Print 40 comment(s) - last by jconan.. on Nov 19 at 5:55 AM

View of hundred year old coal mine fire in China.   (Source: NASA)
Annual report raises economic and technological concerns

Yesterday, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (ESRC) delivered its expansive report to Congress.  The opening remarks contained some positive comments and a long list of concerns.
Beginning with the good, the commission was pleased to see China bolstering its export controls to limit nuclear proliferation as well as its involvement in the six nation agreements to dismantle North Korea’s nuclear arsenal.  The commission noted China’s pledge to send a combat reconstruction battalion to Sudan, the elevation of 200 million Chinese citizens out of poverty, and the country’s acknowledgement of environmental problems.

Unfortunately, said ESRC chairman Carolyn Bartholomew, China is reversing course on its path to a more market-based economy.  Indications of this regression include the government’s control and ownership of a dozen key industries, subsidizing export industries, fixing the currency artificially low, and a total failure to protect the intellectual property of foreign countries.  Quite alarming is China’s willingness to invest in oil-rich countries with terrible human rights records and its increasing border tensions with India.  Bartholomew also cited information censorship as a concern.

“By demanding stiff penalties for dissent on the Internet as well as rewards for journalists who play by the rules, Beijing has created one of the most effective information control regimes in the world,” stated Bartholomew.

Vice Chairman Dan Blumenthal spoke about the rising security threat China presents, citing spying and asymmetrical warfare techniques.  He said the country’s “defense industry is producing new generations of weapon systems with impressive speed and quality” due to integration with commercial technologies.  The expansion of these systems is also credited to industrial espionage. 

China’s asymmetrical warfare techniques are disruptive actions focused on crippling the communication systems of enemies rather than pure ballistic might.  Examples include the anti-satellite missile tested earlier this year as well as the laser used to attack an American satellite in 2006.  Blumenthal also noted an increase Chinese cyber attacks on American and European government offices.  In the last year American government investigators have implicated Chinese hackers for compromising both Pentagon and Homeland Security systems.

Blumenthal stressed the point that the evolution of China’s military seems to focus on fighting a war with America, which is more heavily reliant on satellite networks than most other countries.  He also made a vague allusion to war with China when he mentioned the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act.  It has been speculated that the act would be used as the impetus to actively engage China should the country take hostile action against Taiwan.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Master Kenobi on 11/16/2007 11:33:52 AM , Rating: 1
Anyone who doesn't see an eventual pissing contest with China is kidding themselves. China is trying to be the new USSR and are pulling out all the stops to get there.

RE: China
By ElFenix on 11/16/2007 11:42:01 AM , Rating: 2
It certainly seems that way. Bill Clinton's reason for engaging China was that as a middle class grows it should start demanding more political rights. And, as the old saying goes, democracies don't go to war with each other (depends on the definition of democracy, obviously). So, even if it short term meant smaller growth for the US, it would pay off in the long run.

But I think there are a lot of Chinese people who are more interested in national glory for China than political rights for themselves. If that is the case, a rising middle class might not do what Clinton figured it would.

RE: China
By sj420 on 11/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: China
By bdewong on 11/16/2007 12:33:19 PM , Rating: 2
what are these "Good" drugs that you are taking?

RE: China
By sj420 on 11/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: China
By sj420 on 11/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: China
By lompocus on 11/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: China
By Buspar on 11/16/2007 12:58:18 PM , Rating: 1
The draft is brought up because there aren't enough to kill all of the commi-chink bastards.

Hooray for ignorance, racism, and genocide!

Whenever China's brought up, the Neocon trolls always start coming out of the woodwork...

RE: China
By sj420 on 11/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: China
By jconan on 11/16/2007 7:51:22 PM , Rating: 2
China's government is definitely ruled by a communist party but China is not communist. Capitalism has always prevailed in China. As far as war goes I doubt China will even go to war they are only saber rattling over Taiwan to get them from declaring independence. Taiwan wants autonomy and doesn't want merge because of loss of self-autonomy like Hong Kong even though Hong Kong is supposedly self-autonomous. Hong Kong for the time being still retains freedom from the basic laws (constitution) drafted between Britain and China that is slowly eroding away because of forced recognition of mainland Chinese laws from the communist party e.g. Hong Kong's article 23 of the basic law, and ending of universal suffrage of Hong Kong's Chief Executive and Legislative Council by the residents of Hong Kong after 2007 and chosen by China's communist party.

RE: China
By Buspar on 11/16/2007 1:15:47 PM , Rating: 3
But I think there are a lot of Chinese people who are more interested in national glory for China than political rights for themselves. If that is the case, a rising middle class might not do what Clinton figured it would.

My experience with Chinese citizens has been that many tend to be apolitical. They care about the economy more than politics, mainly because a good economy means they can earn money to support their families. Demonstrating and activism are generally marked as impractical, because you can't put food on the table with abstract concepts. While we may disagree with that sentiment, it's not an invalid way of looking at the world. (This is also a very old viewpoint, since ancient Chinese philosophers held much the same opinion even before Christ was born.)

So I'd say it's less a case of "interested in national glory" and more "interested in national prosperity." And to them, it's hard work that leads to prosperity, not demanding rights. Politics becomes a big issue only so far as it intersects with economic stability and growth (hence why anti-corruption measures are popular).

Based on the current trend, I'd say a rising middle class in China might demand higher quality goods and more accountability for businesses, but not any radical changes in the government structure. They largely have yet to see a need for it. (And they certainly aren't going to be persuaded if the US tries to bully them into it!)

RE: China
By spluurfg on 11/16/2007 12:42:59 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree. Rather, I think Russia is trying to be the new USSR, considering the new state approved history textbook regarding Stalin's totalitarianism as 'necessary' etc.

China seems more concerned about being an economic giant rather than a massive military hegemon or a diametrical political opposite at this point. Rather than pull out all the stops, I think they're being practical/a bit sneaky, and doing whatever they feel they can get away with.

RE: China
By sj420 on 11/16/2007 12:49:12 PM , Rating: 1
Hell does anyone even have to mention that they are trying to poison us through the assembly and manufacturing of our goods that the selfish greedy companies that want to shove extra money into their pockets have outsourced to china?

Does anyone have to mention that kids are getting lead poisoning because china wants to be whatever they want to be?

Well, poisoning consumers will get you FAR from the largest ANYTHING except the largest DISGRACE on the planet. Thats what china is. They have been so upset that they suck all these centuries. That a country like japan, thats not even half of chinas size, wins out over china simply because of their logical thought process that actually has japan growing. Even if there is corruption in japan it isn't like in china, where they are trying to harm if not kill americans through the production of our goods.

RE: China
By jconan on 11/16/2007 11:22:44 PM , Rating: 2
Corp. here should be ones that consumers point their finger at. Price wise everyone is looking for a loop hole to make money. So the less cost it is to them the more profit that they pocket without having to pass on to the consumers unless they need it to compete. On ethics wise it is the companies fault. Check this article out: for everything that U.S. imports it is poisoning the factory over there with lenient safety and health standards and poor environmental controls since China is so relaxed about it. As opposed to here companies can't get away with it with OSHA, EPA and lawsuits galore. Over in China employees can't strike or complain, they're just an extra number that can be replaced with so many people looking for jobs over there. Here yep it's an employee's opportunity to get rich over the deep pockets of the company. So really it's not totally China's fault except the business practices and the contracts the awarded with no oversight. Just blaming China doesn't solve anything. U.S. should demand better safety and health and environmental controls in China. For every lead that is claimed to be used I'm sure the factory employees over there are exposed to it just like the diacetyl induced respiratory issues that we have in the popcorn industry. Creating a powerful safety and health, and enviromental board free from corruption will foster better competitiveness than not just like ridding of sweatshops that are still around here in the states or south of the border.

RE: China
By spluurfg on 11/17/2007 11:58:20 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, the joys of sensationalism.

I'm not saying that we should put up with substandard or unsafe products from China, but this sort of thing is to be expected for any developing country. It takes these sorts of events to trigger reform -- i.e. the sinking of the Titanic to have mandatory lifeboats for all passengers, or Upton Sinclair's 'The Jungle' to reform America's woeful meat packing industry.

Though I'm glad you honestly believe there is some grand Chinese conspiracy to poison America's children in order to get an upper hand in the global arena *rolls eyes*.

RE: China
By Buspar on 11/16/2007 12:51:31 PM , Rating: 5
It doesn't have to be that way, though. As some experts have pointed out (the one I read consistently is a Yale economics/international policy professor), China's military build-up is mostly a response to their worries about a US strike on them like what we did to Iraq. Their reasoning is that since the US now has a policy of attacking anyone who looks like a threat, the only way to avoid war is to make it too costly to consider. In other words, the US policy of pre-emptive war has brought back the "mutually assured destruction" policies we fought so hard to get rid of in the 80's!

For example, we make a big deal about their anti-satellite tech. In fact, China's been the one leading the international effort to get rid of that sort of weaponry and efforts in trying to prevent the militarization of space. The major proponent of anti-satellite weapons is the US. This forces China to match our capabilities. We then use it as an excuse to boost our own. And so on until it's Star Wars II.

According to China's neighbors (such as the Vietnamese PM), China has yet to threaten or even hint they'd use military force against another country. Unlike the USSR, which sought to expand through military force, China has to date firmly pursued a live and let live policy of economic trade and coexistence.

If we took a less threatening posture in world affairs and opened more economic and diplomatic inroads, I think you'd find China much more receptive to cooperation than the USSR was. Having talked with many Chinese nationals, there's a clear consensus that they would like to work with the US and like the people here, but they're worried that the US doesn't like them and doesn't want to cooperate. If we can get rid of the negative prejudices on our side, a strong alliance is definitely possible. If China is our enemy, it's mainly because we've put them in that role because of our own shortsightedness.

(Taiwan is an internal matter, as such their rhetoric and stances there are different. Having lived in Taiwan, I can say most of it is just posturing; no one except some of the far-left fringe in Taiwan think there'll be war between the mainland and the island. The American propaganda machine loves to blow it all out of proportion.)

RE: China
By KernD on 11/16/2007 1:16:10 PM , Rating: 2
China has yet to threaten or even hint they'd use military force against another country

You must have missed all the threats of invasion on Taiwan then, or you don't consider it an other country?

RE: China
By Buspar on 11/16/2007 1:37:52 PM , Rating: 3
No, I don't consider Taiwan as a separate country. Here's why:

The separatists would like you to think the issue of debate is whether Taiwan is an independent country or not. However, per the Cairo Declaration, Taiwan is governed by and belongs to the Chinese government. The actual debate over the decades has been which Chinese government: the Republic of China (ROC) or the People's Republic of China (PRC)?

The ROC was the ruling government after WWII, so the treaty that returned Taiwan to China's control (after Japan had seized it from the Qing Dynasty in the late 1800's) specified the ROC as Taiwan's governing body. But after the civil war, the PRC became the government of the mainland. One country, two governments.

The PRC argues that since Taiwan is part of China and because they're the recognized government of China, Taiwan is theirs. The ROC argues that since the treaty specified them, they control Taiwan and not the PRC. Either way, Taiwan is a province of China. This is supported by international law through declarations and treaties.

That Taiwan is part of China is also backed by history: Taiwan has never been an independent country. It started as a Polynesian settlement with no formal government, then as an outpost for pirates, then was formally annexed as a province by the Qing Dynasty. Finally, it was seized by Japan and then returned to China after WWII. So the independence movement has no historical basis.

Hope that clarifies things.

RE: China
By jskirwin on 11/16/2007 4:47:38 PM , Rating: 3
I suppose you don't think of Tibet as a separate country either.

How about Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Korea? All of these were at one time protectorates and client states of China?

Guess there's no Free Tibet sticker on your Volvo, huh...

RE: China
By sj420 on 11/16/07, Rating: 0
RE: China
By Buspar on 11/16/2007 8:30:14 PM , Rating: 2
Tibet actually has a stronger argument for independence than Taiwan, since it had an independent theocratic government for a time. The other countries you mentioned, likewise, all had distinct governments and civilizations before encountering China. Also, while they did have a history of paying tribute to Chinese emperors (Japan, as well), China itself recognized their sovereignty. In fact, for a while, the northern Manchurian area of China was seen as separate.

Taiwan, on the other hand, has either been an outpost or a province throughout history - it has no record of an independent government, save for a really old Polynesian colonization that wasn't still around when China absorbed it. So Taiwan is very dissimilar from Vietnam.

RE: China
By KristopherKubicki on 11/18/2007 2:13:10 AM , Rating: 2
save for a really old Polynesian colonization that wasn't still around when China absorbed it.

If you're into war crimes, you might want to check out some of the atrocities that "rightful" rulers of Taiwan have performed there.

The Japanese were a small step above ethnic cleansing any Chinese national before WWII in Formosa. The Chinese KMT was even worse, though by the time the KMT took over the island the only people left were Japanese and Japanese-sympathizing Chinese -- which you can imagine didn't do so well against very angry, defeated nationalist Chinese boating over by the thousands.

There's very little there that predates WWII: government, people or otherwise. China or Taiwan would like you to believe their version of the story, though I own at least one watch that is older than the whole of Taiwan itself. Even the name, Taiwan, is a relatively recent development.

Since the whole island was a spoil of war lost by the Japanese to the Chinese, rebuilt almost entirely by Americans, and then ethnically cleansed from anything pre-WWII, I'd say the likelihood that Taiwan has much ground in international court for independence is very slim.

The only "real" Taiwanese are the second and third generation citizens. These are the people who've never even stepped foot into China. Yet low and behold, Mandarin is the official national language (for the last 50 years the Taiwanese government attempted to abolish all native dialects), potstickers are still the national snack and moviegoes flock to every Chinese-made movie in droves.

The label of independence one way or another is just that, a label.

RE: China
By jconan on 11/19/2007 5:55:49 AM , Rating: 2
However Taiwan is still better than any other 3rd world country. They put their economy together competitively to get to where they are now in the tech. industry. If the country was left as it was it might have gone the way of the dodo bird where most of the other 3rd world nations are with civil war and poverty. Besides China and Taiwan contribute scientifically and technologically to the society as well as keeping America out of major recession for the past decade.

However not to say why is everyone so anti-colonial when it comes to Tibet and Taiwan? Their domestic political issues should be left alone. It's not like other nations haven't at one time had colonized other nations or performed ethic cleansing like that of the original rulers or founding presidents of America or Europeans for their imperial appetite in the Carribeans and South America. Some of these countries still have colonies. Giving them independence might not be that great either since most countries are not adept to rule other than care about self-interests like current dictators in Africa. Was Iraq better now than it was before the Iraq war? Iraq was at least stable before the war but to secure public fears and secure another term for Bush and under the guise of self-defense the Iraqy dictator was overthrown but unfortunately not in the most efficient way as our previous presidents like JFK would have handled it.

RE: China
By jskirwin on 11/16/2007 4:42:24 PM , Rating: 2
Their reasoning is that since the US now has a policy of attacking anyone who looks like a threat, the only way to avoid war is to make it too costly to consider.

Your logic is the equivalent of blaming crime on the cops. My local boys-in-blue here in Philly should put away their guns to lower gun violence that has resulted in 6 cops shot, 1 fatally over the past month.

We haven't fought a country as big as China since... well China 54 years ago. While you may get all warm & fuzzy over China, I know the Japanese and South Koreans in the neighborhood don't feel that way (I lived in Japan).

RE: China
By Buspar on 11/16/2007 9:10:29 PM , Rating: 2
Your logic is the equivalent of blaming crime on the cops. My local boys-in-blue here in Philly should put away their guns to lower gun violence that has resulted in 6 cops shot, 1 fatally over the past month.

I suggest you read up on escalation theory from the Cold War. When one side begin to arm itself the other side will generally increase its own armaments in response. In the case of Philly, the gangsters increased their weaponry, forcing the cops to become better armed to counter, which leads to the gangsters buying more guns, and so on. The difference in international settings is that diplomacy is actually feasible since neither side necessarily has to come into conflict with each other (unlike cops and gangsters, who will fight due to their roles in society).

If the US ratchets down the talk about nation building and policing the world, we'd have a better chance of convincing China there's no need for a military build up. It'd also allow the elements in China's government who don't want a military conflict to control their own hawks (like us, they have generals who think a war is inevitable - but they're not the majority).

Letting cooler heads prevail is one of the keys to good international relations. And avoiding sensationalist rhetoric is a good start to this. I think you can agree that the US and China getting locked into an upward spiral of more and more weapons would be detrimental to the US economy, if not the globe's.

We haven't fought a country as big as China since... well China 54 years ago. While you may get all warm & fuzzy over China, I know the Japanese and South Koreans in the neighborhood don't feel that way (I lived in Japan).

Back then, they saw our attack on North Korea as a possible prelude to invading them, so they fought back. The US wasn't going to invade China, of course, but this misunderstanding wasn't helped when MacArthur went loony about dropping nukes on the border. I like to think we've learned from our mistakes: we didn't overcome the USSR with a war, but with economics. And we won't handle China successfully with war, but by realizing they're not some kind of great evil we can't reason with.

Japan's concerns are mostly economic - China represents a formidable rival (that and Japan hasn't worked at having good foreign relations with China since WWII). Similar with South Korea, though they don't like the US, either.

I'm not so much "warm and fuzzy" about China so much as I recognize that most of the stuff said about China is just a rehash of the same xenophobic nonsense that was spouted a hundred years ago, when Chinese immigrants were considered "dangerous" to America. I'm just as opposed to the misconceptions that plague perceptions of the Middle East and India.

By ElFenix on 11/16/2007 11:33:26 AM , Rating: 2
Hard to tell what that is, but it're pretty (neat, amazing, shocking, disasterous) that they have a 100 year old coal mine fire.

Though I believe there is a coal mine fire in Pennsylvania that has been burning for several decades.

RE: Picture
By spluurfg on 11/16/2007 12:43:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, and it'll burn for many more decades.

RE: Picture
By KristopherKubicki on 11/16/2007 12:49:47 PM , Rating: 2
We have several in the U.S.

RE: Picture
By sj420 on 11/16/2007 6:54:11 PM , Rating: 1
Isn't that stupid though? Wouldn't that be the THING that is contributing the the faster climate temp rise? WTF dude why would we just let them burn and let all the smoke go into the atmosphere. Stupid idiotic earthlings will pay dearly for this horrible blimish on the earths face.

They could easily seal them, instead of just letting them open burn like a bunch of idiots. You could even build around the fire and use it as a power source, but nope, not todays earthlings. They still have that ape gene encoded into them so when they should be doing something important they just stand there and stare blankly like fools.

Grr this planet's inhabitants piss me off.

RE: Picture
By KristopherKubicki on 11/18/2007 2:43:30 AM , Rating: 2
You would think, except the link between CO2 emissions and global warming really isn't as strong as Al Gore would like you to believe.

If we stopped all the coal/shale/tire fires in the world (some that have burned for hundreds of years, and many of which are not man-made), we'd probably reduce more CO2 emissions overnight than all the hybrids on the road today.

But therein lies another problems, these are not particularly easy to put out. Thousands of people (mostly in China) have died even when the fires were thought to be under control. Have you ever attempted to "seal the holes" of a laden oil tanker while its on fire? The principle of fighting coal mine fires is similar.

China recently put out one of its bigger fires last year, and it took millions of dollars and research into new materials just to do it.

But then tomorrow Mt. St. Helens or Katmai or Krakatau or Tambora or Laki could erupt and spew 1,000 years of emissions into the atmosphere in less than a week -- all of which have done so in the last few hundred years.

Is this a joke...
By Noya on 11/16/2007 5:10:59 PM , Rating: 2
Quite alarming is China’s willingness to invest in oil-rich countries with terrible human rights records

Are you freaking kidding me?

Hmm, what have we been doing for the last 50 years?

We're in Iraq to bring them democracy (sarc).

rising security threat China presents, citing spying and asymmetrical warfare techniques

Again, boy that sounds familiar. We spend how much on military, publicly aknowledged anyway?

RE: Is this a joke...
By lompocus on 11/16/2007 8:54:09 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, we're in Iraq to bring them democracy. I despise neocons, but I'd prefer one over someone like noya any day.

And, noya, military spending IS public knowledge. a google search would work.

Our's is 4%. That's it. War costs included. 4%. Maybe at the height of the cold war it was 7%. But no higher.
You want to know where most of the money goes? Aid. 50% goes straight to aid to all american-like and unamerican countries alike. Hell, even canada gets aid.

Pakistan's spending: over 50%.

China's spending on old archaeic equipment: not publicly known, but more than likely way over pakistans. That's all they need worry about: the military and the great firewall of china.

Now, explain to me again why america is bad? Torture is good; torture gets people to reveal information that'll save at least 2 lives over the victim's 1. I'd love to do such to a person like you.

The only thing bad is the way things like haliburton are others are held. Republicans put their business partners ahead of others. It's public knowledge bush is nicey-nicey with the saudies, and the saudies were nicey-nicey with saddam. Bush owns an oil company. Cheney owns a few arms manufacturing companies. A standard wrench in the military costs $70. You can get the same for 20 in the states.

That's all that's wrong. Where the spending goes. If you mention ron paul, all my ideas of you having a spark on intelligence go out the window.

RE: Is this a joke...
By Camps on 11/17/2007 12:42:37 PM , Rating: 1
You are seriously misinformed. The neocons spent 41% of our 2006 federal incometax on the war last year. This is huge considering 100% of corporate tax goes to the military and has for many years.

The leadership of this country has hijacked the constitution and made themselves dictators who answer to no one. That is Tyranny. And you applaud this? mindless. Not to mention the corporations control the government. That is known as fascism. Look at a summary of the communist manifesto. You will see many things that are either already implemented or are about to be implemented in the US.

As for torture being good. Tell that to all our servicemen. Tell that to my uncles who served in Nam. Tell it to my fellow servicemen you "Piece of Shit". It is a warcrime. As set forth by the geneva convention. And a leader who proclaims torture as the M.O. needs to be tried for said warcrimes. To state that torture is good shows your ignorance. It is proven that people who are tortured give up bogus information anyways. Anything so their tormentors will stop.

By the way we installed the Pakistan regime and gave them nukes to boot. Wake UP Sheeple. Buy lead, the shit will hit the "fan".

RE: Is this a joke...
By KristopherKubicki on 11/18/2007 2:27:08 AM , Rating: 2
Now, explain to me again why america is bad? Torture is good; torture gets people to reveal information that'll save at least 2 lives over the victim's 1. I'd love to do such to a person like you.

Except that torture has the unfortunate downfall of consistently yielding bad information.

One of the mottos of the Israeli intelligence agency is "Every captive will talk." It just usually takes something clever to figure it out.

Torture usually nets answers fast, nobody denies that. But then again, so does shooting them up with LSD, and that's something we sort of figured out doesn't work that well either.

DARPA is researching everything from remote sensing (yep, that project isn't dead) to fMRI scans, to even weirder technologies. We can detect when a person is lying with the right technology to a frightening degree -- though if only in the lab.

America didn't get the largest prison population in the world by being poor interrogators. Torture doesn't fly well in the American court system either, by the way.

But, then again, the armchair Jack Bauer's of the world need their icons.

China is not as benign or as evil...
By jskirwin on 11/16/2007 4:23:46 PM , Rating: 3
As you think.

I consider myself a neo-con but I don't view China as a threat in the same way I view Iran or the Soviet Union of yore (or maybe the Russia of tomorrow).

Make no mistake, China is a competitor and has pulled out all the stops when it comes to growing its economic - and military - might. However China's strength doesn't have to be our loss. If anything the economic growth of China proves what Free Trader's have been saying all these years: trade is a win-win game. Our economies are becoming more intertwined in ways that never existed during the cold war with the USSR - or today with Iran or even Chavez's Venezuela. The Chinese leadership isn't stupid. They've got a good thing going, and aren't going to wreck it by throwing China's growing military might around.

But for all those who believe China is benign, it still has the largest military in the world, and one that is upgrading its capabilities. Ideologically the USA remains a competitor, and our relationship with Taiwan fires up the diehards in a way that most Americans don't appreciate.

China has a strong sense of nationalism, and most nationalists tend to see the world as a zero-sum game where Chinese status can only increase when the status of its opponent wanes.

I consider myself a nationalist, but I don't believe that China's success has to diminish America's. A strong, stable and prosperous China that is secure in its borders does not automatically present a threat to US interests.

However one that props up regimes in Sudan and Burma, and loosens the chains on its client state of North Korea, can and does present a clear and present danger to outside interests.

RE: China is not as benign or as evil...
By lompocus on 11/16/07, Rating: -1
By KristopherKubicki on 11/18/2007 2:30:12 AM , Rating: 3
pray to God I never become a leader or president.

Don't worry, I think you just took care of that fear with your post.

RE: China is not as benign or as evil...
By Camps on 11/17/07, Rating: 0
RE: China is not as benign or as evil...
By lompocus on 11/18/07, Rating: -1
"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki