Not even close to similar. Nothing in common at all and to suggest there is is evidence less of a desire to illuminate then to obscure. Or to find excuses for a failed and brutal ideology.

The Chinese leadership is trying to keep a lid on popular dissent by trying to enforce ignorance of factors which might lead to popular dissent and answers to no one on that score. In representative governments censorship is always a lively issue with those in favor of this or that convenient form of censorship finding themselves very often on the recieving end of unwelcomed attention and not infrequently losing their bid to impose censorship and just occasionally their position of political influence as well.

That's why the results are also not remotely similar. A Chinese citizen who wishes to educate themselves on some contentious issue is very likely to find their way as thoroughly blocked as the strenuous efforts of the Chinese government allows. A British, French or American citizen who wishes to remedy their ignorance on a previously ignored topic will find no such impediments in their path and, as like as not, find information on the topic from government officials.

Not sure if you noticed, but it's absurd to compare voluntary ignorance resulting from having too much information from which to choose to mandated ignorance that helps keep in power an authoritarian elite trying to hang onto that power a little longer even though their decrepit ideology has been repudiated everywhere people have the option to do so.

Yes, but those people must, quite properly, defer to their moral and intellectual superiors who know how much meat is allowable, if any and who know how warm you can be allowed to be in winter and who know whether you ought to be allowed to watch TV, how much and what programs and, well, pretty much everything.

Now, isn't it reasonable that the superior should advise the inferior and dictate to them if their inferiority prevents them from properly obeying?

Any reason you're trying to divert the subject from the lack of any mention of Antarctic ice conditions to me? I'd be flattered if it weren't so painfully obvious that you'd prefer the question go unasked.

There is another polar ice cap. Anyone know what's happening there with regard to ice coverage?

Seems to me that if you're telling only half the story you can't possibly be telling more then half the truth.

If that.

Other then the fact that the guy ordered the TV from Amazon, what's the connection to computers, software, the Internet and all the rest of the technologicawocal world that Slashdot's supposed to have made it its goal to cover?

Is the news that UPS screwed up?

"Stand on Zanzibar" by John Brunner was pretty relentlessly depressing and not just in a worldwide sort of way.

No one in the story was happy or had any reason to be happy or had any hope of being happy. Ever. Till the end of time. Even an end to war turned out to be depressing.

Made "The Road" seem like a carefree romp across the countryside.

I think I understand.

If the U.S. were a one-party nation everything would be just fine. Not to put too fine a point on it but has this "one party" thing worked out well in other countries?

Of course the Concorde will be replaced. Or at least its function will be replaced and Branson's venture may, or may not, have what it takes.

Also, I have serious reservations about supersonic anything that doesn't carry bombs. So far the technology's just not there to build supersonic aircraft for civilian use at a price that's not nuts where as Branson might have the makings of much faster travel at a lower price.

As, or perhaps more important, it's not an all-or-nothing proposition like a civilian supersonic exective jet. Branson can sell joy rides at a profit, which he's already doing. That helps amortize the cost of a satellite launch capability which sets the stage, maybe, for a long distance, ballistic passenger/package service. When it absatively, possilutily has to be there in ninety minutes or less Branson Ballistic delivers!

With a supersonic zeckujet you have lots of previous work to draw upon but you have the hurdle of building a commerically-viable supersonic, multi-passenger jet to overcome. So far, no one's managed that trick or even come close. It just may that bypassing the atmosphere is easier then going through it.

I wonder when Branson will announce the intent to start a passanger service?

Ever since the Concorde was grounded there hasn't been anyway for the uber-rich to get from here to there faster then us proles. I'm pretty sure there are folks who'd pay more then a few dollars to get from New York to Paris and back with time left over to flog their yacht crew for letting the boat get wet.

What do you mean "letting"?

Government-funded education is, by it's nature, a political institution heir to all the compromises inherent to politics and the sport of changing, political winds. The assumption that all supporters of government-funded education make is that they'll be the ones directing public education since to think otherwise requires consideration of the possibilty that there are shortcomings to the idea and then those have to be dealt with. Much easier to simply assume that nothing objectionable will ever occur in public education and secretly keep your fingers crossed that it doesn't.

Well, the unacceptable inevitable is occurring and what's the response? Mostly name-calling. Religious people are stupid or insane or whatever other tedious bit of school yard invective those unwilling to accept the political nature of public education can conjure.

So there's no "letting" going on here but a perfectly legitimate outcome. Don't like the outcome? Maybe it's time to rethink government's role in education.

Get arrested in Japan and see what a wonderfully advanced, democratic state, dedicated to individual rights, Japan looks like then.

Beyond that though a nation doesn't have to be tyrannical to enact civilian disarmament. But is there a single nation that is (or was) tyrannical that didn't impose civilian disarmament?

By your reasoning citizens in those countries should be denied the option of driving a car as well.

Rights aren't predicated on the expertise of those who exercise them but whether they exercise them in a lawful manner by not infringing the rights of other citizens.

...and Chicken Little's problems was, no proof.

And the standard of evidence isn't "until a piece hits you on the head" but something approximating the standard in science, i.e. verifiable and verified predictions. The various substitutes - encouraging mass hysteria by claiming that catastrophic, global warming is so imminent that too much in the way of talk is dangerous or claiming that there's a consensus among scientists - will work for a while but sooner or later the substitute loses its credibility. After all, it's not the real thing.

That's what's happening. The various substitutes are losing their hold and the credence accorded the case for catastrophe is dropping.

I am comforted though that the Club of Rome's predictions were conclusively disproven in fact. I'll let the principles take care of themselves.