The main topic is memes, not the Federal deficit.
"TLDR", being a meme, many of which were quoted here, is actually ON TOPIC.

Which is funny all on its own, being that it is probably one of the few times that a reply such as TLDR is actually ON TOPIC, and it is funny as a reply to trolls who are trolling the topic with idiotic insinuations of "useless research causes Federal budget to collapse".

And it's triple funny cause though THEY are aware of being off-topic, moderators are not.
There...

Now...
Place your right forefinger on your right cheek, just above the right corner of your mouth, and your left forefinger at your left cheek, just above the left corner of your mouth.
With fingers in that position push the cheeks of your face gently upward.
While holding your cheeks in that position, open your mouth slightly, take a deep breath, and say "Ha!" rapidly three times while breading out with each "Ha!"
It may take a little practice to get it right first couple of years.
Observing how other humanoids perform the laughing ritual may help.

TLDR.

No.

Replace "conscription law" with "death sentence" and see if "how many of those are actually carried out" and see if that makes sense.
A law is a law is a law.

Government MAY not enforce every single law fully as it lacks the capacity or willingness to enforce 100% of laws on the books, but the fact of an existence of such a law shows CLEAR INTENT TO ENFORCE IT.
They reformed the laws several times, yet they kept all elements needed for unforced conscription.

You are missing the point of that citation. Reread my comment above again.

The paper lists MANY examples of circumstantial evidence of an existing and ongoing conscription.
What it DOES NOT DO is prove a "de facto" non-existence of conscription and an existence volunteer service in its stead.
BUT, it tries to argue such a position, despite the COMPLETE LACK of any evidence for its thesis.

I.e. It's bullshit.
And I'm not citing it as a proof of existence of conscription or volunteer service or non-existence of either, but as a source of that unsourced and unsubstantiated bullshit claim.

Again, reread my comment.
It is there as an example of tactics and means for deferment available to the urban population, and NOT available to the rural kids.

Taiwanese kid could afford such a stunt at 24 - i.e. 6 years after he became eligible.
For 6 years he dodged the service in the country you define as "one where conscription definitely does exist, and people are drafted against their will."

A rural kid of 18, trying the same dieting technique, would just be written off as underfed because he's from a poor village.
Older than average, emaciated kid among the group of well fed city kids 6 years younger... clearly he's sickly and incapable of service.
He probably even looked at least 30% older than all the other recruits.

And a city kid gets that 6 year buffer cause he has a high school right across the street and a college two blocks away.
Unlike the rural kid who probably walked couple of hours to and from school IF there was one that near, and who could never afford to go to a college unless he was exceptionally intelligent and studious so that he would get a scholarship to a college somewhere in the city.

While the rest of his class went off to serve.

Easy.

You just have to realize that whoever wrote that "rather pointless" line is committing a fallacy.
You know... by not grasping things like separation of branches of government or things like internal control or even the idea that THE LAWS STILL APPLY.

He probably thinks that prison terms for government officials, be they politicians, soldiers, police or bureaucrats working in some office somewhere are equally pointless.
After all, they are all government employees, just like the judges who would sentence them, and that would be government sentencing itself - and that will never happen.
Ergo, if you work for the government in any way, you are free to commit crimes. Kill, steal, pillage, jaywalk... they can't touch you for you are the government.

Based on personal prejudice of "all government branches and officials being the same thing", he commits an existential fallacy... and from there you can attach any conclusion and it would be equally retarded.

First a correction.
The law I quoted above was changed in 1999, and the obligatory service is now 2 years, not 3-4.

Second... You are quoting a Wikipedia article(s) which fails to source its claim of "in practice - it's all volunteers".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

Which is a claim, arising from some BS "is blue REALLY blue" philosophizing in a footnote in National Air and Space Intelligence Center's handbook on China's Airforce.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/aw...

Which goes on and on, describing the whole compulsory registration process, the numbers and stats of 400.000 conscripts EACH YEAR, how many come from urban and rural (mostly rural) areas, how the law states that there is a 2 year sentence for NOT REGISTERING - and then they decide to bullshit about it all MAYBE-SORTA-KINDA being voluntary recruitment cause almost no one goes to jail for not registering.
Riiiiiight.

That's like saying that you don't need a driver's license cause almost no one goes to jail on account of driving without a license.
The same report, few pages earlier, mentions the prior practice of "volunteering" for 16 years (quotation marks included) after serving the obligatory 3 or 4 years, prior to 1999 reforms.
And the same section asking "Hey? Is this REALLY conscription? Or perhaps happy-fun-volunteer recruiting for fun and profit?" goes on and on about the issues and actions taken to ACTUALLY recruit college graduates.

Because there are almost no college graduates in the army. Because that is one of the exceptions for NOT serving - being in school.
Urban kids represent only about 33% of conscripts. Cause they have more means to avoid service until "aging out". To bend the law.
Starving oneself into exemption if needed - like that Taiwanese kid.

China IS reforming its military and its recruiting policies, but they will probably never completely eliminate the conscription.
Too many young single males and too much rural population with too much free time on their hands and nothing to do.
And while for most people being conscripted into military service is the closest they'll get to serving a prison sentence for something they didn't do - some actually benefit from military discipline and routine.
And that population sample tends to intersect with the sample of young, poor and (in China) rural boys with little access to higher education.

They have 3 years of service in the army, 4 in the navy.
Even with all those deferred "if he is the only worker in his family providing its means of subsistence or if he is a student in a full-time school" - that's still a LOT of recruits coming in every year.
Which necessitates a large military structure just to handle all those enlisted men.

In a country with such a large rural population (about 656.56 million, a lot of them poor) obligatory service like that boils down to essentially population control and education.
Through drilling-in obedience to authority and military discipline into 18-year-old teenage boys and through essentially removing them from the pool of potential fathers for 3-4 years.
Also, you're not neet while serving in the army.

What if you write "sword" instead?

That kind of sexist bullshit is why we are having this discussion in the first place!

Towing is NOT just for bulls! Cows have exact same right to tow if they feel like towing! It's in the constitution!
If the cow's constitution allows her to tow without hurting herself or others nobody - NOBODY, has the right to tell her she can't tow if she wants or needs to tow!
Cows have live in the shadow of fear what's right and what's wrong for them for to long!
Cows are no longer afraid to speak up against their oppressors! Cows are NOT cowards!

COWS R NOT COWARDS! COWS R NOT COWARDS! COWS R NOT COWARDS!

Ummm... Oh, yes. It has a plethora.

A plethora.

n/t

After all... it's a show about and for people and culture who promote file sharing. Sorry, piracy.

Checking Piratebay it is obvious that it is heavily shared, with thousands of seeds.
Why isn't this show being canceled due to everyone involved with making of it dying from starvation?
I was told that sharing... sorry, pirating of video directly hurts people who make these shows.
I demand that someone does something about it!

Like... take them all behind the shed and shoot them in the head.

That is a whole different argument.
OP was not commenting on the ways of distribution and marketing but was instead parroting the fallacy that sharing for free is stealing.

As for distribution and marketing... no... you don't get to decide that if you want to make money from your book.
You specifically sell or lease your rights to the publisher/distributor.

Should they be the ones to decide how it is distributed and marketed?
That's a whole ANOTHER argument.

Which involves at this moment completely hypothetical relationships between them and you, as well as hypothetical issues such as are you being exploited in the deal, and very real issues such as is the present and future audience being exploited through lobbying for stricter and longer copyright regulations...

And they are all completely IRRELEVANT because - it is not an issue of distribution or marketing but of free publicity.
And unless you have a problem with your books being popular... in which case you can try the Salinger approach - sorry, but you have as little say today on the free sharing of your book as someone back a hundred years ago had on someone quoting, reading to others or summarizing the story in their books.
Lament the change or embrace it. Either way, the world moved on.

Progress didn't outright kill the old business model, it just made it less profitable with some particular strategies.
In return, now the market is global, instantaneous and distribution and marketing costs are ZERO.
Have you thought about releasing your works in episodes and through subscription?
It worked great for Charles Dickens.

On a side note... I never heard of anyone getting their pirated PDF copy signed by the author.