A few days ago, the Silicon Valley saw a technical-political meeting that looked different from what was going on in the American political establishment, headed by President Donald Trump. As Washington moves closer to the opening movement of a large-scale trade war symphony, experts from the US giants in advanced information and communications have been meeting for a meeting to try to keep the technology industry at the center of the global economy out of a war that is wracked by rising tensions between Washington and Beijing.
The Group of 100 called for that meeting, whose goal was clearly to avoid a US-China war on the fronts of virtual worlds and artificial intelligence innovations. The Group of 100 is a gathering of technical strategy experts at US Silicon Valley companies.
In contrast to the headlines that have become so much of the US media, Fei-Fei, an expert in cloud computing technology at Google, stressed that the construction of walls in the worlds of science and technology is devastating to innovation. It challenged that a particular state could claim control over developed sciences, especially those related to informatics and communications such as atomic physics.
Summing up the conclusions of the veteran US political meeting, Kas Freeman, who deals with the technological dimension of US-China relations since President Richard Nixon's historic visit to China in the 1970s. After Freeman said that America has stimulated Chinese growth in electronic and digital technologies for decades, he pointed out that China has become a giant in information technology and artificial intelligence (as well as related applications and devices), meaning it is in vain to seek to dwarf it or wage war on its power in those fields.
Freeman also stressed that it is in the interest of the United States to look for ways to adapt to and coexist with the Chinese giant, to benefit from it. He pointed out that the companies «Silicon Valley» the great US has the technical and economic relations super-entanglement and durability with China, can not be dispensed with, and the technical war that sharpens Trump Swords, hitting these companies more than harm to Beijing.
The Group of 100 called for that meeting, whose goal was clearly to avoid a US-China war on the fronts of virtual worlds and artificial intelligence innovations. The Group of 100 is a gathering of technical strategy experts at US Silicon Valley companies.
In contrast to the headlines that have become so much of the US media, Fei-Fei, an expert in cloud computing technology at Google, stressed that the construction of walls in the worlds of science and technology is devastating to innovation. It challenged that a particular state could claim control over developed sciences, especially those related to informatics and communications such as atomic physics.
Summing up the conclusions of the veteran US political meeting, Kas Freeman, who deals with the technological dimension of US-China relations since President Richard Nixon's historic visit to China in the 1970s. After Freeman said that America has stimulated Chinese growth in electronic and digital technologies for decades, he pointed out that China has become a giant in information technology and artificial intelligence (as well as related applications and devices), meaning it is in vain to seek to dwarf it or wage war on its power in those fields.
Freeman also stressed that it is in the interest of the United States to look for ways to adapt to and coexist with the Chinese giant, to benefit from it. He pointed out that the companies «Silicon Valley» the great US has the technical and economic relations super-entanglement and durability with China, can not be dispensed with, and the technical war that sharpens Trump Swords, hitting these companies more than harm to Beijing.
A giant conflict
"America is a global giant and will remain so. China is a giant on its side, and there is no reason to stop it," said Cass Freeman, who served as US ambassador to Saudi Arabia in the late 20th century.
Was this meeting, which had long discussed the "Darb and Hazam Initiative" and the trillions earmarked for it, another proof of the "Chinese model"?
It was not long before the global public media reported the Chinese model, in praise of its power and the uniqueness of its experience, with troubling questions about its relationship to democracy and freedom, as well as its accessibility outside China.
It was remembered that in 2015, China's stock market had been shaken and the price of the yuan had changed. The market, stock market, currency, oil and gold prices were dwindling. For a long time, the United States is the "locomotive of the world's economy." If its economy shakes, the economies of all nations are shaken, and the people of the entire world suffer. Probably the closest proof that America's economy is the locomotive driving the world's economy is the economic crisis that began in 2008 and that the global economy has not fully recovered from its intertwined effects.
So, has China become the "second locomotive" of the world's economies? This is probably demonstrated by the crisis in China's shares and currency in 2015. By extension, the Chinese model is likely to be too long to talk about its success or failure in the crisis, as is the Chinese crisis, which is similar to the recurrent crises The major industrial countries established in the system of market capital and power.
Is there actually a "Chinese model"? What about the relationship between the political, social and cultural dimensions of the "Chinese model" on the one hand, and its paths, successes, failures and misfortunes on the other?
Experience from the heart of e-commerce
This is probably just an example of questions raised by contemporary China. It quickly comes to mind that China and its economy have a complex dimension to the evolving information and communications revolution. Perhaps the most striking example of this is Ali Baba's e-commerce site, which occupies the first position in this type of site, as well as being one of the largest institutions in the digital and traditional economies.
In one aspect of China's digital image, social media in Uncle Mao are still "independent" from the rest of the world.
It is also similar to saying that Chinese search engines (dominated by the famous Baidu engine) are "independent" from search engines globally. It is self-evident that there are those who see in this "independence" a stifling isolation behind the "digital wall of China" for the strict control of the Communist Party of China, which still clings to power, order and state.
"America is a global giant and will remain so. China is a giant on its side, and there is no reason to stop it," said Cass Freeman, who served as US ambassador to Saudi Arabia in the late 20th century.
Was this meeting, which had long discussed the "Darb and Hazam Initiative" and the trillions earmarked for it, another proof of the "Chinese model"?
It was not long before the global public media reported the Chinese model, in praise of its power and the uniqueness of its experience, with troubling questions about its relationship to democracy and freedom, as well as its accessibility outside China.
It was remembered that in 2015, China's stock market had been shaken and the price of the yuan had changed. The market, stock market, currency, oil and gold prices were dwindling. For a long time, the United States is the "locomotive of the world's economy." If its economy shakes, the economies of all nations are shaken, and the people of the entire world suffer. Probably the closest proof that America's economy is the locomotive driving the world's economy is the economic crisis that began in 2008 and that the global economy has not fully recovered from its intertwined effects.
So, has China become the "second locomotive" of the world's economies? This is probably demonstrated by the crisis in China's shares and currency in 2015. By extension, the Chinese model is likely to be too long to talk about its success or failure in the crisis, as is the Chinese crisis, which is similar to the recurrent crises The major industrial countries established in the system of market capital and power.
Is there actually a "Chinese model"? What about the relationship between the political, social and cultural dimensions of the "Chinese model" on the one hand, and its paths, successes, failures and misfortunes on the other?
Experience from the heart of e-commerce
This is probably just an example of questions raised by contemporary China. It quickly comes to mind that China and its economy have a complex dimension to the evolving information and communications revolution. Perhaps the most striking example of this is Ali Baba's e-commerce site, which occupies the first position in this type of site, as well as being one of the largest institutions in the digital and traditional economies.
In one aspect of China's digital image, social media in Uncle Mao are still "independent" from the rest of the world.
It is also similar to saying that Chinese search engines (dominated by the famous Baidu engine) are "independent" from search engines globally. It is self-evident that there are those who see in this "independence" a stifling isolation behind the "digital wall of China" for the strict control of the Communist Party of China, which still clings to power, order and state.
Years ago, Google tried to break through the fence, backed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Congressional and Pentagon committees. He linked Congress and the Pentagon to allowing Google to operate freely in China and between the two countries' trade and policy ties. He did not find it useful. That attempt ended in a catastrophic failure. The Chinese government never hid its censorship of the Internet, and offered excuses that could not be presented and debated.
What happens behind a thick digital wall
In the context of the heavy crackdown of repressive authorities on social networks, Tencent, believed to be just a facade of the Chinese government, dominates the social media networks through its Qzone social networking site.
The Kyozon network has nearly 640 million active accounts, the first to communicate among Chinese speakers. If the social media networks mean to the global public, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram, for Uncle Mao's country, it means only one word: "Quezon"! This is probably another intense manifestation of the meaning of living closed behind a great digital "wall", and perhaps even more than the "Great Wall".
The population of the People's Republic of China has reached 1.4 billion, of which about 65% live in urban areas. 642 million people use the Internet from within China, equal to 47% of the network, and the Media Media network accounts for most of the public (about 630 million), representing 46% of the population.
With 1.3 billion independent cell users, accounting for 93 percent of the population, one of the highest in the world, the number of active accounts on Mobile Media Media is over 520 million, which means a 40 percent population spread, World average (38%). In a related trend, there is a significant difference between the number of people accessing the Internet via fixed landlines (75%) and those who connect via wireless devices (25%). This is slightly lower than the global rate of wireless Internet access (38%).
«Loophole» Wireless!
On the other hand, that image is reversed completely in the use of Mobile Media Media. About 550 million active accounts have been registered on Mobile Media Media, out of about 630 million users of social media networks in general. Simply put, the image of "Social Media" is closely linked to mobile wireless devices, not desktop or mobile.
In that sense, blogging seems to have declined strongly in Uncle Mao's country. This is in line with the Chinese government's fierce war on blogs and its owners, some of whom are in jail, while a few have succeeded in leaving the country to Western countries.
China's mobile social media is up to two hours and 40 minutes, compared with nearly four hours of Chinese Internet access across all devices. The social networking time of the Chinese person is seen on mobile devices, whether mobile or fixed, for up to 45 minutes, meaning that users of mobile devices (cell phones, tablets ...) spend more time on networks, General of Mobile Multimedia Media. By comparison, only one and a half hours a day is spent watching TV! Does politics and strict government control interfere with that figure, in the sense that people are abandoning what might be believed to be run by the CPC Central Authority? Why does not strict government censorship prevent Chinese use of the Internet on a large scale? There are many questions about this.
What happens behind a thick digital wall
In the context of the heavy crackdown of repressive authorities on social networks, Tencent, believed to be just a facade of the Chinese government, dominates the social media networks through its Qzone social networking site.
The Kyozon network has nearly 640 million active accounts, the first to communicate among Chinese speakers. If the social media networks mean to the global public, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram, for Uncle Mao's country, it means only one word: "Quezon"! This is probably another intense manifestation of the meaning of living closed behind a great digital "wall", and perhaps even more than the "Great Wall".
The population of the People's Republic of China has reached 1.4 billion, of which about 65% live in urban areas. 642 million people use the Internet from within China, equal to 47% of the network, and the Media Media network accounts for most of the public (about 630 million), representing 46% of the population.
With 1.3 billion independent cell users, accounting for 93 percent of the population, one of the highest in the world, the number of active accounts on Mobile Media Media is over 520 million, which means a 40 percent population spread, World average (38%). In a related trend, there is a significant difference between the number of people accessing the Internet via fixed landlines (75%) and those who connect via wireless devices (25%). This is slightly lower than the global rate of wireless Internet access (38%).
«Loophole» Wireless!
On the other hand, that image is reversed completely in the use of Mobile Media Media. About 550 million active accounts have been registered on Mobile Media Media, out of about 630 million users of social media networks in general. Simply put, the image of "Social Media" is closely linked to mobile wireless devices, not desktop or mobile.
In that sense, blogging seems to have declined strongly in Uncle Mao's country. This is in line with the Chinese government's fierce war on blogs and its owners, some of whom are in jail, while a few have succeeded in leaving the country to Western countries.
China's mobile social media is up to two hours and 40 minutes, compared with nearly four hours of Chinese Internet access across all devices. The social networking time of the Chinese person is seen on mobile devices, whether mobile or fixed, for up to 45 minutes, meaning that users of mobile devices (cell phones, tablets ...) spend more time on networks, General of Mobile Multimedia Media. By comparison, only one and a half hours a day is spent watching TV! Does politics and strict government control interfere with that figure, in the sense that people are abandoning what might be believed to be run by the CPC Central Authority? Why does not strict government censorship prevent Chinese use of the Internet on a large scale? There are many questions about this.
source
No comments