad thing is a defense of what China did as if there's nothing wrong with it means one of two things.1. You have no effing clue what you're talking about and simply cannot understand that the world is a more complex place than &quot;us vs. them&quot;.2. You're being terribly dishonest about the whole thing -- either because you are a libelous, vile jackass or because you are just a troll.Pick your poison, or backpedal on your misrepresentations of facts.  I don't care which at this point.  If you fail to do one or the other, I guess we can just ignore you as someone completely unwilling or unable to actually participate positively in reasoned discussion.Y'wanna know how I know that the article doesn't defend China?  Two reasons:1. I can read.2. I wrote the damned thing.Frankly, I find your accusation that I would defend the behavior of an oppressive state like China entirely offensive.  You've insulted me personally, and need to go soak your head.edit: You might want to read another article of mine if you seriously cannot understand a simple concept like the fact that  suggesting improved security is not the same as blaming the victim.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3243650]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[apotheon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 14 Feb 2010 22:06:11 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[The &quot;Chinese Facade&quot; is a worldwide campaign]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3243643]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The Chinese government is also lying to other nations. They should be removed from the United Nations and should never have been given veto power.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3243643]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[femtobeam@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:22:36 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Amen.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3243617]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The word &quot;dissident&quot; is not an insult. It is effectively judgment-neutral. I often think over-attention to connotation is dividing and conquering us.  Politicians play to it blatantly, as do 'the media'.  I'd go so far as to say it spawned this whole 'politically correct speech' debacle.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3243617]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[boxfiddler]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:21:27 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Name calling]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3243641]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The term &quot;fascist&quot; is a person who espouses a form of government. Even if it is not what most people think is best, given the bloody history of it, it is a term which most apply to Ayn Rand. She may or may not have taken offense, but who knows for sure? She is no longer around to speak for herself.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3243641]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[femtobeam@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:19:25 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[It does defend China's policies]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3243640]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Apotheon: If you're trying to sarcastically point out some imagined sense that China did no wrong according to the article, you're off-base. The article makes no such defense of China's policies.The article does too defend China's policies by blaming the victims for the crimes it commits. These crimes are not limited to China but are now targeting US citizens, businesses, and the US government.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3243640]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[femtobeam@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:13:21 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[And]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3243629]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Conduct de facto foreign policy on behalf of the rest of us?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-324200-3243629]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[santeewelding]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:11:47 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

