Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 26th Jul 2013 09:52 UTC
"The pornography filtering system praised by David Cameron is controlled by the controversial Chinese company Huawei, the BBC has learned. UK-based employees at the firm are able to decide which sites TalkTalk's net filtering service blocks." The irony. It hurts.
RE[5]: Chinese firm
by kwan_e on Sat 27th Jul 2013 16:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Chinese firm"

Member since:
2007-02-18

It doesn't matter WHO restricts your freedom, it matters that it is done. You think it will magically be less restrictive with Cisco or Juniper?

Did you not understand the equations?

Have you not heard of the phrase "adding insult to injury"?

You seem to have a misapprehension here. I'm not saying the fact of Huawei increases the "Censorship" variable in the equation.

See, the "Censorship" variable is the same in all of the equations. Unless all the mentioned and unmentioned companies are the same, given that the "Censorship" variable is constant, it is logical that some results of the equation, of which the "Censorship" variable is constant, will be less than other equations with the same constant "Censorship" variable*.

To look at it another way, let's say someone ran over your dog and it happened in front of you. In one scenario, the person gets out of the car and kicks your dog's limp body to the side. In another scenario, the person backs over your dog and goes over it again once or twice.

In both cases, the dog's dead. What's done is done. But there's something about the second scenario that doesn't sit as well with us as with the first.

* The "Censorship" variable is constant.

Edited 2013-07-27 17:00 UTC

RE[6]: Chinese firm
by Alfman on Sun 28th Jul 2013 03:29 in reply to "RE[5]: Chinese firm"
Member since:
2011-01-28

kwan_e,

"Have you not heard of the phrase 'adding insult to injury'?"

Adding insult to injury is making a bad situation worse, but how exactly is technology from a Chinese firm adding insult to injury?

"let's say someone ran over your dog and it happened in front of you. In one scenario, the person gets out of the car and kicks your dog's limp body to the side. In another scenario, the person backs over your dog and goes over it again once or twice."

The second scenario is intended to reflect evil qualities in the person, so are you trying to infer that Chinese firms have evil qualities in and of themselves? If so, then that's the antithesis of my original post, if not then I don't get your analogy.

RE[7]: Chinese firm
by kwan_e on Sun 28th Jul 2013 06:39 in reply to "RE[6]: Chinese firm"
Member since:
2007-02-18

kwan_e,

"Have you not heard of the phrase 'adding insult to injury'?"

Adding insult to injury is making a bad situation worse, but how exactly is technology from a Chinese firm adding insult to injury?

Because the Chinese firm in question is Huawei.

"let's say someone ran over your dog and it happened in front of you. In one scenario, the person gets out of the car and kicks your dog's limp body to the side. In another scenario, the person backs over your dog and goes over it again once or twice."

The second scenario is intended to reflect evil qualities in the person, so are you trying to infer that Chinese firms have evil qualities in and of themselves? If so, then that's the antithesis of my original post, if not then I don't get your analogy.

The second scenario is NOT intended to reflect evil qualities in the person. It is intended to reflect that, even in a irreparably bad situation, you can still add to it to make it worse.

If you're an atheist like me, a dead pet dog is a dead pet dog. No doggy heaven. But I still wouldn't like to see my dead pet dog's body treated badly.

Twice you've said "Chinese firm", as though all the criticism is because the firm is Chinese. The point is not that it's Chinese, it's because it's Huawei.