they tried but we had prior art

Let me get this straight, you think that you are entitled to the "western lifestyle" and that no one is allowed to take that away from you even if they worked to get it? Are you racist by any chance or just psychotic?
Also, everyone else in the world wants the "western lifestyle" (which isn't even a strictly limited resource; there are reource limitations that come into play in very limited aspects but it is generally worked around by, and even promotes innovation, like right now what is going on with electric cars and alternative energy; improvements in quality of living over there will also allow more minds to work on the problems in society, but i digress). That is why people immigrate here. Do you hate all non americans?

I take it you don't understand economics. US does hundreds of billions of dollars of trade with China both ways. They sell stuff to us, we sell stuff to them. By buying stuff from them, we not only get inexpensively produced items, we increase the buying power there, allowing them to buy more of our products (esp high end products like Apple), and hence increases revenues of US corporations and jobs over here. Similarily, the Chinese also want us to have jobs and more spending power as it increases the amount of stuff we would buy from them. Trade increases the standards of living for both parties involved.

They haven't really sold out in stores though. I can go to the nearest Apple or Best Buy to pick one up, and I'm in NYC.

I agree with you. I'm not saying that because Google had an ulterior motive that we shouldn't support it. I think Google's tactic here is brilliant. Would be nice if they had more leverage in this situation (but of course that would have meant they would be less likely to make this kind of risk).

Haha, that funny. When American companies don't even care about the Americans they are screwing over, what makes you think that they will care about the Chinese? I'm all for what Google is doing, but in the end, this is a marketing ploy. Google, is not doing very well gaining marketshare; only ~30% while baidu has about 60%, and it only makes about 1.5% of its profits from China. By threatening to removing censorship, it can differentiate its product (search engine) from competitors and get A LOT of media attention over there. Google will still offer censored search in other countries that requires it.

This whole censorship thing is mainly a marketing ploy. Google is making a gamble that this will help them gain market share in China.

Don't get me wrong I'm in favor of what Google is doing and I hope this leads to the end of censorship in China. But from a business persepctive, Google is threatening to pull out because it's not making much headway in gaining marketshare, while Baidu consistently have 60% marketshare. They are earning only about 1.5% of their profit from China. This recent strategy to threaten to drop censorship not only differentiate Google's search engine product from others in China, but also generates alot of news over there and over here. As much I would like to believe that a company is putting ethics above profit, the reality is giving uncensored search access to China is the last of Google's concerns (esp. since they still offer censored search to numerous other countries). But since Google's goals and my hopes coincide, go Google!

Or they realized that in order for resale to occur, there must be a sale of that item in the first place.

The grandparent's post appears to have a distorted view of the situation. The reaction against the Japanese are not just from Koreans. The Japanese did far worst atrocities (both in terms of numbers of people affected and the seriousness of the crimes) than the Germans did. Can you imagine the reaction in the western world if Germany started honoring they WW2 veterans along with Hitler and erected a monument? (I know I'm hitting Godwin's law on this, but it's the truth) Why is it unfair for Non-Japanese Asians to criticize Japan for having a monument dedicated to war criminals?

yeah, tell me about it. If only people would vote for the most evil like they should, use libertarians would be in office by now.

Actually, assuming I remmeber correctly, I believe your body considers your heart and reproductive organs as the most important body parts, at least in terms of priority for blood flow. Your reproductive organs will get priority over your brain (maybe with an exception of your brain stem) in the case of large blood loss.

Actually, PRC has grown increasingly more liberal in the last few decades. Yes, there are a lot of reforms it still needs to go through but it has made progress since the 60s, 70s and early 80s. Just as a few examples, currently, in the PRC, single issue protests (protests on a specific topic) are allowed, there has been reforms in legal system in 90s and 2000s making it much more fair, and there are local elections with candidates nominated by the people of the area rather than by the party. With its citizens gaining more wealth and hence could care more about politics (and other topics like human rights, environmentalism, etc), I think PRC is making progress towards democratization like ROC. To say F-it now, I think would be a big mistake like with the Chinese Civil War.

I don't see how this will transform into a Soviet Union when we did completely the opposite. Instead of investing in the Soviet Union economically, we isolated contact with them and all countries associated with them, resulting in that cold war. The Soviet Union is a bad example of "The belief that doing business with a country creates a democracy has proven to be horsewash." Unless you have proof, it's not a "hit-and-miss," that statement is just bullshit.

And do you have proof of your statements or are you just rewriting history?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qing_dynasty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_divisions_of_the_Republic_of_China
Where is your evidence that during these period of history where Chinese cartographers where just making up stuff? And I take it that it is these same cartographers who helped write the ROC constitution?

Tibet has been part of China since the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368), Ming Dynasty (1368-1644)(though being debated), Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) and the Republic of China (1911-)(Not to mention to this day, Tibet is considered part of the Republic of China in the constitution). You can claim that PRC stole it from the ROC during the Chinese Civil War, but it's hardly an annexation. Based on the time period in which Tibet has been part of China, I would say that China has a more legitimate claim over that area than the US does over the majority of its land.

>If China truly wanted raise the quality of life of its people, they'd concentrate on cleaning up that noxious cloud hanging over Beijing, building more waste treatment plants and having more strict environmental controls for manufacturers.

When people are only making very little money per day, I'm pretty sure the environment is the least of their concerns. You seem to be critizing one aspect of the Chinese governement that actually is doing the right thing. To raise the quality of life in China right now is to get people higher paying employment.

Environmentalism is a luxury. Look at history if you don't believe this. The poor won't care about the environment if they can't get enough resources to survive.

Let's not forget Native Americans? When the hell are they going to get their land back and what about the genocide that was commited on them?