Slashdot Mirror

First, a backdrop, beginning with the fact that China is on track to exceed US military spending by 2025:

Chinese Insider Offers Rare Glimpse of U.S.-China Frictions
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/world/asia/chinese-insider-offers-rare-glimpse-of-us-china-frictions.html

"The senior leadership of the Chinese government increasingly views the competition between the United States and China as a zero-sum game, with China the likely long-range winner if the American economy and domestic political system continue to stumble, according to an influential Chinese policy analyst. China views the United States as a declining power, but at the same time believes that Washington is trying to fight back to undermine, and even disrupt, the economic and military growth that point to China’s becoming the world’s most powerful country."

Asia's balance of power: China’s military rise
http://www.economist.com/node/21552212

"NO MATTER how often China has emphasised the idea of a peaceful rise, the pace and nature of its military modernisation inevitably cause alarm. As America and the big European powers reduce their defence spending, China looks likely to maintain the past decade’s increases of about 12% a year. Even though its defence budget is less than a quarter the size of America’s today, China’s generals are ambitious. The country is on course to become the world’s largest military spender in just 20 years or so."

China’s military rise: The dragon’s new teeth
http://www.economist.com/node/21552193

And now on to what's happening every day in US academic and business environments:

How China Steals Our Secrets
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/opinion/how-china-steals-our-secrets.html

China's Cyber Thievery Is National Policy—And Must Be Challenged
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203718504577178832338032176-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwOTEwNDkyWj.html

FBI Traces Trail of Spy Ring to China
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203961204577266892884130620-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwNzEwNDcyWj.html

NSA: China is Destroying U.S. Economy Via Security Hacks
http://www.dailytech.com/NSA+China+is+Destroying+US+Economy+Via+Security+Hacks/article24328.htm

Former cybersecurity czar: Every major U.S. company has been hacked by China
http://www.itworld.com/security/262616/former-cybersecurity-czar-every-major-us-company-has-been-hacked-china

China Attacked Internet Security Company RSA, Cyber Commander Tells SASC
http://defense.aol.com/2012/03/27/china-attacked-internet-security-company-rsa-cyber-commander-te/

Chinese Counterfeit Parts Keep Flowing
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news%2Fasd%2F2012%2F03%2F27%2F04.xml&headline=Chinese+Counterfeit+Parts+Keep+Flowing

China Corporate

First, a backdrop, beginning with the fact that China is on track to exceed US military spending by 2025:

Chinese Insider Offers Rare Glimpse of U.S.-China Frictions
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/world/asia/chinese-insider-offers-rare-glimpse-of-us-china-frictions.html

"The senior leadership of the Chinese government increasingly views the competition between the United States and China as a zero-sum game, with China the likely long-range winner if the American economy and domestic political system continue to stumble, according to an influential Chinese policy analyst. China views the United States as a declining power, but at the same time believes that Washington is trying to fight back to undermine, and even disrupt, the economic and military growth that point to China’s becoming the world’s most powerful country."

Asia's balance of power: China’s military rise
http://www.economist.com/node/21552212

"NO MATTER how often China has emphasised the idea of a peaceful rise, the pace and nature of its military modernisation inevitably cause alarm. As America and the big European powers reduce their defence spending, China looks likely to maintain the past decade’s increases of about 12% a year. Even though its defence budget is less than a quarter the size of America’s today, China’s generals are ambitious. The country is on course to become the world’s largest military spender in just 20 years or so."

China’s military rise: The dragon’s new teeth
http://www.economist.com/node/21552193

And now on to what's happening every day in US academic and business environments:

How China Steals Our Secrets
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/opinion/how-china-steals-our-secrets.html

China's Cyber Thievery Is National Policy—And Must Be Challenged
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203718504577178832338032176-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwOTEwNDkyWj.html

FBI Traces Trail of Spy Ring to China
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203961204577266892884130620-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwNzEwNDcyWj.html

NSA: China is Destroying U.S. Economy Via Security Hacks
http://www.dailytech.com/NSA+China+is+Destroying+US+Economy+Via+Security+Hacks/article24328.htm

Former cybersecurity czar: Every major U.S. company has been hacked by China
http://www.itworld.com/security/262616/former-cybersecurity-czar-every-major-us-company-has-been-hacked-china

China Attacked Internet Security Company RSA, Cyber Commander Tells SASC
http://defense.aol.com/2012/03/27/china-attacked-internet-security-company-rsa-cyber-commander-te/

Chinese Counterfeit Parts Keep Flowing
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news%2Fasd%2F2012%2F03%2F27%2F04.xml&headline=Chinese+Counterfeit+Parts+Keep+Flowing

China Corporate

First, a backdrop, beginning with the fact that China is on track to exceed US military spending by 2025:

Chinese Insider Offers Rare Glimpse of U.S.-China Frictions
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/world/asia/chinese-insider-offers-rare-glimpse-of-us-china-frictions.html

"The senior leadership of the Chinese government increasingly views the competition between the United States and China as a zero-sum game, with China the likely long-range winner if the American economy and domestic political system continue to stumble, according to an influential Chinese policy analyst. China views the United States as a declining power, but at the same time believes that Washington is trying to fight back to undermine, and even disrupt, the economic and military growth that point to China’s becoming the world’s most powerful country."

Asia's balance of power: China’s military rise
http://www.economist.com/node/21552212

"NO MATTER how often China has emphasised the idea of a peaceful rise, the pace and nature of its military modernisation inevitably cause alarm. As America and the big European powers reduce their defence spending, China looks likely to maintain the past decade’s increases of about 12% a year. Even though its defence budget is less than a quarter the size of America’s today, China’s generals are ambitious. The country is on course to become the world’s largest military spender in just 20 years or so."

China’s military rise: The dragon’s new teeth
http://www.economist.com/node/21552193

And now on to what's happening every day in US academic and business environments:

How China Steals Our Secrets
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/opinion/how-china-steals-our-secrets.html

China's Cyber Thievery Is National Policy—And Must Be Challenged
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203718504577178832338032176-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwOTEwNDkyWj.html

FBI Traces Trail of Spy Ring to China
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203961204577266892884130620-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwNzEwNDcyWj.html

NSA: China is Destroying U.S. Economy Via Security Hacks
http://www.dailytech.com/NSA+China+is+Destroying+US+Economy+Via+Security+Hacks/article24328.htm

Former cybersecurity czar: Every major U.S. company has been hacked by China
http://www.itworld.com/security/262616/former-cybersecurity-czar-every-major-us-company-has-been-hacked-china

China Attacked Internet Security Company RSA, Cyber Commander Tells SASC
http://defense.aol.com/2012/03/27/china-attacked-internet-security-company-rsa-cyber-commander-te/

Chinese Counterfeit Parts Keep Flowing
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news%2Fasd%2F2012%2F03%2F27%2F04.xml&headline=Chinese+Counterfeit+Parts+Keep+Flowing

China Corporate

> Hint: It's the hispanics and their anchor babies that increasing the population growth. Learn Spanish.

Nah. People are moving to Texas from all over the US.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/06/migration

In 2010, the comparable amount accounted for more than 20% of all periodical subscription costs and just under 10% of all collection costs for everything the Library acquires. Some journals cost as much as $40,000 per year, others in the tens of thousands. Prices for online content from two providers have increased by about 145% over the past six years, which far exceeds not only the consumer price index, but also the higher education and the library price indices. These journals therefore claim an ever-increasing share of our overall collection budget. Even though scholarly output continues to grow and publishing can be expensive, profit margins of 35% and more suggest that the prices we must pay do not solely result from an increasing supply of new articles.

Libraries are necessarily nonprofit organizations, and their budgets are funded through taxes and tuition. The current journal publication business model treats library budgets as little more than a vehicle to launder money that was taken from Mr. and Ms. Taxpayer.You pay to support Elsevier, ThomsonReuters, et al, in the form of taxes and tuition. Journal publishers seem to perceive library budgets the way that petroleum companies perceive oil fields. In case you think this is hyperbole, consider:

An annual subscription to Tetrahedron, a chemistry journal, will cost your university library $20,269; a year of the Journal of Mathematical Sciences will set you back $20,100.

http://www.economist.com/node/21552574 Given these kinds of costs, it would be cheaper for a library to fly the most prominent publishing mathematicians out for a visit and have them lecture on the topics of their latest publications.

Applying a profiteering mentality to scholarly work has predictable resulted in a systematic degradation of the quality of academic output itself. The results are demonstrable.http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/04/20/220201/studies-suggest-massive-increase-in-scientific-fraud

That is a bit of exaggeration - managers are just skimmers as say poker players are. This is only possible if there is enough of people to be managed or pealed off of their money. I suppose that is not a problem as long as the asshole in a suite does not get 50times what I get as a guy whose work finances the asshole. This said - a man in his 40ties is difficult to employ anyway - it does not really matter whether you dig code or kick people out of their jobs - the fact is that majority of us when we reach 40yoa become unemployable - managers or engineers alike. Being a manager means however that you are easier to employ - that was once I think modern 'agile' times mean that middle management finds its life style a bit more difficult to support these days too. So at the end one should ask the following question: if only managers are employed after they reach say 45 what do the other guys and this ought to be majority be doing then - all unemployed or maybe big chunk self employed or doing something different? I think the article is interesting but not giving any answers - it is good to ask yourself a question - why should you shove shit for an asshole in the suite that earns more than you and has no clue not only in technology but also in management?

Illinois is going to need all the help it can get:

Blue State Dems Turn on State, Local Workers
Why Isn’t Illinois A Bigger Story Than Greece?
The Chicago way
Businesses Exit California and Illinois; Tax and Destroy Policies of Governors Quinn and Brown

Bruce Schneier hit it on the nose (and now, former TSA head Kip Hawley seems to agree: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303815404577335783535660546.html [wsj.com]) -- TSA is broken.

I kind of think that Mr Hawley learned some things when he debated Bruce. Because some of the arguments he makes in that article sound a lot like what Bruce Schneier has been saying for a while.

Bad loans were the core of the housing bubble. To understand the reason behind it all, you've gotta ask yourself one question: "Why would lenders make loans that are unlikely to be repaid?" Answering that question leads to the answer behind the bubble. It was a bubble in supposedly AAA-rated mortgage debt.

Here's how it worked:
1) Securitization of mortgages into MBS (mortgage-backed securities).
2) Banks made money from selling the loans to securitizers and getting them off their books, not keeping them and collecting interest.
3) Demand for these securities skyrocketed, as they were thought to be safe and reliable income streams.
3) This led to the utter deterioration of loan quality, as banks basically just needed to get warm bodies to make loans to, create the loan and sell it. You started seeing things like NINJA loans (No Income No Job or Assets - NINJA) and option ARM loans made to risky borrowers. All included in securities rated AAA.
4) Investment companies bought these loans, ratings agencies stamped a AAA rating on them and the securities were then sold off. Buyers hungry for safe and reliable high interest returns couldn't get enough of it. Thus a bubble was formed.

Basically, for mortgage originators, it was like printing monopoly money, and then turning it in for actual currency. When borrowers started defaulting en masse, the whole house of cards came tumbling down.

Reading recommendations:
1) The Economist magazine cover story, "House of Cards", from 2003. Check out the multiple links to the separate sub-stories that make up the issue under the "In this special report" heading.

Viewing recommendations:
1) The Inside Job - Oscar-winning documentary on the financial crisis.
2) William K. Black interviewed on Bill Moyers.

Hmmm...3d printer porn...internal cavity walls....Yep, that would generate some interest.
Seriously though, I've been a fan of Additive Manufacturing since I read the article "Print me a Stradivarius" in the Economist last year. I agree, AM is very cool.

It’s one of odd things – how do you monitor employees without draconian controls? I think the trust of these programs is not that they can detect fraud per say, but rather they can identify people and situations which generate extra temptation. It does not matter how well you treat your employees, if somebody develops a gambling addiction (see below) it does not matter how well you pay them.

Here's another article.
http://www.economist.com/node/21547833

In this case they are talking about detecting fraud with people who have level access to the books – think rouge trades and embezzling employers. However, from the article fraud comes from “incentive, rationalisation and opportunity”. You try to hire competent, well paid staff and put in controls. However, eventually you hit limits.

From personal experience, I know of a case in my company where a mid level middle age employee who had been with the company for over 20 years developed a gambling addiction. Over the course of 18 months she embezzled over $200,000 from the company via hundreds of transactions. She had been around long enough to know that the individual small amounts would never trigger a review

I would

I'm surprised to hear such sense out of him. Going by his comments in the recent Economist debate featuring Kip Hawley and Bruce Schneier, I would have assumed that he wasn't just unwilling, but unable to do a rational cost-benefit analysis. The mindset seemed completely alien to him.
Perhaps he just had no plausible arguments in that vein, being designated as he were to argue the TSA's case.

Your last comment comment about China is interesting:

The villain in the remake of Red Dawn was actually switched from China (realistic) to North Korea (ridiculous) in order to not upset China (and its movie audiences). I guess the producers figured that "vaguely Asian-looking" actors could just as easily be viewed by American audiences as Korean.

There is "sand" involved here, though: heads are nestled deeply in it.

It's interesting that you and the parent AC believe this is somehow a "war on the academic sector". There is indeed a war, but it's not coming from within. First, a backdrop, beginning with the fact that China is on track to exceed US military spending by 2025:

Chinese Insider Offers Rare Glimpse of U.S.-China Frictions
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/world/asia/chinese-insider-offers-rare-glimpse-of-us-china-frictions.html

"The senior leadership of the Chinese government increasingly views the competition between the United States and China as a zero-sum game, with China the likely long-range winner if the American economy and domestic political system continue to stumble, according to an influential Chinese policy analyst. China views the United States as a declining power, but at the same time believes that Washington is trying to fight back to undermine, and even disrupt, the economic and military growth that point to China’s becoming the world’s most powerful country."

Asia's balance of power: China’s military rise
http://www.economist.com/node/21552212

"NO MATTER how often China has emphasised the idea of a peaceful rise, the pace and nature of its military modernisation inevitably cause alarm. As America and the big European powers reduce their defence spending, China looks likely to maintain the past decade’s increases of about 12% a year. Even though its defence budget is less than a quarter the size of America’s today, China’s generals are ambitious. The country is on course to become the world’s largest military spender in just 20 years or so."

China’s military rise: The dragon’s new teeth
http://www.economist.com/node/21552193

And now on to what's happening every day in US academic and business environments:

How China Steals Our Secrets
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/opinion/how-china-steals-our-secrets.html

China's Cyber Thievery Is National Policy—And Must Be Challenged
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203718504577178832338032176-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwOTEwNDkyWj.html

FBI Traces Trail of Spy Ring to China
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203961204577266892884130620-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwNzEwNDcyWj.html

NSA: China is Destroying U.S. Economy Via Security Hacks
http://www.dailytech.com/NSA+China+is+Destroying+US+Economy+Via+Security+Hacks/article24328.htm

Former cybersecurity czar: Every major U.S. company has been hacked by China
http://www.itworld.com/security/262616/former-cybersecurity-czar-every-major-us-company-has-been-hacked-china

China Att

Your last comment comment about China is interesting:

The villain in the remake of Red Dawn was actually switched from China (realistic) to North Korea (ridiculous) in order to not upset China (and its movie audiences). I guess the producers figured that "vaguely Asian-looking" actors could just as easily be viewed by American audiences as Korean.

There is "sand" involved here, though: heads are nestled deeply in it.

It's interesting that you and the parent AC believe this is somehow a "war on the academic sector". There is indeed a war, but it's not coming from within. First, a backdrop, beginning with the fact that China is on track to exceed US military spending by 2025:

Chinese Insider Offers Rare Glimpse of U.S.-China Frictions
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/world/asia/chinese-insider-offers-rare-glimpse-of-us-china-frictions.html

"The senior leadership of the Chinese government increasingly views the competition between the United States and China as a zero-sum game, with China the likely long-range winner if the American economy and domestic political system continue to stumble, according to an influential Chinese policy analyst. China views the United States as a declining power, but at the same time believes that Washington is trying to fight back to undermine, and even disrupt, the economic and military growth that point to China’s becoming the world’s most powerful country."

Asia's balance of power: China’s military rise
http://www.economist.com/node/21552212

"NO MATTER how often China has emphasised the idea of a peaceful rise, the pace and nature of its military modernisation inevitably cause alarm. As America and the big European powers reduce their defence spending, China looks likely to maintain the past decade’s increases of about 12% a year. Even though its defence budget is less than a quarter the size of America’s today, China’s generals are ambitious. The country is on course to become the world’s largest military spender in just 20 years or so."

China’s military rise: The dragon’s new teeth
http://www.economist.com/node/21552193

And now on to what's happening every day in US academic and business environments:

How China Steals Our Secrets
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/opinion/how-china-steals-our-secrets.html

China's Cyber Thievery Is National Policy—And Must Be Challenged
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203718504577178832338032176-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwOTEwNDkyWj.html

FBI Traces Trail of Spy Ring to China
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203961204577266892884130620-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwNzEwNDcyWj.html

NSA: China is Destroying U.S. Economy Via Security Hacks
http://www.dailytech.com/NSA+China+is+Destroying+US+Economy+Via+Security+Hacks/article24328.htm

Former cybersecurity czar: Every major U.S. company has been hacked by China
http://www.itworld.com/security/262616/former-cybersecurity-czar-every-major-us-company-has-been-hacked-china

China Att

Your last comment comment about China is interesting:

The villain in the remake of Red Dawn was actually switched from China (realistic) to North Korea (ridiculous) in order to not upset China (and its movie audiences). I guess the producers figured that "vaguely Asian-looking" actors could just as easily be viewed by American audiences as Korean.

There is "sand" involved here, though: heads are nestled deeply in it.

It's interesting that you and the parent AC believe this is somehow a "war on the academic sector". There is indeed a war, but it's not coming from within. First, a backdrop, beginning with the fact that China is on track to exceed US military spending by 2025:

Chinese Insider Offers Rare Glimpse of U.S.-China Frictions
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/world/asia/chinese-insider-offers-rare-glimpse-of-us-china-frictions.html

"The senior leadership of the Chinese government increasingly views the competition between the United States and China as a zero-sum game, with China the likely long-range winner if the American economy and domestic political system continue to stumble, according to an influential Chinese policy analyst. China views the United States as a declining power, but at the same time believes that Washington is trying to fight back to undermine, and even disrupt, the economic and military growth that point to China’s becoming the world’s most powerful country."

Asia's balance of power: China’s military rise
http://www.economist.com/node/21552212

"NO MATTER how often China has emphasised the idea of a peaceful rise, the pace and nature of its military modernisation inevitably cause alarm. As America and the big European powers reduce their defence spending, China looks likely to maintain the past decade’s increases of about 12% a year. Even though its defence budget is less than a quarter the size of America’s today, China’s generals are ambitious. The country is on course to become the world’s largest military spender in just 20 years or so."

China’s military rise: The dragon’s new teeth
http://www.economist.com/node/21552193

And now on to what's happening every day in US academic and business environments:

How China Steals Our Secrets
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/opinion/how-china-steals-our-secrets.html

China's Cyber Thievery Is National Policy—And Must Be Challenged
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203718504577178832338032176-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwOTEwNDkyWj.html

FBI Traces Trail of Spy Ring to China
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203961204577266892884130620-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwNzEwNDcyWj.html

NSA: China is Destroying U.S. Economy Via Security Hacks
http://www.dailytech.com/NSA+China+is+Destroying+US+Economy+Via+Security+Hacks/article24328.htm

Former cybersecurity czar: Every major U.S. company has been hacked by China
http://www.itworld.com/security/262616/former-cybersecurity-czar-every-major-us-company-has-been-hacked-china

China Att

The statement about mean IQ is somewhat accurate. However, there are subtle issues going on here. IQ is to some extent impacted by early childhood nutrition :, how much children are subject to disease http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1701/3801, http://www.economist.com/node/16479286, toxin exposure http://www.ricknevin.com/uploads/Nevin_2000_Env_Res_Author_Manuscript.pdf and stereotype threat (essentially there's evidence that reminding a group about negative stereotypes about the group can cause them to perform more poorly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat ). So the problem with 11 isn't so much that it is false (the statistics are very robust) but that they likely don't reflect actual differences in underlying intelligence except at a very broad level. In this case, one could actually respond that the issues of nutrition and disease aren't that relevant if one cares about the actual intelligence of the individuals one is interacting with; their functional intelligence is likely higher than their tested intelligence, since stereotype threat can plausible explain most of the remaining difference. So in this single issue he is hitting on a potentially true statement, but even that statement is somewhat misguided. And most of the rest of the article, including the other bits you quote, is just appalling.

It's not outright fraud that's the problem it's the overlooking of negative results or burying of suspicious methodology by 'sticking it in the supplemental text'. There is such intense pressure to publish that being uncritical, to the point of gullibility, is actually an advantage. People with these traits rise to the top! I was once given the advice 'you need to be a bit less rigorous or you won't get anywhere'.
On the plus side you will meet interesting and extraordinary people.just make sure you pick up enough real skills to make you employable in the real world once you realize you aren't going to make it in academia. check out the economist article on the PhD glut http://www.economist.com/node/17723223.

On a typical day TSA finds 4 guns and various assorted weapons that would have made it onto a plane if people weren't being screened.

Which are almost entirely law-abiding citizens who forgot to put their legally-owned and -carried knife/gun/screwdriver/whatever in their checked baggage.

Not to mention the fact that the TSA's failure rate is 70%. So if 4 weapons are getting found daily, they're missing at least 9 or 10 a day. That's 3,650 weapons on airplanes a year, with ZERO incidents resulting therefrom.

Every single country in the world that has ever industrialized has experienced steep declines in population growth as its citizens become wealthier and more educated. This trend is already very noticeable in the up-and-coming Asian and BRIC countries.

Indeed, but it is unclear when this will happen to populous African countries such as Nigeria and Tanzania. Nigeria could rise from 150 million today to 425 million by 2050, Tanzania could rise from 50 million today to 300 million by 2050, pushed by fertility rates of over 5 births per woman.

Sub-Saharan African population will rise from around 800 million today to 1.5 to 2 billion by 2050. This should push world population to over 10 billion by 2050.

There would have to be a very dramatic political/cultural change in Africa to achieve widespread industrialzation to reduce fertility rates.

Perhaps some good governance might help.

... compared to printable pets, available soon from GeneDupe!

I don't see how your position is any less childish or black-and-white. You make blanket statements about people you couldn't even name and you take complex economic issues and simplify them to the point of "itz all cauzed by teh greedy banksters!". Do you honestly claim to understand the complexities of the events you just listed... or are your "facts" based in populist sentiment? (it's a rhetorical question, the answer is obvious).

You mean, it's obvious that I track economic developments and read economics related news articles?

Good, I was worried you were being a hyperbolic, presumptive ass.

Do we put the government in charge of distributing wealth? If you think that rich greedy people are a problem now, just wait until their money/power is controlled by a bureaucrat who not doesn't care about wasting huge sums of money, and has even less consequences for wrongdoing.

Don't follow the news, do we?

Isn't it interesting that you have so much hatred for people with more money than you...

I don't hate anybody. I hate the way people let their greed blind them to the suffering they cause others, but I don't hate the people themselves.

do you care about the 98% of the worlds population that has far less than you do?

Indeed. I would love to live in a world where those with the most willingly and happily share their excess wealth with the less fortunate so that everyone can live a better life. Did you even read my OP, or were you so amped up about posting your argumentum ad hominem that you didn't bother?

How would you feel if someone told you that you had to give up 75% of your property to make society more fair?

short answer: I'm a survivalist :) material possessions (outside those necessary for survival) mean nothing to me.

Long answer: It wouldn't bother me in the least, although I would question the intent of the person telling me that, as I personally own very little; save the house and the car (which one would assume would be part of the 25% I keep, as we're trying to lessen poverty here, not increase it) might bring a few thousand dollars if you could manage to get retail out of my old, used junk...

I'm not defending the super-rich here, just pointing out that the threshold for how much is too much is conveniently above what *you* think it should be.

And what, precisely, do "I" think it should be?

Oh please, I seriously doubt you understand the true complexity of the world around you.

Considering all the baseless accusations and speculation you've offered thus far, I'm somehow not surprised.

I know it's much easier to understand a half-truth that appeals to emotion than to put in the effort required to really understand something.

See response above.

The idea that the "elites" must be overthrown to get "justice" for the "people" is not new, it has been tried many times but always fails miserably.

Yea, just look what happened in 1776; no good came of that, did it mate?

As soon as group X overthrows group Y, group X then becomes just as greedy and selfish (many times more so) than group Y was.

Change "as soon as" to "eventually" and I have to agree with that one.

The altruistic utopian world view where everyone is equal *and* prosperous is a fantasy that has never existed.

A guy can dream, can't he? (Answer: Yes, b

They'll just spam public internet services to suppress what they view as dissent, ramp up coordinated cyber attacks, make their lawyers swear oath to the Communist Party, force real name registration on internet services, continue censorship of social networks when deemed necessary, and continue to massively build out CNO and espionage capabilities, all while on track to exceed even the United States' defense spending by 2025.

But yeah, no big deal.

Oh please. This is /doctrine/. Every company in China which employs more than three party members has a party office on site ( https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/which-way-for-china-part-two/ ). They don't make a secret of this - it's out in the open because you are officially still a communist country and companies are just... convenient and highly profitable: http://www.economist.com/node/21543575

So don't give me any weasel shit on this, when even your own government still champions it internally.

Ernst & Young has developed software which identifies potential corporate criminals by inferring their mental state from their electronic communications. They are literally policing employees' thoughts: using their mental states to flag them as criminal suspects. Here's an article about it from the Economist: http://www.economist.com/node/21547833

I think GP's post was aimed at the leaches i.e. automatic trade machines and other such things used in so called High Frequency Trading which is a legalized fraud (as they can look in the future of other traders). There was interesting debate recently so you can have a look and see for yourself.

Higher than for Foxconn workers. This has been reported by various media, just google it. The wikipedia article cites this The Economist article, for instance.

Maybe. Or maybe they have their own agenda.

Example: I remember back when India tested its first nuclear device. Supposedly, the CIA was caught off guard. Even when The Economist called it right.

So the CIA is staffed by a bunch of morons, right? Maybe not. Perhaps they have an interest in the proliferation of nukes in that region. Both India and Pakistan have them now. They managed to acquire them with nothing like the screaming and crying that Iran's development program is causing. That was a major failure of US foreign policy. But it may have suited the CIA's interests very well.

Any time you look at something the size of the US government or large corporations, you can't assume that they act towards one goal. Individual internal groups have their own agendas and may frequently work against each other. For all we know, all of this Wikileaks/Anonymous crap could have been engineered by some people to make current regimes inside the Pentagon, CIA and State Department look like fools.

How did all of these accidents happen?
Would a camera have prevented it?
Or will we find new and exciting ways to get ourselves run over because we can't be bothered by our surroundings?

We should consider reducing the amount of silly, wasteful and frivolous laws on the books, before we add to the pile.

I think that front cover of this weeks' The Economist sums up my feelings quite well.

The Economist had an interesting article a couple days ago.. at least it's interesting if you don't really know the details of quantum computing:

Quantum computing: An uncertain future

Each extra qubit in a quantum machine doubles the number of simultaneous operations it can perform. It is this which gives quantum computing its power. Two entangled qubits permit four operations; three permit eight; and so on. A 300-qubit computer could perform more concurrent operations than there are atoms in the visible universe.

Alcohol fueled violence (including domestic), along with multi-car accidents. It's not just some drunk driver wrapping himself round a tree, it's wandering into the other lane and hitting someone head on and causing a pile up, or t-boning someone at a light. Car accidents are the highest cause of death of young men (15-24) in the UK; (followed by suicide, I think). They're also the group most likely to drive drunk. The harm stats were not just about fatalities.

The study that showed harm of different drugs was actually a British study; its point was that many illegal drugs are far less harmful than others, including legal ones, and that penalties for drug possession did not tally much with the drug's actual harmful status; with some near harmless drugs ranked with much more harmful ones. And of course, that tobacco and alcohol were right up there with hard drugs in terms of harm.

"Researchers led by Professor David Nutt, a former chief drugs adviser to the British government, asked drug-harm experts to rank 20 drugs (legal and illegal) on 16 measures of harm to the user and to wider society, such as damage to health, drug dependency, economic costs and crime."

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm

This article struck me as pretty weak. The Economist has done a series of articles on Kodak and I think theirs were much more thorough and insightful.

Technological change: The last Kodak moment?

Kodak's woes: Out of focus

Kodak files for bankruptcy protection: Gone in a flash

I'm not sure how much of that is accessible to nonsubscribers...

This article struck me as pretty weak. The Economist has done a series of articles on Kodak and I think theirs were much more thorough and insightful.

Technological change: The last Kodak moment?

Kodak's woes: Out of focus

Kodak files for bankruptcy protection: Gone in a flash

I'm not sure how much of that is accessible to nonsubscribers...

This article struck me as pretty weak. The Economist has done a series of articles on Kodak and I think theirs were much more thorough and insightful.

Technological change: The last Kodak moment?

Kodak's woes: Out of focus

Kodak files for bankruptcy protection: Gone in a flash

I'm not sure how much of that is accessible to nonsubscribers...

the companies do not have to pay dividend to make buying its stock rational. You may want to have control of the company and get gains other than directly paid dividend or wait till company achieves certain investment goal and buy its stock back. Whatever the motivation you may decide to sell shares and move your money elsewhere. That is also a legitimate way of dealing with ownership of an enterprise. There is nothing wrong with buy/sell game only when it is becoming so detached from reality as it is the case with HFT it may start influencing financial markets in more ways than the ones that are beneficial for real economy. The sheer fact that we talk about real economy means we entered the world of trouble and virtual rights to money that does not exist (which is in a way funny as fiat currencies we all play with are already some kind of virtual beings). OC sticking money in the bank instead of investing is not a problem in itself but possibly a realization that there is nothing (or not enuff os something that) this money can buy? I exaggerate of course but it is a warring sign if many do that. Possibly we got hold of inflation problem by not allowing central banks to print w/o end only to find out that the govs smart as they are just used up money that could have been printed in the future i.e. borrowed it. Well it is a fancy word of financial innovation that economist readers seem to dislike

A lot of people in this thread seem to be coming to the defense of the Japanese university system, but what the poster said is basically true. In addition to not having much in donations, it's not as geared towards research like American schools, being instead more of a place to make good white-collar workers for their industries. They have fewer grad students and less research budgets. I would generally say that the US is better off in term of research.

See this article for an exception that proves the rule:
http://www.economist.com/node/21540228

And those saying that "It's a state matter, the state should fund all reasearch" - you do know that you can have both, right? In fact the US government spends gobs of money on research, the donations come on top of that.

no such thing as free market - it is like Yeti or santa claus, the rest may even be true. Your big corporations are not really yours and were never there to support society or democracy or anything of a kind, the hard rules and people on watch with their rules can force them to however I suppose that that is even what Adam SMith really meant in his wealth.. book.. The economist seems to think that this is what is happening in banking sector (see here. There are also some that believe that banking sector is guilty of problems of the real economy in ways not always apparent: by giving young talent a chance to earn w/o limits in almost no time you get these young people out of real economy so they do not make real money but virtual one. This is changing of course as finance seems to be cutting its workforce these days. Alas next 'nnovation' in finance may be beyond the corner so we will see whether situation will change. But of course the casino still works - we will see for how long.

You should read this interesting article from the economist: Moving back to America

True, not all manufacturing jobs will move back to the US, but some already are. Some are just moving to other low cost countries. But it is hardly the terror everyone paints it to be.

India's latest GDP growth figure slipped to 6.9% and industrial production numbers showed a decline of 5.1% compared with the previous period.

In addition to crowdsourcing accessibility, what about taking suggestions for election mechanics themselves? Our winner-take-all elections effectively squish third party candidates -- a vote for anything but Dem/Rep is wasted, so why do it except in symbolic protest? Not so in ranked elections: http://www.economist.com/node/21533435. Or what about allowing voters to split, like, 10 "preference points" across candidates as they see fit?

The conditions at Foxconn are actually a lot better than what you'll find at most Chinese factories, and the pay is a lot better. That's why there are people constantly flocking to their factories looking for work. Usually it's even worse at the factories making stuff for the domestic market.

But then foreign companies aren't aware of what happens there on a day to day basis, nor do they care. The whole point of making stuff in China is because it's cheaper, they're not going to add expense by instituting an oversight program and forcing the manufacturer to ensure better working conditions. And I'm sure they'll rationalize things by pointing out the situation I've described above. At least conditions at their factories are better than what those workers will find elsewhere.

Then again, as this article in the Economist points out, the Chinese people are starting to stand up for themselves. So the government is walking a fine line between trying to address complaints and keeping the people in check. The fundamental problem is that it's in the Chinese government's interest to keep factories churning out products quickly and cheaply. I'm sure they're very aware of the threat higher wages and better conditions present to the nation. So what's been happening over the past couple of decades is that factories have been migrating West across the nation, moving where it's cheaper.

Once the cost advantage of manufacturing in China evaporates foreign companies will move out. If we're lucky some of that will go domestic. But far more likely, it will migrate into Southeast Asia and the rest of Asia. Actually, China has been doing a lot of investing in Africa. So we may see a day where Chinese companies continue to handle our manufacturing from Africa. But either way it would still deal a very serious blow to the Chinese economy. Despite all the stories of a burgeoning China they're extremely dependent on the rest of the developed world.

The Economist ran an article about China's balance of trade last week which included a breakdown of the value (price) of an iPad. Just over 50% was costs, the rest was profit, of which 30% to Apple (the rest to others in the supply chain). Chinese labour costs were minimal at 2%. They could perhaps reduce their profits to redistribute wealth from their execs/shareholders to the workers.

http://www.economist.com/node/21543174

That is more what I was thinking, instead of adding to the price. If those #Occupy people practiced what they preached, Apple stores would be under siege instead of being mobbed by weeping customers at the loss of Dear Leader.

The Economist ran an article about China's balance of trade last week which included a breakdown of the value (price) of an iPad. Just over 50% was costs, the rest was profit, of which 30% to Apple (the rest to others in the supply chain). Chinese labour costs were minimal at 2%. They could perhaps reduce their profits to redistribute wealth from their execs/shareholders to the workers.

http://www.economist.com/node/21543174

No, the Chinese assembly jobs aren't coming back, and if they do, they'd be done by machine. Even if they did come back for actual people, the only people who would want them would be immigrants. They aren't coming back and we don't want them. They're low paying crap jobs for unskilled workers. What we should be looking at are the more highly skilled jobs making the components that go to the assembling plant. Why are we focused on jobs going to China when Taiwan makes as much as they do and South Korea makes three and a half times what China does off the iPad according to The Economist?

Great article here http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/01/supply-chains?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/appleandtheamericaneconomy about why it's just not possible to do it in the US anymore, no matter how much Apple might want to. In fact, it might not even make sense on the macro level.

Actually, most of the value production is done outside of China. China basically does assembly. For an IPad that works out to about $10 of labor. So the wages in China could double and we would still not see much change in the price / profit of a IPad.

pcic.merage.uci.edu/papers/2011/Value_iPad_iPhone.pdf
http://www.economist.com/node/21543174

Here's a graph that explains it for you.

At left, we see that as people at the bottom of the income spectrum care more about an issue, the probability of action on that issue scarcely budges. At right we see that policy responds a little more to median preferences. But what's clear in both is that the rich are much more successful at getting their issues on the docket.

So no, money alone does buy you your interests. There will obviously be counter-examples. But the policy decisions will largely prevail in your favour unless there is a large countervailing public opinion (as there was with all the examples you've provided). Basically, unless a large portion of the public decides it's an issue, the decision will go in favour of the wealthy.

Money in politics is the single biggest corrupting factor in politics. Remove direct money & indirect money & benefits will be the next biggest factor. & it'll keep going that way, but each time the totals will (in theory) keep decreasing so you're making a net positive change.

>Do you think evolution works like an X-Men comic?

Ahem, there wouldn't happen to be a group of humans who have adapted to being accustomed to higher levels of sun and heat, would there?

Moderately bad scenario: Nordic peoples have to apply some sunscreen.

Worst case scenario: Nordic populations die off, to be replaced by Africans, of whom there are plenty.

Life goes on...

Slightly downmarket, but that's the thinking behind this

They should have just hired an animator to draw th e inside of the reactor. It'd be a lot more informative, and given that the interim asessement of Tepco's response "reveals at times an almost cartoon-like level of incompetence.", woud be quite appropriate.
http://www.economist.com/node/21542437

Fuji thrived while Kodak went bust. The Economist explains why.