Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
China Censorship

Chinese Censors Accidentally Block Shanghai Index 345

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the the-stock-market-has-always-been-up dept.
New submitter Vulcan195 writes "Now this is amusing in so many ways ... Today (June 4, 1989 ... i.e. 6/4/89) is the 23rd anniversary of the Tiananmen Square crackdown. Naturally, the Chinese Censors were working overtime to block anything that made remote or oblique references to that event. Well, sometime during the day the Shanghai Composite Index dropped by 64.89 points; You can guess what happened next."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Chinese Censors Accidentally Block Shanghai Index

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Counterespionage (Score:4, Interesting)

    by VendettaMF (629699) on Monday June 04, 2012 @07:30PM (#40215249) Homepage

    Speaking from China, unproxied, I think I can safely answer that with "Nope".

  • Re:Not like the USA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by shutdown -p now (807394) on Monday June 04, 2012 @08:56PM (#40215815) Journal

    Since the Soviets had lost about TEN MILLION troops and the Germans were fighting desperately to buy time for refugees to evacuate, it wasn't just "playing it safe".

    Soviets lost ten million troops in the first two years of the war. By February '45, the tables were decidedly turned. Heck, in the Vistula-Oder offensive, Germans had lost 150k people taken prisoner (and an uncertain amount, but certainly more, dead), for the Soviet 40k KIA + MIA.

    Your priorities are revealing in that your only concern is for Germans.

    I don't know what strawman you have built up as my priorities; it's especially puzzling to me since my off-tangent remark about the offensive you somehow took for the main point of my argument, and saw some priorities in it? There were certainly none implied.

    Anyway, myself being Russian, and one of my grandfathers having fought in that war, I am most certainly biased - but not in the way you seem to imply. If you are trying to be offensive, you have certainly succeeded.

    Germany had killed tens of millions of people. It's not sane to expect the countries they attacked to quibble over collateral damage. The whole premise of "war" is that "enemy" lives are worth less than "own side" lives and that it's absurd to sacrifice yours to save theirs.

    Is it okay to sacrifice a thousand of "theirs" to save one of "yours"? Ten thousand? A million? At which point do you say it's enough?

    Most certainly, the most efficient way to deal with Germany once and for all in 1945 would have been to massacre them completely - firebombings, artillery, whatever. No people, no problem, right? Why leave anyone alive if you know that any living German may be a Werwolf member who'll shoot you in the back as soon as you turn away?

  • Re:Not like the USA (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, 2012 @09:59PM (#40216123)

    try that in a USA airport

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05, 2012 @01:57AM (#40216981)

    NOTHING HAPPENED.

    I happened to be within walking distance yesterday, was out getting dinner, and decided to stop by The Spot. It was totally blocked off by security. Completely empty except for some security guys at the exits from pedestrian underpasses. Got some nice pictures from across the street.

  • Re:Not like the USA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SplashMyBandit (1543257) on Tuesday June 05, 2012 @03:54AM (#40217311)

    Actually you miss the elephant in the room. The US is so vastly powerful they could steam roll any country (at the moment) provided: a) they thought it was worth doing (Afghanistan and Iraq did not mobilize all US forces available - so no, these are not in the same category as a WWII Total War); b) a substantial fraction of the US population was prepared to make sacrifices to win, and c) the US Government thought the benefit of fighting was enough to pay for it.

    Iraq was won with a small fraction of available US forces and zero conscription (it just wasn't needed), and Afghanistan actually has mostly been won apart from drug-money and Pakistan (ISI and Haqqani) backed remnants of a insurgency. It is fairly clear that the US achieved their aims (kill Osama, destroy afghan terrorist camps, install friendly government) and doesn't feel the need to do much more (doesn't need to turn Afghanistan into a modern European-style civilized country, since the Afghans themselves are not really into this). So yeah, the US doesn't feel the need to commit in a total way to these fights - but it easily could have if it had *really* wanted to (Internet or no Internet). The truth is the US/Pentagon doesn't really care anymore, but don't make the mistake as thinking it is the same as not having the capability if they actually did get fighting mad.

  • Re:Not like the USA (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SplashMyBandit (1543257) on Tuesday June 05, 2012 @03:59AM (#40217331)
    Bullshit! Israel has had both nukes and conventional forces that could have attacked the Iranian programme for the last decade. They have chosen not to - instead giving time for diplomatic means until it is nearly too late. What the Israelis have been pointing out is that the Iranian nuclear weapon programme (for which more and more evidence getting uncovered as time goes on) is not an Israeli problem, it is in fact a threat to the whole World (which the rest of the World actually agrees with, finally). The Israelis have been making a lot of noise not because they want to start a war - it is because the US and Europeans are too damn apathetic to do anything about Iran apart from hand wringing. The Israelis don't want war, but they don't want Iran to be able to threaten them (and the Middle East, and Europe) with nukes either.
  • Re:Not like the USA (Score:4, Interesting)

    by chrb (1083577) on Tuesday June 05, 2012 @04:52AM (#40217507)

    One thing that often does not get mentioned in these discussions of world war ii is what the allies demanded as conditions for peace.

    No. World War II in Europe has one of the clearest reasons for starting of any war.

    The cause of the war has nothing to do with the conditions of surrender. It is entirely possible for both claims to be true: that both the start of the war was legitimate, and the conditions of surrender many years later were unacceptable.

  • Re:Not like the USA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05, 2012 @05:12AM (#40217563)

    Bullshit. Even the leaked videos from war crimes and outright murder of civilians and reporters from the US military in recent wars has done nothing. These incidents will soon be forgotten. The only thing that will remain will be the official "truth". People don't want to see criminal acts committed by "their troops". They'll hail to the flag and pretend everything is righteous as fuck.

Line Printer paper is strongest at the perforations.

Working...