China DOS Union

The connotations of the Three Principles of the People are broad and profound. Sun Yat-sen said the Three Principles mainly came from three sources: one third from China's excellent traditional culture, one third from modern Western civilization, and one third from his own many years of Chinese revolutionary practice.
The political system implemented in mainland China in the 1980s was exactly the same as the political system described in the Three Principles of the People.

I agree with this view. Basically the mainland is following the National Father's line, or you could say they influenced each other.
But as for the food-and-strong-nation part in Plans for National Reconstruction, I feel a path there needs to be strongly promoted—perhaps enriching the people after becoming prosperous.
The Kuomintang also has no shortage of talented people; it's just that their vision and scope are a bit too small, and they are too focused on party struggle. They should place party struggle after the road of strengthening the nation and benefiting the people, and work hard to break new ground in the larger picture. I wonder whether they will break through this limitation in the future. Actually, by using the mainland's strength as backup support, they could do even greater things in history.

After Owen achieved huge success in business in Britain, he came to America with funds in order to put his greater ideals into practice, and in the end he failed. So people working in today's software industry, including programmers, need to be pragmatic and start from themselves. Every person must establish themselves and their character; that is the foundation.

There were many reasons for his failure, but there should also have been many roads that could have led to success.
Although history has no “if,” that does not prevent people in the future from having their own “ifs.”
If he had limited his ideals, if he had used a living commercial system to nurture this new group, if he had not possibly set the two against each other, if he had realized it gradually to an affirmed degree, and after that had continued experimenting amid intensifying contradictions—legal methods, moderate methods, radical methods, war methods, personal political methods, and so on—experimentation is very important. Preparedness ensures success; otherwise the problems and harm can be great, greater than not moving at all, like exercise and surgery when the body is weak and sickly. Nourishing without cutting is the road of Chinese medicine; even a medicine jar can be used for a long time.
In fact there should be many kinds of experimental experiences: two kinds for women and feminism; women are not the same as feminism, they are two different levels. The state of children, the state of the elderly, the state of the disabled, the state of the weak, two kinds of states for men and male rights. Suppose one of these groups were taken as the main influence in a living, working, and studying area—what results would there be? I don't know. It needs to be tried safely.
There are special economic zones, and there are still traditional matriarchal ethnic groups too. These are all seeds of trying out a new culture.
The richness of folk customs and overall optimization ultimately seek self-strengthening tending toward a strong popular ethos, and the purpose of the self-strengthened is to be able to pursue their own dreams. Paired with the broad road of gradual legal progress, life would be relatively more at ease.

Every person is an infinite independent world, and knowledge is a tool that helps people develop that world.

China’s software intellectual property protection is third-party protection, where the “end user” bears responsibility; that law was enacted in 2001. In Europe, America, and Japan, it is second-party protection—they go after the pirate copiers and sellers. At the time, some people thought China’s third-party protection was too harsh. In fact, it can be understood as “providing people with a free choice,” while how exactly things are done is each person’s own business, whereas Europe, America, and Japan have mature business models, for example, everything involves things like market access, which was different from China’s national conditions at the time. But can mature perhaps be understood as saturated!
Software, when it comes to users, can also be divided into several kinds, such as enterprises, individuals, and so on. Take Qt3 for example: in the about section it clearly states two completely different licenses, one for free use and one for commercial use.
And software vendors also tacitly accept that piracy helps software become widespread in China.

I feel this kind of legislation always has to go back to the source of legislation.
Free software, intellectual property protection, the commercialization of personal interests, the incentive effect on individual creators, the prevention of monopolizing the use of knowledge, the spread of knowledge, the huge overall effect of the same amount of knowledge—these all need to be evaluated together, corresponding to one another.
When establishing one kind of law, there should also be a corresponding opposite law to deal with the excessively harmful aspects that follow in that direction.

The individual creator and the group of users are both facing a situation that includes themselves within it; this is the limitation of the era, and the law should take this limitation into account. Similar to the limit of a program’s permissions.

Personally, I feel freedom should be the main principle. Even if it is a one-person business, it should still be regarded as one person making use of knowledge. Encourage individual participation, and restrict groups that grow larger and larger. Once a group becomes too large, it is prone to producing the kind of monopoly where the big bully the small. The scope of impact becomes too great, so it needs to be offset. Encourage a convenient path for the one-person enterprise model: this one person, in retreat, lives as one person; in defense, lives as a family; in advance, expands to more people, including relatives, friends, and a lover, roughly within the range of a dozen to several dozen people, similar to a family-style enterprise. Beyond that size, use a capital-share model, outsourcing business rather than a command model that directly controls people, entering the voluntary level of exchange, reducing the possibility of groups controlling individuals, and also reducing the monopoly of business by a single group, so that more people can imitate and participate, achieving mutual offsetting effects.

Times are different now; there are many more ways of talking and doing things. Just as someone said, “high technology has changed the mortal world.” Truly: “On the city wall the kings’ banners change in endless shifts; in dreams one still dimly sees a loving mother’s tears.” In the midst of so many dazzling changes, one cannot help but sigh with emotion.
But when quietly looking back at the past, one can still find that some things have stood the test of time, such as “crossing storm and rain in the same boat, treating each other with utter sincerity.”

Right now I pay more attention to the part at the so-called petty-person level where interests align: standardizing reasonable rules for the exchange of benefits and popularizing them among groups. This foundation of benefit is one necessary part of the mutual sincerity among groups of good people: seek goodness and get goodness, seek profit and get profit. If the so-called petty person has only limited effect, then the gentleman can range freely under heaven.

By “petty person,” I mean taking profit and comparison as the scope, and searching for a universal rule or principle that can ideally apply both to individuals and to groups. Otherwise, they should be separated, each with its own universal rule—that is, different rules for a person living alone and for a group of people living together.

Through discussing the major rule-related factors contained in questions of interest, and discussing cycles of the times, we can gradually go deeper into those contents. (You can also use games with similar rules; there are many roads.)

Back in those years, there was a female teacher from Zhaoqing who bought Shenzhen Development and Shenzhen Bao’an, both at more than twenty yuan, and got deeply trapped. She switched stocks at a low point and changed to holding Yue Lighting, only to remain trapped. Later, Yue Lighting paid dividends and made a rights issue allocation, but she didn’t even know to take up the rights issue. That really was profit maximization, except unfortunately the profit was negative.
Another auntie from Zhongshan held Yue Meiya, going from making money to losing money, just like one of the fashionable sayings at the time—only when (a business) loses money can the individual make money. In the end, Yue Meiya was later delisted. What a pity about the “two Meis and one Lighting” back then.