Who should they "reflect" the attack back at? Baidu, who seem to be a victim of HTTP hijacking in this case? Or the Chinese government? If the latter, then where exactly do you focus the counter-attack?
China's GDP is 10 Trillion dollars. Github is not at all important to China, other than a source of tools to citizens use to circumvent their authoritative regime.
again, then why did they unblock it? it is important, we're in a new paradigm for software where developing in the open leads to higher quality software written faster than previous ways
It's hardly a new paradigm, it's just a place with a lot of software that you'd otherwise have to write from scratch. It's merely software development catching up with everything else.
I'm sure Github and free software is a goldmine to the country that built its economy on copying other people's stuff.
On the other hand, the capitalists running the communist party might scoff at the idea of software that everyone is allowed to copy, because that offers no advantage to the unscrupulous. At least I'd imagine they would scoff at copyleft, just like Github does.
As much as I love MLK and Gandhi, this assertion never made sense to me.
An eye for an eye would leave two people blind: the person who blinded the other, and the one that was blinded.
Once people start seeing the severe consequence of blinding someone (getting blinded back), they and everyone else would most likely stop, not continue blinding more people.
The reason it doesn't make sense to you is because you are assuming it is applied in an ideal perfect universe, while the statement is referring to the real world, where any retributive rule is applied by imperfect actors who make errors in the assignment of culpability (both in identification of who is responsible and in identify whether their act was justified in the first place.)
Such errors result in people who shouldn't be blinded themselves being blinded, and are themselves the subject of retaliation by the same error-prone process.
Well under your reading wouldn't it just leave them each without one eye. They may be blind but in most cases they will still have one other functioning eye. /pedantry
"Who paid retribution for the second blinding? The second paid for the first, I demand a third eye" ... ergo the aphorism.
That's correct, the only problem is it takes thousands of years for humanity as a whole to agree that the consequence is too severe to stand. On this time scale, the idea of not fighting wars because they cause damage is relatively new.
A attack reflection of sort.
Edit: You're technically not attacking you're reflecting if the attack stops there's nothing to reflect.
Just like in martial arts you don't just take a beating you defend and return the opponents attack back at them. Seems fair to me.