Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

This chart shows recent changes in the Chinese Internet Censorship Index (CICI) value. Values less than 100% shows that sites are being blocked in China (but not outside of China). Lower values indicate more censorship — we're aiming to get China 100% censorship-free!

前两天，方舟子写了篇《方舟子 : 常用中成药的真相——王老吉凉茶》（需代理），被人转到天涯后改名《王老吉凉茶有毒？》。此文中挺王老吉派和批王老吉派互骂到不可开交的地步。我虽然赞同方舟子对王老吉的质疑，不过在这里我倒没心思讨论这个问题。这里只是罗列一些挺王老吉派的可笑言论，看此文看得我实在是忍俊不禁。第一个好笑的言论就是一个挺王派骂别人是脑残的段落，真是脑残骂别人是脑残，本文得名来自于此。

@ GrazmanFu Ying is a woman.

那邓亚萍也属于国际友人了，有一个外国人不远千里来到中国，毫不利己，专门利人，对工作的极端的负责任，对群众极端的热诚， 这是什么精神

母鸡一般都找比较安全的地方下蛋。

个D干大事的，哪一个子女不是外籍！

小妹抬头说,你的身份证不能上网,请去别的网吧,当时我楞了,为什么啊,最近没做什么坏事呀,难道是人长的对不起观众,限制入内?询问理由,小妹一板一眼说,上边有规定,开头为652和650的身份证号不能在网吧登记上网,如要上网,需自己向派出所报号登记.

感觉真的难受,我的原户籍在新疆,10年前转至天津,身份证户籍所在地为天津某小区,但身份证号为愿新疆地区的号码.再次拨114查网吧所在派出所电话,询问情况,派出所说确有相关规定,但未解释为何652和650开头身份证需单独申请上网事宜.　　 太多疑惑,我不明白,合法公民,都是一样的身份证,为何652和650开头的会有这么多的限制,这是一种歧视吗?

　　650100　　乌鲁木齐市　　650200　　克拉玛依市　　652100　　吐鲁番地区　　652200　　哈密地区　　652900　　阿克苏地区　　652800　　巴音郭楞蒙古自治州　　652700　　博尔塔拉蒙古自治州　　652300　　昌吉回族自治州

The result was a challenge to the prevalent thinking that the Internet in China is all about entertainment, and that Chinese users will stay complacent under Internet control and management, since greater freedom of expression was allowed right after the quake. But now it remains to be seen whether these changes will have a lasting impact on Internet use in China. With the state returning to its tight pre-quake controls over the Internet, users may resist giving up their recent freedoms.

The State Administration for Radio, Film and Television has already issued five licences for mobile television services to a privileged group of state-owned broadcasters, including China Central Television (CCTV), the Shanghai Media Group and the Southern Media Group. These will sell content to the mobile operators, ensuring political censorship over the free flow of multimedia content. Whatever the format, the Communist party has given no sign it intends to relax its vigilance over what Chinese viewers can watch.

Here was a report that really delivered a blow to the BBC’s solar plexus. Peacock began to foresee the possibility of digital diversity on an unimagined scale, it also put forward the ideas of a consumer-led, market driven broadcasting world, one in which the very principles of a licence fee funded public service broadcasting system would naturally be seen as obsolete. This suited the tenor of the times: deregulation, privatisation and a rigorous dismantling of the frontiers of the state – it was happening in the city and in industry and the utilities, why not broadcasting? The BBC, long seen as harbouring tendencies and personnel that were socialistic at best, Marxist at worst, was suddenly no longer a secure and unassailable acropolis. It was no secret that Norman Tebbit and some of the more fundamentalist free-marketeers and red-baiters of the administration would have been very happy indeed to dismantle the entire structure of the BBC. Peacock prevaricated and the charter appeared safe, but at a great price. Nothing would ever be the same again, the old certainties were dead and the harsh realities of capitalism arrived at Wood Lane and Portland Place. Whole departments were razed and working practices abolished, and something called an internal market was put in place. Radio Times was outsourced, the permanent make-up staff went, engineers, editors and set-designers were suddenly out of a job. Twenty-five percent of the BBC’s output was commanded to be produced from outside sources and a whole new independent sector was born. Companies like Hat Trick and Talk Back achieved almost instant success.

An exception to this is Germany, which gave the most negative of all the European assessments. China, on the other hand, was quite positive towards Germany. It probably isn’t anymore.

Danwei posted on Who is winning the Olympic PR War? Jeremy’s conclusion: In the West, Free Tibet organizers. In China, the Chinese government.

Chinese people are not “brainwashed” by the government but carefully considering Western sources and see them as being just biased as their own sources.

It is commonly argued that growing economic ties tend to create common interests that will reduce tension between nations (see FT's Alphaville). The enormous amount China has lent to the US -- a total that the US data (which tends to underestimate Chinese holdings) now puts above $1 trillion -- will, according to this view, prevent other sources of conflict from getting out of hand. Alas, relations between creditors and debtors are rarely quite so free of tension. Creditors want to get paid back in full. Debtors would rather pay back at little as possible. Mei Xinyu, a senior researcher under the Chinese commerce ministry writing in a personal capacity for the Shanghai Daily, argues that China needs to put pressure on the US at the Strategic Economic Dialogue to do more defend the dollar. With the dollar at 1.60 against the euro, it isn't hard to see why. Mei goes on to argue that if the US doesn't do more to defend the dollar, it is effectively defaulting on China.

Mei's complaint, in other words, should be directed in part at China's own policy makers. When they bought long-term US dollar-denominated debt they took the risk that the dollar would depreciate over time. They effectively gave the US the option to pay China back in depreciated dollars. What's more, they didn't charge a premium for the option. That was China's own choice. China wanted to keep the RMB down even if that meant over-paying for US assets.

China, for complicated reasons, has decided to lend to the US in US dollars and to lend to Europe in euros and pounds. China's European lending - incidentally -- could prove to be as risky as lending to the US in dollars; SAFE and the CIC are really over paying for euros.

1683*1190这支笔的上端有点特别，有一个身陷牢笼的人物形象。随着你的书写，牢笼会慢慢往下，直到消失。国际特赦组织(Amnesty International)希望，以此鼓励人们拿起手中的笔，为自由而写作。

Suppose that the value of the asset the Fed holds falls to zero after the trade. The trade was permanent, so there's no margin call or anything like that - the Fed owns the asset and it is worth nothing. Then, in the end, it is no different than the Fed simply printing that same amount of money and giving it to the banks as new reserves, it is an increase in the money supply.

If the central bank, or some other government agency, were to act as Market Maker of Last Resort and buy the impaired asset at a price no greater than its fair value but higher than what it would fetch in the free but unfair illiquid market, such a purchase would not be a bail-out. It would also be welfare-increasing...

My feeling is that it's not going to happen, mainly for political reasons. In this particular crisis, the distressed assets the Fed would end up buying would almost certainly be mortgage-backed bonds. But buying up mortgage-backed bonds looks very much like giving money to big banks and investors instead of giving it straight to struggling homeowners: the optics are simply terrible. If the collapse of Bear Stearns is seen as a bailout, this would be much worse. It might be a good idea, but its time

Another challenge could be a shallow pool of local Chinese translators, production assistants and helpers available to foreign reporters because of the potential for arrest for aiding foreign journalists on sensitive stories.