defensetech.org/2010/12/29/j-20j-xx-in-m...
Looks nice, but what's the issue about it existing? Wasn't it supposed to or something?
It was rumored, but it was thought that the Chinese couldn't pull it off.
Also, the Chinese can export them and sell them for cheaper than what the US version goes for.
99% of the technology China uses is stolen.
And Chinese copies of western military equipment aren't as good as the real thing.
Also, their pilot training is garbage compared to the West.
*shrug*
As for stealing technology... oh well.
(It could have been leased to them by Russia, as Russia has it's own Stealth Superiority project)
The funny thing is, unless we have a counter to the technology at this point (and just haven't said anything) a hypothetical dogfight would come back down to using Guns. So basically you have multimillion dollar airframes, duking it out like WW2 fighters.
www.strategypage.com/military_photos/201...
www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Chines...
and
www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articl...
Also, it is almost certain that China now has ballistic missiles capable of targeting and hitting an aircraft carrier at sea.
www.strategypage.com/htmw/hticbm/article...
Actually , China bought an old Russian aircraft carrier and have been working on it for a while.
www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Chines...
and
www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articl...
Also, it is almost certain that China now has ballistic missiles capable of targeting and hitting an aircraft carrier at sea.
www.strategypage.com/htmw/hticbm/article...
Thanks for the links, those articles were more in depth than the ones I read in the newspaper. For example the article I read mentioned plans for building aircraft carriers and Russian assistance, but it did not mention the possibility on an ongoing retrofit.
The range mentioned in the article I read on missiles probably is dependent upon the probable deployment location of the launch platforms?
Very economical.Sounds like a very good way to do things to me Very economical.
So...
You promote stealing and espionage.
I am not surprised.
But my opinion of you is already so low that your admission of thinking stealing is a good way of getting things doesn't lower it much more.
This is a very capitalist way of thinking from China. They're making a lot more money then if they'd have to do all the research themselves.
Of course it's also wrong, but then pure capitalism usually is inferior to a blend of capitalism with a good dose of socialism added.
A system that advocates theft is not capitalisim. You are thinking of anarchy, perhapes. Theft is bad for capitalisim in general.
agreed.
US has Free Market Capitalism, right?
At any rate, theft seems to be good for China in specific, even if it's bad for capitalism in general.
It's sarcasm. "Do what makes money and screw what everyone else thinks/does/receives" is generally your way of thinking, so it's funny to reverse the roles for a bit.
This is a very capitalist way of thinking from China. They're making a lot more money then if they'd have to do all the research themselves.
Of course it's also wrong, but then pure capitalism usually is inferior to a blend of capitalism with a good dose of socialism added.
There is nothing "capitalist" about stealing.
Capitalism is about making money, not stealing it.
At any rate, theft seems to be good for China in specific, even if it's bad for capitalism in general.
And now you say theft is good!
I would never condone stealing, and consequently, I wouldn't think it "good".
Do you ever purchase fakes? Download games/music/movies? Own anything with "made in China" on it?
I SMOKE AMERICAN'S BY GAWD!!!!!!
Do you ever purchase fakes? Download games/music/movies? Own anything with "made in China" on it?
And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? (no pun intended)
What does that prove?
How does that make stealing ok?
So unless you are very opposed to those things and would never do them yourself, you also seem to think stealing is sometimes ok.
It is perfectly acceptable for you to admit you are wrong, and that it is wrong to steal.
That would be better than continuing this discussion and making yourself look even more foolish.
Russia does it another way - they steal from corporations that their country has no need for. Who's gonna attack Russia to defend BP or DeBeer's or whoever? Nobody cares. So theft is good. It has to be. It's not nice, no, but it sure as hell has some impressive benefits when done on this scale.
why would these two nations continue to do it?
Because they continue to get away with it.
A system that advocates theft is not capitalisim. You are thinking of anarchy, perhapes. Theft is bad for capitalisim in general.
Theft is the ultimate expression of capitalism: zero investment, all profit.
Plu... I still don't see a/your point.
My point is:
The Chinese stealing from the US is bad.
Downloading (stealing) music is, apparently, not bad.
Ergo stealing is bad, unless you do it?
I don't think stealing is always bad. Sometimes it is, some times it isn't. It depends on what you steal and why. Unless you've never downloaded a song or purchased a fake brand item, you seem to be thinking the same thing, you're only saying different.
Also, you're assuming everyone steals music?
Sorry some of us are actuallly you know...lawful citizens.
2. stealing is ALWAYS wrong! who raised you to believe that stealing is EVER right? they were wrong!
A system that advocates theft is not capitalisim. You are thinking of anarchy, perhapes. Theft is bad for capitalisim in general.
Theft is the ultimate expression of capitalism: zero investment, all profit.
Zero investment, all profit is not capitalism, it's theft.
Producing/offering something that other people will pay for is capitailism.
i get it. ur saying its profitable is what i'm guessing but its only that way to a point. eventually it catches up with you.So its better not to do it at all.
Oh? When? I mean, you're right in most cases, but in the case of nations stealing military secrets from others (who also happen to be economic slaves to the thief) that make them more difficult to take out or when they steal from large corporations they never had any intention on doing business with in the first place, there really isn't a future downside, is there? I suppose if we ever cease trade with China (er, I mean buying everything from them and selling them next to nothing) and don't care about being neutron bombed in the worst case, sure we could exact a price. And if BP or DeBeer's or whoever it was the Russians stole from (and there's more than one) somehow become so important globally that the Russians need them (for diamonds? the oil that's already there?) or maybe get their own armies or something, well, then maybe Russia will have to pay up, too. But, umm, I don't see that happening. Judging by how quickly these two go back to the theft well, they don't either. And judging by the non-response we've seen, neither does the rest of the world.
Because they continue to get away with it.
Sort of. It's because they both benefit from it (good) and get away with it.
Sort of. It's because they both benefit from it (good) and get away with it.
Would you agree that simply benefiting from something doesn't make it "good" or the right thing to do?
2. stealing is ALWAYS wrong! who raised you to believe that stealing is EVER right? they were wrong!
Something can be good and wrong. For China, the practice of theft (wrong) produces massive benefit (good). Perspective matters here, ya know. I know (most - to keep it simple) stealing is wrong. I don't like it that China steals from the US. I recognize, however, that they do so because it's something that's good for them. You do, too. Otherwise we wouldn't care what they stole cuz there'd have been no value to it.
Would you agree that simply benefiting from something doesn't make it "good" or the right thing to do?
Of course. I never said it was the right thing to do, simply that to those we're discussing it most certainly is. And it can be both wrong and good. It's wrong to steal, it's good to get stuff for nothing. And, again, perspective. You recognize value in the action because if you did not you would not care. If China stole one cotton ball from the US, it wouldn't matter. You care because they benefit from the theft. Because of the good it does them.
Meh, when I say 'good' I don't mean 'right'. I mean 'of benefit'.
the only reason we haven't retaliated is cuz of all the red tape. we can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that the PLA is stealing the secrets and even if we did China would claim that the research was discovered by them. or some other BS excuse. something can not be good and wrong unless its hurting someone which in turn makes it bad. so no ur scenario isnt possible I'm sorry
Dood, I do not mean good as in 'righteous', 'just' or whatever other sorta dealy like that. By 'good' I mean 'of benefit'. You can't honestly be denying that it's good to avoid decades of research and trillions of dollars to come up with a stealth fighter, can you?
www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articl...
the only reason we haven't retaliated is cuz of all the red tape. we can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that the PLA is stealing the secrets and even if we did China would claim that the research was discovered by them. or some other BS excuse. something can not be good and wrong unless its hurting someone which in turn makes it bad. so no ur scenario isnt possible I'm sorry
Dood, I do not mean good as in 'righteous', 'just' or whatever other sorta dealy like that. By 'good' I mean 'of benefit'. You can't honestly be denying that it's good to avoid decades of research and trillions of dollars to come up with a stealth fighter, can you?
okay look at it this way, you can't look at the benefits without also analyzing the method that you obtained the benefit. if a benefit was obtained via theft then its not a benefit because backlash is to be expected. I think we're both right :]
okay look at it this way, you can't look at the benefits without also analyzing the method that you obtained the benefit. if a benefit was obtained via theft then its not a benefit because backlash is to be expected. I think we're both right :]
The Chinese certainly can. And do. There is no backlash and there will be none in the forseeable future. Unless people like us talkin' bad about Chinese thievery counts as backlash. Compared to the decades and trillions saved, well, I'm confident that they see the benefit as a benefit in spite of our irritation.
EDIT: The benefit does not cease to be a benefit because some possible backlash may occur. It may cease being a benefit when said backlash does occur but, even then, the benefit may still be found worth the backlash.
Zero investment, all profit is not capitalism, it's theft.
Yes, I said that.
Producing/offering something that other people will pay for is capitailism.
No, that is commerce.
The mathematics of stealth are known from scientific papers, and there is only so much variation you can have and still fit the equations of stealth + not-fall-out-of-sky. So this could be a case of both planes being designed by the same set of rules.
And copying a design has its own drawbacks- an exact copy will have the exact bugs of the original, things that usually get worked out during development. Sort of like that scene in the first Iron Man movie- "what'd you do about the icing problem?" "icing problem?" *thud*.
Zero investment, all profit is not capitalism, it's theft.
Yes, I said that.Producing/offering something that other people will pay for is capitailism.
No, that is commerce.
its both.
okay for 1. buying stolen property isn't advocating it. and 2. stealing is ALWAYS wrong! who raised you to believe that stealing is EVER right? they were wrong!
- Eh, advocating might not be the best word, but supporting certainly fits.
- Hrm... I'll have to disagree. Consider, for a moment, an extreme hypothetical example. Let's say that some national enemy has developed a suitcase nuke capable of leveling a city. They plan to use said suitcase nuke to destroy New York City, home of 8 million people. Some plucky hero who has learned of this plan decides to steal the suitcase nuke before they can use it, thus saving 8 million lives. Is this not a good, right, and just deed?
There was a picture of the Chinese stealth fighter on the front page of the Wall Street Journal this morning.
Well then... it seems it isn't as stealthy as it wanted to be...
Reminds me of how surprised we were that the soviet MiG 15 looked almost exactly like our F-86 Sabres in the Korean war. As it turned out, both were basically designed by the same group of post-WW2 German aircraft designers.
The mathematics of stealth are known from scientific papers, and there is only so much variation you can have and still fit the equations of stealth + not-fall-out-of-sky. So this could be a case of both planes being designed by the same set of rules.
And copying a design has its own drawbacks- an exact copy will have the exact bugs of the original, things that usually get worked out during development. Sort of like that scene in the first Iron Man movie- "what'd you do about the icing problem?" "icing problem?" *thud*.
This^^^. Plus stealing stealth secrets, while not impossible, would take a good bit of work. Government secrets (wikileaks aside) generally aren't on the internet for every random hacker to peruse.
Pretty sure, that stealing military tech isn't on the level of stealing music.
It was R_H who started saying that I condone stealing, I was merely responding that most people condone stealing in many situations.
Also, you're assuming everyone steals music?
Sorry some of us are actuallly you know...lawful citizens.
Maybe it's a culture thing but I can count the number of people I know that don't download music on one hand, and that's because both of them don't have access to the internet.
okay for 1. buying stolen property isn't advocating it. and 2. stealing is ALWAYS wrong! who raised you to believe that stealing is EVER right? they were wrong!
- Eh, advocating might not be the best word, but supporting certainly fits.
- Hrm... I'll have to disagree. Consider, for a moment, an extreme hypothetical example. Let's say that some national enemy has developed a suitcase nuke capable of leveling a city. They plan to use said suitcase nuke to destroy New York City, home of 8 million people. Some plucky hero who has learned of this plan decides to steal the suitcase nuke before they can use it, thus saving 8 million lives. Is this not a good, right, and just deed?
1. I ain't so good with words D:
2. come on escher, thats the biggest "what-if" of 2011
This^^^. Plus stealing stealth secrets, while not impossible, would take a good bit of work. Government secrets (wikileaks aside) generally aren't on the internet for every random hacker to peruse.
Didn't the Chinese steal the neutron bomb from us some time ago? I am more than confident in the Chinese desire and ability to put in the work.
come on escher, thats the biggest "what-if" of 2011
He said it was a 'what-if'. Are you gonna answer that stealing, in that case, is ok or are you gonna pull an O'Donnel and say something along the lines of 'people sheltering Jews in WWII should have turned them in if questioned cuz lying is bad'? The point isn't that this specific case is plausible, it's to prove a concept.
2. come on escher, thats the biggest "what-if" of 2011
So make it pickpocketing the revolver off some guy about to shoot up his work if you like1. Case stands: I have given a scenario in which an act of theft unambiguously and directly saved lives. Do you stand by your statement that, even in such cases, it is "wrong".
________
1Though I'd like to point out that the only "unrealistic" part about my scenario is the size of bomb. I don't think you could get a city-buster down to a suitcase, but I'd have to talk to a nukee2 to be sure.
2Nuclear engineer.
1Though I'd like to point out that the only "unrealistic" part about my scenario is the size of bomb. I don't think you could get a city-buster down to a suitcase, but I'd have to talk to a nukee2 to be sure.
2Nuclear engineer.
You are correct.
Suitcase nukes are less than 1 megaton (and thus carry the "tactical" nomenclature). You simply cannot have a larger yield device and still have it "suitcase" size. And "suitcase" is a bit of a misnomer. They are actually a little bigger than that.
We also have artillery shells that are nukes (tactical). And the arty shells are relatively small, but a little heavy.
A suitcase nuke would probably completely annihilate a few square blocks, and heavily damage a few hundred square blocks. It wouldn't destroy the city, but it certainly would wreck it.
A system that advocates theft is not capitalisim. You are thinking of anarchy, perhapes. Theft is bad for capitalisim in general.
Theft is the ultimate expression of capitalism: zero investment, all profit.
Theft is the ultimate expression of communism: zero investment, all profit.
Mathematics alone does not stealth make.
Mathematics + Matter does EVERYTHING make. Heathen.
1Though I'd like to point out that the only "unrealistic" part about my scenario is the size of bomb. I don't think you could get a city-buster down to a suitcase, but I'd have to talk to a nukee2 to be sure.
2Nuclear engineer.
You are correct.
Suitcase nukes are less than 1 megaton (and thus carry the "tactical" nomenclature). You simply cannot have a larger yield device and still have it "suitcase" size. And "suitcase" is a bit of a misnomer. They are actually a little bigger than that.
We also have artillery shells that are nukes (tactical). And the arty shells are relatively small, but a little heavy.
A suitcase nuke would probably completely annihilate a few square blocks, and heavily damage a few hundred square blocks. It wouldn't destroy the city, but it certainly would wreck it.
Duffel bag nuke for the win?
"Is that duffel bag made out of kevlar? Man, it sure does look heavy!"
1Though I'd like to point out that the only "unrealistic" part about my scenario is the size of bomb. I don't think you could get a city-buster down to a suitcase, but I'd have to talk to a nukee2 to be sure.
2Nuclear engineer.
You are correct.
Suitcase nukes are less than 1 megaton (and thus carry the "tactical" nomenclature). You simply cannot have a larger yield device and still have it "suitcase" size. And "suitcase" is a bit of a misnomer. They are actually a little bigger than that.
We also have artillery shells that are nukes (tactical). And the arty shells are relatively small, but a little heavy.
A suitcase nuke would probably completely annihilate a few square blocks, and heavily damage a few hundred square blocks. It wouldn't destroy the city, but it certainly would wreck it.
Duffel bag nuke for the win?
"Is that duffel bag made out of kevlar? Man, it sure does look heavy!"
That's about right.
And gun powder is more of a discovery than an invention, a mix of a few naturally occuring ingredients.
And gun powder is more of a discovery than an invention, a mix of a few naturally occuring ingredients.
And...
What that has to do with the Chinese stealing Western militry-tech... I don't know.
Have you been drinking Qube? Your word choice is a bit off this evening, and you usually do quite well at that.
flu medicine.
And gun powder is more of a discovery than an invention, a mix of a few naturally occuring ingredients.
perhaps, but what about the derived militairy tech's?
(wikipedia): Gunpowder was invented, documented, and used in ancient China where the Chinese military forces used gunpowder-based weapons technology (i.e. rockets, guns, cannons), and explosives (i.e. grenades and different types of bombs) against the Mongols when the Mongols attempted to invade and breach the Chinese city fortifications on the northern borders of China.
@RH: the bolded parts have to do with China steaking Western militairy tech. There wouldn't be western militairy tech if the wesern county's didn't first steal china's militairy tech.
It exists.
defensetech.org/2010/12/29/j-20j-xx-in-m...
Not very stealthy. I can see it quite clearly!
... especially since gunpower was invented in China.
Gun powder was not stolen. It was bought or given to Marco Polo when he returned to wherever he came from. Spain? From there it spread to the rest of the world.
How dare you!
Using facts and history!
You should be ashamed!
www.strategypage.com/qnd/china/articles/...
www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/article...
... especially since gunpower was invented in China.
Gun powder was not stolen. It was bought or given to Marco Polo when he returned to wherever he came from. Spain? From there it spread to the rest of the world.
I do not remember Marco Polo having a time machine!
Gunpowder is believed to have been used in Seville, Spain as early as 1248. The earliest specific reference to gunpowder is from 1275. Marco Polo was born in 1254 and did not return from China until 1294.
www.foxnews.com/world/2011/01/07/chinas-...
... especially since gunpower was invented in China.
Gun powder was not stolen. It was bought or given to Marco Polo when he returned to wherever he came from. Spain? From there it spread to the rest of the world.
"bought or given"? I'dd like a reference for that, because neither the gun power nor the Marco Polo wikipedia page mention each other. Also:
"One of the earliest European references to gunpowder is found in Roger Bacon's Epistola de secretis operibus artiis et naturae from 1267"
"In 1271, Marco Polo (at seventeen years of age), his father, and his uncle set off for Asia on the series of adventures that were later documented in Marco's book. They returned to Venice in 1295, 24 years later, with many riches and treasures."
Even if the receipe was bought or given, Marco Polo probably had nothing to do with it (having ~30 years between european gunpower reference and returning from his sea voyage)
(gunpower was probbably brought in europe through the mainland - the mongols & arabs)
... especially since gunpower was invented in China.
Gun powder was not stolen. It was bought or given to Marco Polo when he returned to wherever he came from. Spain? From there it spread to the rest of the world.
"bought or given"? I'dd like a reference for that, because neither the gun power nor the Marco Polo wikipedia page mention each other. Also:
"One of the earliest European references to gunpowder is found in Roger Bacon's Epistola de secretis operibus artiis et naturae from 1267"
"In 1271, Marco Polo (at seventeen years of age), his father, and his uncle set off for Asia on the series of adventures that were later documented in Marco's book. They returned to Venice in 1295, 24 years later, with many riches and treasures."
Even if the receipe was bought or given, Marco Polo probably had nothing to do with it (having ~30 years between european gunpower reference and returning from his sea voyage)
(gunpower was probbably brought in europe through the mainland - the mongols & arabs)
And it is just as likely that someone in Europe discovered this particular combination of ingredients on their own.
And it is just as likely that someone in Europe discovered this particular combination of ingredients on their own.
Most likely, if it's not stolen, some guy heared about this explosive powder, and tried to find it himself.
However, this is on of the most common way's to legally steal technology. (in fact, in case of computer chips, that's how you do it.).
If "99% of the technology China uses is stolen.", we're not giving counties benefits of doubt, or use technically-it-isn't-stealing.
China made the first rockets/guns/... So when other people created rockets/..., they're copying China.
Which means that people with rockets/guns stole that tech. (the same 'to steal' as in "99% of the technology China uses is stolen.")
And it is just as likely that someone in Europe discovered this particular combination of ingredients on their own.
Most likely, if it's not stolen, some guy heared about this explosive powder, and tried to find it himself.
However, this is on of the most common way's to legally steal technology. (in fact, in case of computer chips, that's how you do it.).
If "99% of the technology China uses is stolen.", we're not giving counties benefits of doubt, or use technically-it-isn't-stealing.
China made the first rockets/guns/... So when other people created rockets/..., they're copying China.
Which means that people with rockets/guns stole that tech. (the same 'to steal' as in "99% of the technology China uses is stolen.")
No offense, but that is som seriously faulty logic there. Just because China of today might have stolen 99% of its technology does not mean that people had to have stolen the "technology" of gunpowder from China back in the 13th century.
No offense, but that is som seriously faulty logic there. Just because China of today might have stolen 99% of its technology does not mean that people had to have stolen the "technology" of gunpowder from China back in the 13th century.
No, there isn't a flaw in my logic.
its not about being stolen as in a thief breaking in a house and stealing the receipe, but stolen as in "99% of the technology China uses is stolen."
It means, that R_H isn't giving any piece of tech the benefit of the doubt.
So unless you can prove beyond a doubt that gunpower/guns/rockets/... were obtained completely independant of china, it belongs in the same group as the 99% of tech.,
Which means it deserves the same moniker 'stolen'.
No offense, but that is som seriously faulty logic there. Just because China of today might have stolen 99% of its technology does not mean that people had to have stolen the "technology" of gunpowder from China back in the 13th century.
No, there isn't a flaw in my logic.
its not about being stolen as in a thief breaking in a house and stealing the receipe, but stolen as in "99% of the technology China uses is stolen."
It means, that R_H isn't giving any piece of tech the benefit of the doubt.
So unless you can prove beyond a doubt that gunpower/guns/rockets/... were obtained completely independant of china, it belongs in the same group as the 99% of tech.,
Which means it deserves the same moniker 'stolen'.
Prove it. You have made a very specifc claim, now please back it up with proof.
No offense, but that is som seriously faulty logic there. Just because China of today might have stolen 99% of its technology does not mean that people had to have stolen the "technology" of gunpowder from China back in the 13th century.
No, there isn't a flaw in my logic.
its not about being stolen as in a thief breaking in a house and stealing the receipe, but stolen as in "99% of the technology China uses is stolen."
It means, that R_H isn't giving any piece of tech the benefit of the doubt.
So unless you can prove beyond a doubt that gunpower/guns/rockets/... were obtained completely independant of china, it belongs in the same group as the 99% of tech.,
Which means it deserves the same moniker 'stolen'.
Prove it. You have made a very specifc claim, now please back it up with proof.
I have found proof!!!
Unfortunately it was stolen...
Yes, I know. I still stand by my statement.
Disguised racism, like so many labels.
Racism is hating people for the color of their skin, for who they are. Not for what they do.
Aren't you aware of the mass starvation caused by the Great Leap Forward, which Mao initiated to strengthen his hold on power? Or the brutalities of the Cultural Revolution, again instigated to maintain the hold of Mao and the Communist Party on power? The massacre in Tienanmen Square? The brutal occupation of Tibet? The suppression of Falun Gong? The interference with the ability of the Catholic Church to function as an independent organization within China?
China does not have a free press. It does not have free elections. It has political prisoners.
It has threatened the use of military force against Taiwan, a democratic U.S. ally.
And 50 years ago (today, in some circles) you had people justifying their racism with fingers pointing at criminal statistics, educational achievements, broken homes, and so-on.
Point being, if you're looking for a reason to label a group as inferior/evil/whatever, you can find some. So if you're trying to defend against a charge of racism, you'll need to do more then say "it's not racism, it's justified!"
No offense, but that is som seriously faulty logic there. Just because China of today might have stolen 99% of its technology does not mean that people had to have stolen the "technology" of gunpowder from China back in the 13th century.
No, there isn't a flaw in my logic.
its not about being stolen as in a thief breaking in a house and stealing the receipe, but stolen as in "99% of the technology China uses is stolen."
It means, that R_H isn't giving any piece of tech the benefit of the doubt.
So unless you can prove beyond a doubt that gunpower/guns/rockets/... were obtained completely independant of china, it belongs in the same group as the 99% of tech.,
Which means it deserves the same moniker 'stolen'.
Prove it. You have made a very specifc claim, now please back it up with proof.
OK.
ASSUMPTION: There is a collection of tech we don't know, beyond a doubt, how china got it. this group is larger then 2% of china's tech. (heck, since non of us has done any real study around it, I'dd say that group is nearly 100%).
FACT: we don't know with beyond a doubt how europe got access to gunpower? that's a given fact. (as its part of history, there's no way to be sure beyond a doubt - all we have is second hand info)
STATEMENT: "99% of the technology China uses is stolen."
CONCLUSION 1 (combining ASSUMPTION+STATEMENT): per definition of 100% and 99+2 > 100, the tech we're unsure of, belongs in the 99% group, not the 1% group (as 2% can't fit in 1%)
so: all tech we're unsure of, is considered stolen.
CONCLUSION 2: (combining FACT+CONCLUSION 1) as we're unsure of gunpower, it's also considered stolen
Q.E.D.
No offense, but that is som seriously faulty logic there. Just because China of today might have stolen 99% of its technology does not mean that people had to have stolen the "technology" of gunpowder from China back in the 13th century.
No, there isn't a flaw in my logic.
its not about being stolen as in a thief breaking in a house and stealing the receipe, but stolen as in "99% of the technology China uses is stolen."
It means, that R_H isn't giving any piece of tech the benefit of the doubt.
So unless you can prove beyond a doubt that gunpower/guns/rockets/... were obtained completely independant of china, it belongs in the same group as the 99% of tech.,
Which means it deserves the same moniker 'stolen'.
Prove it. You have made a very specifc claim, now please back it up with proof.
OK.
ASSUMPTION: There is a collection of tech we don't know, beyond a doubt, how china got it. this group is larger then 2% of china's tech. (heck, since non of us has done any real study around it, I'dd say that group is nearly 100%).
FACT: we don't know with beyond a doubt how europe got access to gunpower? that's a given fact. (as its part of history, there's no way to be sure beyond a doubt - all we have is second hand info)
STATEMENT: "99% of the technology China uses is stolen."
CONCLUSION 1 (combining ASSUMPTION+STATEMENT): per definition of 100% and 99+2 > 100, the tech we're unsure of, belongs in the 99% group, not the 1% group (as 2% can't fit in 1%)
so: all tech we're unsure of, is considered stolen.
CONCLUSION 2: (combining FACT+CONCLUSION 1) as we're unsure of gunpower, it's also considered stolen
Q.E.D.
F.A.I.L.
You did not prove anything. Presumption and bare assertion are NOT facts.
F.A.I.L.
You did not prove anything. Presumption and bare assertion are NOT facts.
Why are my presumption and assertion not facts? Are you claiming someone here know, without a doubt, knows how china got his tech?
If you're going to attack my proof, proof you asked for, at least do it with more then catchy one-liners.
OK? thx.
F.A.I.L.
You did not prove anything. Presumption and bare assertion are NOT facts.
Why are my presumption and assertion not facts? Are you claiming someone here know, without a doubt, knows how china got his tech?
If you're going to attack my proof, proof you asked for, at least do it with more then catchy one-liners.
OK? thx.
You see, the thing is that you did not actually offer any facts. Facts would constitute something along the lines of historical documents and archaeological evidence, none of which you offered. So, how about offering up some actual historical proof to back up your claim that Europeans "stole" the secret of gunpowder from China and not some specious logic that does not prove anything? OK? thx.
That said I feel slightly safer now, the last thing I'm interested in is the US having a military that really is that much better then the rest of the world. At least while countries are on par they're slightly less likely to go to war all the time.
You see, the thing is that you did not actually offer any facts. Facts would constitute something along the lines of historical documents and archaeological evidence, none of which you offered. So, how about offering up some actual historical proof
That's impossible, there is no such thing as "actual historical proof" (its one of the first thing you learn if you become a historian). Everthing in history is conjecture. Any day a piece of paper might be found that completely changes the view of history.
(For example: As far as we know, gunpowder was invented around 1044. It's possible (though unlikely) that tomorrow, we find evidence that Julius Ceasar used gunpowder)
The thing is, I look at it from a totally different point of view: not a historical, but a grammar point of view.
The question is, can you show me actual proof that all 99% of chinese tech was stolen.
Obviously, the answer is no. So, this defines the weight of the word 'stolen'. Apperently it's OK to call it stolen with zero evidence, just some conjecture and bias.
And so that's the same thing I did.
You see, the thing is that you did not actually offer any facts. Facts would constitute something along the lines of historical documents and archaeological evidence, none of which you offered. So, how about offering up some actual historical proof
That's impossible, there is no such thing as "actual historical proof" (its one of the first thing you learn if you become a historian). Everthing in history is conjecture. Any day a piece of paper might be found that completely changes the view of history.
(For example: As far as we know, gunpowder was invented around 1044. It's possible (though unlikely) that tomorrow, we find evidence that Julius Ceasar used gunpowder)
The thing is, I look at it from a totally different point of view: not a historical, but a grammar point of view.
The question is, can you show me actual proof that all 99% of chinese tech was stolen.
Obviously, the answer is no. So, this defines the weight of the word 'stolen'. Apperently it's OK to call it stolen with zero evidence, just some conjecture and bias.
And so that's the same thing I did.
In other words, you have no proof to back up your claims. Good job, liar. Good job.
I don't remember seeing any proof for the Chinese Stealth Fighter being stolen either. You know, other then "they look alike", which is a bs argument when you can only see the outside of the jet.
In other words, you have no proof to back up your claims. Good job, liar. Good job.
As explained, I'm using the same amount of evidence as the other claims; which makes them equal in truth value.
A.k.a. if I'm a liar, we're all liars.
Good job.
thanks
I doubt they have very many of those planes at this point.
I actually bet they have just the one...
One would think they should make 2 prototypes. That way if one fails, crashes-n-burns they still have one they can test.
On the other hand, if that one crashes and burns, maybe that design wasn't as good as they thought and they shouldn't build any more of them.
If one of the prototypes crashes and burns, you can use the second one to figure out where it went wrong, most likely. Without losing a lot of time to build it first.
No you're defending the production of 2 prototypes of something instead of one.
If one of the prototypes crashes and burns, you can use the second one to figure out where it went wrong, most likely. Without losing a lot of time to build it first.
There's merits and problems with both approaches and I've seen it done both ways in the R&D field. Of course, I don't have any knowledge on developing multimillion dollar aircraft so I can't really say for certain which way is best.
One with Chinese engines.
The other with Russian engines.
www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articl...
*sigh*
1. China feels threatened enough by someone to ramp up it's tech to include a true Gen 5 Jetaircraft.
2. China, is showing that it's not a third world country with a ton of funding thrown its way courtesy of outsourcing and exporting goods. They are trying to build up their military to Modern World standards to be taken more seriously.
3. China feels they need to equal or exceed the West in military technology. This could be a precursor to more aggressive foreign policies, to continue their current economic status which is so one sidedly favorable for them they won't want to give it up without at least the ability to saber rattle.
Currently I'm still of the opinion that it's 1. And I don't blame them.
Just who are they threatened by though is the question. See this is why it's potentially a bad thing even in option 1. More than likely it's one of their neighbors which gives the distinct possibility they know something about that region the West's Intelligence Community does not.
If this was an attempt by yourself to hint at "threatened by the us duh!" or along those lines I doubt it. Because the US and China are actually fairly close relations wise. Almost as close as we are to the British. I really doubt in any seriousness they are feeling threatened by the US.
Currently I'm still of the opinion that it's 1. And I don't blame them.
Just who are they threatened by though is the question. See this is why it's potentially a bad thing even in option 1. More than likely it's one of their neighbors which gives the distinct possibility they know something about that region the West's Intelligence Community does not.
One might point out that North Korea is adjacent to China ...
edit: though I hope the West's Intelligence Community already knew that
There's a bunch of superpowers out there, and if they want to be one of them, I can imagine they want to make sure they have a military to support it.
Obviously politics are mostly done in backrooms so I have no idea what the current relations really are, but I wouldn't be surprised if they're protecting themselves from something.
Especially when all those backroom politics that apparently are supposed to remain a secret are being made public and people have a chance to find out what their neighbours and/or own government really think of them.
The thing is N. Korea is generally viewed as a non threat. They aren't really perceived as being capable fo acting on any of their numerous threats. That was my thought as well when I posted option 1, or perhaps they wish to display superiority to say India (who is also on the rise). I think this is more likely than N.Korea, because the only reason they'd feel threatened would be if N.K actually has The Bomb, and an adequate means of using it.
Given just how Batshit their dictator is though, I don't think they have The Bomb they would have used it by now.
Plu: Russia is an interesting place right now, they aren't really a threat to anyone though, not only are they bankrupt, their military is all but gone, and most of their WMDs that are still in the country probably can't even launch at this point. As for actual Superpowers go, really the US is the only one left. China is almost one (getting closer every day) and India will eventually be one. But presently there's only one by definition of the term. Russia literally can't afford to be threatening anyone. Most of their military R&D goes straight to Market at this point just to pay the bills.
My guess is, if anyone it might be India.
China wishes to take a more respected position among world leaders. To do so, it's chosen to upgrade its military significantly. This is not threat response, it's evening the playing field. And it's smart. There's a void in the world community as far as massive powers go, China is rapidly modernizing and seeks to fill said void. You can't do it with cheap products alone and they know that. So, military. And a modern military gives China the biggest 'STFU' button on the planet.
My guess is, if anyone it might be India.
www.strategypage.com/qnd/china/articles/...
www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles...
www.strategypage.com/htmw/htamph/article...
www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/articles...
www.strategypage.com/qnd/china/articles/...
More on the Chinese.
Hrm... seeing as (if Wikipedia is to be believed) China has about a million more troops then the US while having a significantly smaller portion of their population in the military (we've got about 5.1 active troops per 1000 people, they've got about 1.7 active troops per 1000 people) I'd say if they could modernize their military they would, indeed, be scary as ****.
However along with a massive army comes the massive cost and logistics of any modernization. They're probably better off arming a small elite and using the rest as cannon fodder.
75% likely just give those slings and rocks.The remaining 25% they will get the cool toys. Then when one of the 25% falls in battle the 75% get to fight amongst themselves over the dropped toys. I like this strategy; and let’s face it china needs to thin the heard in some way.
I recall some tactic duing one of the world wars were the second line were send into war with little to no weaponry, with the intent they used the weapons of the fallen allies of the first line.So while perhaps intented as joke, it's been done before ...
A great game on the subject...
boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/31554/red-dr...
Yes, I have this game. I have a whole mess of Strategy and Tactics Magazines actually...
I like this strategy; and let’s face it china needs to thin the heard in some way.
That's why they built Three Gorges Dam. When that massive, earth-shaking (quite literally) sucker lets go, millions are gonna die.
www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/articles...
www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articl...
www.strategypage.com/htmw/htpara/article...
Anyway, here is more...
www.foxnews.com/world/2011/01/23/chinas-...
Especially true with ones who are so unoriginal with their "alts."
Aren't you aware of the mass starvation caused by the Great Leap Forward, which Mao initiated to strengthen his hold on power? Or the brutalities of the Cultural Revolution, again instigated to maintain the hold of Mao and the Communist Party on power? The massacre in Tienanmen Square? The brutal occupation of Tibet? The suppression of Falun Gong? The interference with the ability of the Catholic Church to function as an independent organization within China?
China does not have a free press. It does not have free elections. It has political prisoners.
Its easy, isn't it, to judge countries on the bad things they do?
(but, oh boy, the sacrelidge if you dare to judge the US on the bad things they do ...
)The interference with the ability of the Catholic Church to function as an independent organization within China?
nobel price for child protection?
I think this is closer to the truth. America just happens to have a lot of those, and I think that affects a lot of people's opinions. Because there's plenty of people out here who think the Dutch have never made a mistake and can't see the world through the eyes of a non-Dutch person either, and they're generally patriots as well.
Nah. It is just that Americans Patriots aren't very critical of their own country, see the world in black and white and aren't able to see the world through the eyes of someone else.
... I'm not very critical of my own country? What a curious claim.
You are either patriotic, or you are not.
And if we are gonna start US baashing... again... then I reserve the right to bash Europe and any other socialist entities.
There are no degrees to patriotism.
You are either patriotic, or you are not.
Hrm... I'd disagree. Outside of various technological fields you rarely find true boolean variables. Most things are on a scale, with quite a bit of variation inbetween the extremes.
At least where I live. Wouldn't be surprised if it's different over there, I think there's much more focus on patriotism in America, during school and stuff.
There are no degrees to patriotism.
You are either patriotic, or you are not.
And if we are gonna start US baashing... again... then I reserve the right to bash Europe and any other socialist entities.
Don't you do that anyway?
There are no degrees to patriotism.
You are either patriotic, or you are not.
And if we are gonna start US baashing... again... then I reserve the right to bash Europe and any other socialist entities.
Don't you do that anyway?
When I have to.
Rabid nationalism, IMO, is one of those great diseases that will keep our world in a state of perpetual war. Any reason used to differentiate yourself that can be used as a point to rally around will inevitably cause issues. Ideally we'd all see our national status in the same way a lot of Americans (certainly not all - Italian and Irish immediately spring to mind) see our ethnic heritage. I'm Polish, Irish and German. But not really. I'm American. That's where I was born and raised and the culture I learned. So, those identifiers 'Polish, etc' don't mean nearly as much as 'American'. If somehow we could see 'American' as not such a big deal, things would, I think, be better. And that, of course, applies to every nation on the planet. Where we come from should not be important enough to define who we are. Or something. And yes, I know this is totally insane and will never, ever happen.
www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articl...
What's scary about it, is that they so easily stole it if it was.
...
They just convicted a guy from Maui for selling stealth technology to China. It's an old trick, sex, drugs and money, mostly money, thats how secret technology gets out. The Chinese have been a world power for eons, they know what there doing.
More Chi-Com spy stories... it's where they get their stealth tech.
www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articl...
Here is another article about it...
www.military.com/news/article/stealth-en...
www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articl...
www.strategypage.com/htmw/htpara/article...
Anyway, here is more...
www.foxnews.com/world/2011/01/23/chinas-...
Especially true with ones who are so unoriginal with their "alts."
Aren't you aware of the mass starvation caused by the Great Leap Forward, which Mao initiated to strengthen his hold on power? Or the brutalities of the Cultural Revolution, again instigated to maintain the hold of Mao and the Communist Party on power? The massacre in Tienanmen Square? The brutal occupation of Tibet? The suppression of Falun Gong? The interference with the ability of the Catholic Church to function as an independent organization within China?
China does not have a free press. It does not have free elections. It has political prisoners.
Its easy, isn't it, to judge countries on the bad things they do?
(but, oh boy, the sacrelidge if you dare to judge the US on the bad things they do ...
)The interference with the ability of the Catholic Church to function as an independent organization within China?
nobel price for child protection?
I think this is closer to the truth. America just happens to have a lot of those, and I think that affects a lot of people's opinions. Because there's plenty of people out here who think the Dutch have never made a mistake and can't see the world through the eyes of a non-Dutch person either, and they're generally patriots as well.
Nah. It is just that Americans Patriots aren't very critical of their own country, see the world in black and white and aren't able to see the world through the eyes of someone else.
... I'm not very critical of my own country? What a curious claim.
You are either patriotic, or you are not.
And if we are gonna start US baashing... again... then I reserve the right to bash Europe and any other socialist entities.
There are no degrees to patriotism.
You are either patriotic, or you are not.
Hrm... I'd disagree. Outside of various technological fields you rarely find true boolean variables. Most things are on a scale, with quite a bit of variation inbetween the extremes.
At least where I live. Wouldn't be surprised if it's different over there, I think there's much more focus on patriotism in America, during school and stuff.
There are no degrees to patriotism.
You are either patriotic, or you are not.
And if we are gonna start US baashing... again... then I reserve the right to bash Europe and any other socialist entities.
Don't you do that anyway?
There are no degrees to patriotism.
You are either patriotic, or you are not.
And if we are gonna start US baashing... again... then I reserve the right to bash Europe and any other socialist entities.
Don't you do that anyway?
When I have to.
Rabid nationalism, IMO, is one of those great diseases that will keep our world in a state of perpetual war. Any reason used to differentiate yourself that can be used as a point to rally around will inevitably cause issues. Ideally we'd all see our national status in the same way a lot of Americans (certainly not all - Italian and Irish immediately spring to mind) see our ethnic heritage. I'm Polish, Irish and German. But not really. I'm American. That's where I was born and raised and the culture I learned. So, those identifiers 'Polish, etc' don't mean nearly as much as 'American'. If somehow we could see 'American' as not such a big deal, things would, I think, be better. And that, of course, applies to every nation on the planet. Where we come from should not be important enough to define who we are. Or something. And yes, I know this is totally insane and will never, ever happen.
www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articl...
What's scary about it, is that they so easily stole it if it was.
...
They just convicted a guy from Maui for selling stealth technology to China. It's an old trick, sex, drugs and money, mostly money, thats how secret technology gets out. The Chinese have been a world power for eons, they know what there doing.
More Chi-Com spy stories... it's where they get their stealth tech.
www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articl...
Here is another article about it...
www.military.com/news/article/stealth-en...