This story is summed up very well by a comment on the page made by sorryoldman - "It sounds like this:
“You had her first all right, but I slept with her and she’s way too hot for me to give up now. So bugger off and dont come looking for her. She’s too sexy and she’s mine now.”
I hope this last sentence puts things in persepctive."
I'm confused ... so National Government percentage < actual assumed percentage?
If so, what benefit could there be to that? I can understand inflating figures to make oneself sound better, but I don't really get why you would report smaller numbers.
As I read the article with my background in sinology, what appears to be reported here is that China has some actual level of economic growth, which I will call X. The central government, desiring to look good to the common people, reports a level of economic growth X+N. One clue that the central government statistics are dubious is that provincial governments report figures that would imply a level of X+N+M (all numbers are positive numbers), yet the central government doesn't aggregate the provincial figures, implying that the provincial governments desire to look good to the central government. Another clue that the central government statistics are dubious is that online discussion of those statistics expresses open doubt, even in a country with much state control of all mass media.
Does this look like a fair summary of the article's claims? They seem plausible to me.
Oh right. I feel stupid now, I assumed the provincial figures were accurate, but it makes much more sense that those numbers are doctored to try and please the central governement. Thanks for the explanation.
I feel must add the obligatory thought - "Yeah, because making jailbreaking illegal will definitely discourage those who want to crash transmission towers."
They only loathe the security industry because they feel that those in it are incompetent. You say "effective promoters", they would reply "promoting what? the illusion of security that security companies give?"
I think their other point makes a lot of sense - It's in the security industry's interest, to keep things insecure.
Just as it's in the anti-virus companies interest to keep the threat of people getting a virus high. If no one ever got a virus, no one would buy anti-virus software.
There will always be new software, and software is insecure by default. You don't have to avoid securing the software that already exists to guarantee that you'll still have a job in the security industry tomorrow.
