We laugh, but 500,000 is a ridiculously large number for a single game. Crysis, for example, was a fine game and had nothing wrong with it, but almost 500,000 downloads. Imagine how many more & better quality PC games we'd be getting if piracy was nonexistent and devs didn't lose a decent-sized percentage of their sales to piracy. It's hard to deny that game quality has been going down the drain lately with most devs having to merge into the big publishers (EA) to keep in business.F1_2004

To blame the decline of game quality on piracy is ill informed. Pirates in general download lots of games that they show any remote interest towards. Most of the games they downloaded, they never would've bought.The reason why PC games quality are going down so much is simply because new consoles are more powerful and more versatile then ever, and playing gears of war with your bros on your xbox360 is considered pimp and playing the same game on the pc by yourself makes you a nerd. For most of the game consuming population, consoles are just becoming more and more of an attractive position. It's not really about piracy and the companies way overexaggerate the effect that piracy has on their sales.

Also, regarding the issue of legitimacy, there is no such thing.

Whoever over the course of history had more spears, swords, cannons, guns, and tanks have "legitimacy" over their lands. Trying to work morality in international politics is pointless.

Rome earned legitimacy of "Palestine" from the Jews, the Arabs earned it from the Romans, the Ottomans earned it from the Arabs, the British earned it from the Turks, and finally the Israelis earned it from the surrounding Arab countries.

Go Israel. Earn your right to exist.

[QUOTE="Hewkii"]

[QUOTE="akatsuki0wn3d"] (NOBODY stepped in against the genocide, nobody said anything about it) akatsuki0wn3d

mainly because it was the biggest damn secret of the war.

The pope knew it was happening, I don't doubt that the leaders of other countries knew it was happening, it wasn't that much of a secret.

China took in many as many Jews as they came and protected them from the Japanese (who agreed half-heartedly with Nazi Germany to hunt them down) with the blood of its own countrymen.

Unfortunately it was difficult for the refugee ships to actually reach China, but those that did found a country that will finally take them it.

Go China.

bradley I don't think you understand my idea. This is not a century long change. China have basic local votes in its rural administration now, and that's with the tam massacre. Imagine how much democracy the Chinese would have today. In the mid 80s the Chinese had an effectively true freedom of speech AND freedom of assembly, and essentially freedom of religion (which is to an extent true today as well). That's SPEECH, ASSEMBLY, and RELIGION in the mid 80s. China was in the Cultural Revolution till 1976. In about 10 years China went from a NK like regime to what I described above. It's been 20 years since the mid 80s, and China has backtracked the whole way.

How fast do you want things to be? Do you want China to become a complete democracy in 3 years? 5? 10? Even with all on democratization China won't be like the US, ever, simply because of cultural differences. Do you really want a bloody revolution so that there's a chance for the process to be faster? Even with a man like Gorbachev, Russia today is hardly a full on democracy after twenty years. It took more than a decade for the US to remove segregation, and we are talking about an entire system reform of 1.3 billion people here.

Is blood and suffering worth it?

It's been thirty years since China reformed from Maoist policies. The first ten saw great changes in China, almost to a degree of a miracle coming from the communist government. The next twenty years has been spent in government paranoia, oppression, and defensive international stance. Why? Because too many people in 1989 wanted a "revolutionary" way to end all this, like you. What do you want? Why can't you wait? Imagine China without TAM. It's been twenty years since, what has TAM accomplished. Can you imagine what China could've accomplished without TAM? I'm sorry I'm targeting you in this part, it's just that I really hope China to be a democracy, and things could've worked out, but it didn't, because of people like you.

The government, if left alone nonviolently, will grant most of the rights and freedoms. The PRC is not seeking to make its citizens subordinates, which is the fascist definition, rather the PRC is trying to unilaterally decide what is best for the people. This is how the government was created, and with many stumbles and mistakes along the way the essence of the government remains the same. The execution of the ideology is where the Chinese government is failing, but this problem can only be righted non-violently.

In the 1980s, the PRC decided to give its citizens more rights and freedoms, some of those unthinkable even today. People openly criticized the central government, the party, and its officials, with no consequences dealt to them. This is signs of a healthy democratic (note democratic not democracy itself) society. The people can express discontents against the government and give suggestions, and this ultimately leads to a liberal one party state where it evolves into a democracy except without the two party system in the US. The PRC was ready to go on the path of democracy and freedom.

Then Tiananmen happened. Students who saw glimpses of democracy at the end of a long tunnel were no longer patient enough to wait. They wanted the western way to take down the government in one fell swoop, a spectacular and complete manner, and to set up a new democratic government ruled by elected officials. The heart of China was taken by this wonderous promise. Perhaps a new revolution will burn across the land. The chief STATE CONTROLLED newspaper supported the students against the wishes of the party. The high command of the People's Liberation Army had generals who voiced support, possibly militarily, to the students. Entire units of police and soldiers sent to the square defected to the students. Universities around the country were swept up in fiery spirit. BUT. All this meant one thing and only one thing to the CCP: they will no long be in charge, should this change take place.

Of course the CCP wasn't about to relinquish its control, for better or worse. Therefore, a severe and harsh crackdown was initiated. The rest is history. Many students and many more beijing residents who supported the students were killed in the chaos.

So in the end, instead of the change that the students asked for, they, in one fell swoop, halted the democratization of China to almost a trickle. The PRC wanted to give the people more freedom as long as the people would not overthrow them, but the PRC came to the conclusion that the people can't handle it. Perhaps there are too many young people who think like the French revolutionaries, and not enough who think like Ghandi and MLK. In the end, patience proved to a virtue, that the students, in their youth, fatally did not possess.

Tiananmen was a tragedy for the whole of China. Had it not happened, China would be a far more free place today. For the same reason, I hope the Chinese people don't make another mistake of violently protesting against the government. If you want the government to believe that you can handle the freedoms, you have to prove it to them by believing in them first.

ultimately it is faith in the CCP that matters. I understand it is hard for any westerner to have faith in the communist regime, and rest assured you will never cease to hear negatives coming out of China in the western news. However, the CCP is not like the Nazis, and China is not fascist. China is not looking to exterminate the Jews, or the Russians, or the Poles. China wants China to flourish at no other's expense, it just has to learn how. The how lies in trust between the government and the people, and that is the truth for any government. If the people can trust the government to bring change and betterment, and refrain from violence and treason, then the government will learn to trust the people, and give them more freedoms and rights to enjoy without fear of its own overthrow.

This would be rejected by any western revolutionary as hopelessly passive, but as history has shown us, how else could we steer China onto the track of democracy?

[QUOTE="blueblast2003"][QUOTE="bradleybhoy"][QUOTE="blueblast2003"]

I propose the Tibetans stay and enjoy the millions and billions yuans worth of aid being poured into their area and the special priviledges they enjoy over Hans. Tibetans enjoy a wide array of affirmative action benefits and in general have more rights than Hans. Everyone in China hope for a greater democracy and greater human rights and it's not going to help anyone, especially the Hans and the 54 other minorities in China, to try to split the country.

As to the legitimacy argument, the argument itself has no legitimacy. China has no more or less legitimacy to annex Tibet than Israel the right ot annex any part of the West Bank or Israel proper itself, or the US the right to annex California, Arizona, and New Mexico. Disregarding the fact that Tibet has been ruled by China since the Yuan Dynasty, the simple fact that the Chinese conquered Tibet in 1959 is enough "legitimacy" because the Chinese won.bradleybhoy

Maybe this is all "PC chit-chat" to you but I'll ask anyway.

You are okay with the Chinese government's degradation and refusal to acknowledge the basic human rights of everyday Tibetans because they annexed Tibet by force and are "investing" in the region?

I am not okay with the Chinese government's degradation and denial of human rights to Tibetans, or any other Chinese people. However, Tibetans and other minorities in fact have more basic rights than Hans. The issue of human rights is something all Chinese people should work toward together, Tibetan, Han, Hui, Mongolian, and all the other ethnic groups in China, and hopefully one day EVERY ethnic group will enjoy freedoms in China like western citizens do. Until then, Tibetans who pretend to be special and superior to other ethnic groups, and childishly wail for their rights while attacking Hans, Huis, and anyone who's not Tibetan, who are in fact their brothers in oppression by the Chinese government, are only subverting the process towards a greater democratic China, and producing unnecesary damage at the same time.

I agree, Chinese citizens are denied the exercise of their human rights also. Divisions amonst the oppressed can only aid the fascist government. I feel Tibetan independence would be problematic and also the fact that Chinese and tibetans alike face the same abuse means there is great potential for unity and strength. However the restriction and censorship of the Chinese media greatly hampers this unity.

But I still feel that the course of peaceful, non-violent protest will only be swept aside and ignored by the Chinese government. In order for non-violence to work you have to count on the humanity of your oppressors, ie the police and the military... who knows?

I think you are some what misled about the role of Chinese media and the Chinese government.

To address your first concern, I grew up in China and there was never a single message in my life that expressed divisive sentiments among the ethnicities. We were taught to appreciate and respect all the 56 ethnicities in China and take pride in our ethnic diversity. Censorship or not, the media in China is filled with messages of unity, not division.

Secondarily, I think are overly pessimistic about the chinese government in the same way you think unreasonably terribly of the chinese media. The KEY to dealing with the government in China (which I will not call fascist because fascists seek degradation of a particular culture group while the chinese government TRIES to help everyone one but does an inconsistent job with it and with some incompatible methods) is NOT TO USE VIOLENCE, or anything that appear to disrupt order. The Chinese government, the biggest government in Asia that is forged on Asian values and not Western ones (Chinese communism is extremely different from Russian communism). In many ways the government is still very Confucian in that the parent will provide for the child as long as the child obeys the will of the parent. With peaceful and non-violent progress the Chinese people can slowly gain more rights and freedoms as they did in the 1980s. However the moment you show violence or disobedience to your parent (*cough tiananmen cough), the Chinese government, the parent will freak out and whip the child, and in all likelyhood the child will not gain additional rights, or have some rights withdrawn for a lengthy "time out".

Therefore my point is that if the Chinese people want more rights and freedoms in their lives the most important thing to do is to restrain from violence. It is unfortunate that this makes progress painfully slow, and it is very different from the western mode of revolution (STORM THE BASTILLE AND REIGN OF TERROR), but it is ultimately the only way to democratize China without bloodshed and suffering.

Unity has always been a central virtue in China and much of East Asia. The people will always keep the concept of unity above all else, if everyone in China can enjoy a wealth of rights, freedoms, and material possessions under one government, that would be the ideal scenario, even if the government is a one party-republic.

[QUOTE="blueblast2003"]

I propose the Tibetans stay and enjoy the millions and billions yuans worth of aid being poured into their area and the special priviledges they enjoy over Hans. Tibetans enjoy a wide array of affirmative action benefits and in general have more rights than Hans. Everyone in China hope for a greater democracy and greater human rights and it's not going to help anyone, especially the Hans and the 54 other minorities in China, to try to split the country.

As to the legitimacy argument, the argument itself has no legitimacy. China has no more or less legitimacy to annex Tibet than Israel the right ot annex any part of the West Bank or Israel proper itself, or the US the right to annex California, Arizona, and New Mexico. Disregarding the fact that Tibet has been ruled by China since the Yuan Dynasty, the simple fact that the Chinese conquered Tibet in 1959 is enough "legitimacy" because the Chinese won.bradleybhoy

Maybe this is all "PC chit-chat" to you but I'll ask anyway.

You are okay with the Chinese government's degradation and refusal to acknowledge the basic human rights of everyday Tibetans because they annexed Tibet by force and are "investing" in the region?

I am not okay with the Chinese government's degradation and denial of human rights to Tibetans, or any other Chinese people. However, Tibetans and other minorities in fact have more basic rights than Hans. The issue of human rights is something all Chinese people should work toward together, Tibetan, Han, Hui, Mongolian, and all the other ethnic groups in China, and hopefully one day EVERY ethnic group will enjoy freedoms in China like western citizens do. Until then, Tibetans who pretend to be special and superior to other ethnic groups, and childishly wail for their rights while attacking Hans, Huis, and anyone who's not Tibetan, who are in fact their brothers in oppression by the Chinese government, are only subverting the process towards a greater democratic China, and producing unnecesary damage at the same time.

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="bradleybhoy"]

If the peaceful protests aren't heeded by the Chinese government then what else can the oppressed Tibetans do? Just give and go home? imo calculated violent struggle on the part of the Tibetans is the only way they will wrestle their rights from the Chinese government.

bradleybhoy

It is not a question of any other country intervening on the part of the Tibetans. It is the Tibetans standing up and fighting for their human rights themselves. When peaceful demonstration and protest is ignored and the abuse and oppression continues what then? What do you propose they do?

Or are you talking about the non-violence approach recommended by the dalai-lama? IMO that will not work, The Chinese government will put down peaceful protest and continue it's violation of the Tibetans rights whilst it presents an innocent face to the rest of the world.

I propose the Tibetans stay and enjoy the millions and billions yuans worth of aid being poured into their area and the special priviledges they enjoy over Hans. Tibetans enjoy a wide array of affirmative action benefits and in general have more rights than Hans. Everyone in China hope for a greater democracy and greater human rights and it's not going to help anyone, especially the Hans and the 54 other minorities in China, to try to split the country.

As to the legitimacy argument, the argument itself has no legitimacy. China has no more or less legitimacy to annex Tibet than Israel the right ot annex any part of the West Bank or Israel proper itself, or the US the right to annex California, Arizona, and New Mexico. Disregarding the fact that Tibet has been ruled by China since the Yuan Dynasty, the simple fact that the Chinese conquered Tibet in 1959 is enough "legitimacy" because the Chinese won.

3 Lead changes in the last quarter

Thrilling win