Slashdot Mirror


China Bans U.S. Electronic Scrap

ReverseC writes "Think twice before you throw that those computer parts in the garbage. Do you really know where it's going? The Guardian reports China has banned US's electronic junk." We did a previous story about the U.S. dumping electronic scrap in China.

296 comments

  1. USAF junk ? by mansa · · Score: 5, Funny

    So does that mean they're not going to try and get the parts off our planes next time they run into one?

    1. Re:USAF junk ? by Medevo · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps after they stripped the last plane, they realized that the stuff they had stolen wouldn't work unless they learned English.

      Medevo

    2. Re:USAF junk ? by Raindeer · · Score: 1, Informative
      So does that mean they're not going to try and get the parts off our planes next time they run into one?



      That was only to get even with you lot wrecking their plane. But to take this further, maybe we could convince the 1.2 billion Chinese, that you can dump your junk on their soil, if they can dump their junk on your soil.



      Come to think of it, the US might still be better off: It is still the world's largest poluter per capita and *not willing to do anything about it*.

    3. Re:USAF junk ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Come to think of it, the US might still be better off: It is still the world's largest poluter per capita and *not willing to do anything about it*.

      Make us.

    4. Re:USAF junk ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Careful... they might make you eat British food!!!

    5. Re:USAF junk ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shame on the US and USAF for flying our prop plane into their jet!

      Knowing we rammed their cruddy 5 dollar jet with our multi million dollar plane packed with hi-tech gear makes me feel bad to be an American! They're such victims!

      I feel their pain!

    6. Re:USAF junk ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      with you lot? huh, huh...an englisher.

      you know the PLAF's plane rammed the EP-3 while doing a maneuver, don't you? the pilot of the J-8 was known to the u.s. pilots from previous intercepts as a crazy cowboy, and subsequently got the nickname "wrong" wei.

      bad troll, though...didn't work in corporatism, microsoft, or the kyoto accords. anyone can u.s.-bash

    7. Re:USAF junk ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was only to get even with you lot wrecking their plane.

      Hehe. Yeah. We used our MIND CONTROL BEAM to tell their stupid pilot, "HEY, why not FLY INTO THE USA's PLANE!!?" And of course the pilot, being a weak-minded Chinese drone, did just that!!!!

    8. Re:USAF junk ? by Kylow · · Score: 1

      But the point is that the spy plane never should have been there in the first place.

    9. Re:USAF junk ? by Kylow · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Gee, I sure wish you'd tell me where I can buy an F-8 for 5 bucks. After all, its only a newer, fresher version of Russia's MiG-21. Maybe I should check pricewatch!

    10. Re:USAF junk ? by pajor · · Score: 1

      Yeah it shouldn't have been in open free international airspace way outside the chinese jurisdiction. Such legal actions totally should be punished by having a jet rammed into a slow moving plane.

      --
      Gnuyen
    11. Re:USAF junk ? by saden1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Which is harder to learn English or Chinese? You underestimate peoples intelligence.

      Never Underestimate the power of stupid people is large groups

      Yeah and you are at the forefront of that group...Once more you prove that collectively, Americans are as dumb as an Ox. Oh yeah and one more nugget for you: A recently published study said that 40% of American scientist and engineers are naturalized citizens (foreigners).

      --

      -----
      One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
    12. Re:USAF junk ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, this makes sense now.

      That *jet* that our *propellor* plane rammed into and maliciously attacked with it's *propellors* was worth a lot more than I thought.

      Now I know why our *prop* driven plane rammed their *jet*.

      Thanks for clearing this up for me.

      Slashdot abounds with geniuses.

    13. Re:USAF junk ? by saden1 · · Score: 1

      weak-minded?? The weakest minds in the world are here in America (right wing are 40 million strong). Typical American! There are areas in the world where people live a simple life but that doesn't mean they are weak-minded. They probably know more about world affairs than your typical American thanks to the BBC.

      --

      -----
      One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
    14. Re:USAF junk ? by Kylow · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, China claims 200 miles of airspace surrounding its landmass, and the plane was 60 miles off the coast when the incident took place. Top Speed for an EP-3 is 345 knots, which could have put it over Chinese soil in 9 minutes. These are numbers that would alarm most Americans if the situation were reversed. Of course, many Americans also have a limited world-view, obscured by things like nationalism, so it does make sense that there weren't many Americans speaking against our actions.

      But then, this isn't the first time the U.S. has thrown itself in over its head and had to demand that prisoners be released. Remember that little incident in Bosnia? There was a little tiff brewing in Bosnia where U.S. soldiers had been stationed that hardly got media play. If it did, it was always the last or next to last story on the news, coming just after the local story about the kitten being rescued from a tree. While on a training mission, traveling in Hummers, some soldiers accidentally crossed the border by several miles. When they did, they were captured. Suddenly it was the top story, and U.S. officials were practically calling for blood. The sentiment was "How DARE you capture and detain our soldiers who were illegally trespassing on your soil?!" Bosnian officials said that they were pondering trying these doughboys for their crime. Under the threat of harsh U.S. aggression, they were finally released and allowed to return home. The point here is that is was a non-story for Americans until 3 American soldiers were captured. Little did it matter that Bosnian civilians were dying daily from U.S. bombing missions that were hitting civilian marketplaces, and at one point, the Chinese Embassy. Its this kind of blind, stupid patriotism that gets us into trouble with the world community, and makes even our allies hesitate before hopping into military operations with us.

    15. Re:USAF junk ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shut up Commie. Go back to your workers heaven.

    16. Re:USAF junk ? by bleckywelcky · · Score: 1


      Um, I think you are forgetting what America is all about. The point of America, is it's a melting pot of cultures. Naturalized citizens are there for a reason, and because of that they're Americans. Sure, the guy down the road that runs the Quickie Mart and barely speaks a word of English may not seem all that American, but he is here for a reason, and that reason is the idea behind America, that guy embodies the American idea, and is thereby very American.

    17. Re:USAF junk ? by Medevo · · Score: 1

      Another fact to consider is that I am not American; I come from the frozen land north of Montana

      Some call it Canada (specifically Alberta)

      Medevo

    18. Re:USAF junk ? by Kylow · · Score: 0

      People undervalue the danger spy planes can pose. The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction states that intelligent governments will not attempt to destroy another country if they believe that country can and will destroy them in return. To allow another country to find a flaw in your defense is to open the door to an attack. After that, the only thing keeping them from attacking you is their good intentions (yea, right) and their interest in maintaining a good reputation in the world community. This latter can easily be dodged by creating a controversy worth going to war over. Before WWI, for example, the Germans sank a cargo and passenger ship named Lusitania, claiming that they had reason to believe munitions were aboard. United States officials, including the president, called them liars and used this opportunity to fire up a nation that had been fairly isolationist. It was not until many years after the war that it was discovered that the Lusitania really DID have munitions aboard.

      Given that we were VERY ACTIVELY spying on China, attempting to discover a chink in their armor, it is possible that a similar situation could be concocted giving us supposedly just cause to go to war. This alone, in my very humble opinion, is just cause for fighters to accompany a US plane and ensure that it doesn't get too close to Chinese soil. Of course, the accident was just that...an accident. One of the pilots made an error at some point and both planes were damaged.

      But you seem to feel that the U.S. plane was justified in its espionage, and had a God granted right to be collecting radio transmissions and the like from the Chinese coast. A Chinese pilot lies dead at the bottom of the ocean somewhere and you sarcastically quip, "makes me feel bad to be an American! They're such victims! I feel their pain!" Pretend you're Chinese for a minute, and imagine that's the sort of attitude you're getting from the United States government. Your fellow citizen is not even buried yet, and U.S. officials are demanding that you not try to spy on their technology... Technology that was being used to SPY ON YOU! Do you not see the hypocrisy in that?

      I may not agree with you on much, but we do agree on one thing. Slashdot does indeed abound with "geniuses".

    19. Re:USAF junk ? by AndrewRUK · · Score: 0

      Last I checked, Canada was on the continent of America, thus you are an American. Unless, of course, you've been busy with the hacksaws recently, and sliced yourselves off from the USA.
      Yeah, I know, I'm being pedantic, but it's 10 to 3 in the morning...

    20. Re:USAF junk ? by bleckywelcky · · Score: 1


      Your point? Might makes right. That's the way it's always been, and that's the way it will always be. Back in the days of cavemen, the strongest ones got to eat first and the most, had their choice of mates, and took the best caves. And that pattern continued on through every single era of history. Now mind you, the seemingly mightiest person or group may have not actually been the mightiest in a certain situation (i.e. the Americans in the Civil War, etc). And who was/is the mightiest is changed about. But however you look at it, whoever has the most power makes the rules (to some extent... if many other smaller powers join together, they will then become more powerful than the single power, and they will make the rules). The U.S. was right in telling Bosnia to fuck off. There is no reason some puny country with 4 million people, that covers 50 thousand sq km, with a $USD 1.9 billion GDP should boss around a super power with 280 million people, that covers 10 million sq km, with a $USD 10 trillion GDP. Bosnia was an ant trying to push around a mammoth, and the U.S. would have had every right to storm in there with hundreds of war planes and thousands of military personnel telling Bosnia to give us our guys back or we would tear them to shreds (mainly just destroy their military). Bosnia was way out of their league and needed to be put in their place.

    21. Re:USAF junk ? by SEWilco · · Score: 2
      "...maybe we could convince the 1.2 billion Chinese, that you can dump your junk on their soil, if they can dump their junk on your soil.
      Come to think of it, the US might still be better off: It is still the world's largest poluter per capita and *not willing to do anything about it*."

      China is polluting the USA soil. Actually, a lot of the pollution is their soil. Fortunately, they have a large population to reduce the pollution per capita.

    22. Re:USAF junk ? by Kylow · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You make an excellent point, but keep in mind that there was a time when kings who believed in the 'might makes right' doctrine lost their heads. Of course, that hasn't stopped people ever since from overestimating their power. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kruschev, Lyndon Johnson, Napoleon, Alexander the Great...the list is endless.

      The real problem here is that strong-arming smaller countries makes us look worse every day to the world community. I constantly hear talk on the major news sources about Muslims hating us because of our extravagant lifestyle, and that may play some small part, but the real cause for their anger is the things we do that meddle in other countries' politics. I heard an interview on Pacifica with a Palestinian girl who said that she went out for a walk one day after a vicious Israeli attack, and she found a fragment of a missile with USA stamped on the side. Sometimes we supply a rebel group or government with weapons and it works out well for us, but far more often, as was the case with supplying Israel and other Arab enemies, we end up with skyscrapers acting as landing strips. Not that I condone those terrorist acts, but Osama bin Laden would not have NEARLY the popularity in the Arab community with regular people if we weren't meddling, and we wouldn't have dead civilians.

      Still don't believe the trouble we cause for ourselves? Consider Cuba. It used to be a resort with gambling and beautiful beaches and hotels. Then someone in U.S. foreign policy decided that we didn't like the government that housed it, and the United States government armed a young revolutionary named... can you guess? Fidel Castro. Shortly thereafter, Castro overthrows the government, establishes communist rule, and points medium range ICBM's at us.

      Or perhaps something a little more modern? In the 70's Russia had a border dispute with Afghanistan and decided to invade. There was a group of fighters known as the mujahadeen who was trying unsuccessfully to fight off the more experienced Russian troops. Lo and behold, the United States forks over some heavy duty weapons, and Russia spends 10 years of failure trying to penetrate Afghanistan. High in the ranks of these mujahadeen is a now heavily armed man named Osama bin Laden. Oops.

      You asked my point. I suppose its that we would be wise to take a far more isolationist view in our foreign policy and stop letting other countries' troops fight wars that are in our interest.

    23. Re:USAF junk ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "But you seem to feel that the U.S. plane was justified in its espionage, and had a God granted right to be collecting radio transmissions and the like from the Chinese coast."

      No. I feel it was stupid that the earlier poster claimed our plane had attacked/rammed their plane.

      As far as our God given right to do anything, the entire universe is a "might makes right" kind of place. The only rights anyone has are the ones that can be enforced.

      We spy on them. Yes.
      They spy on us. Yes.

      We spy on our enemies, our allies, everyone.

      They all spy on us, each other, everyone.

      You make it sound like spying is this bizarre thing unique to the US that we inflict on the poor Chinese.

      As far as the "poor dead pilot" goes... if he didn't fly his jet into the propellors and wasn't a hot dog idiot, he'd be alive today.

    24. Re:USAF junk ? by Medevo · · Score: 1

      To many Americans, the difference between Americans and Canadians seems to be little, however, in Canada we see ourselves as a different people
      Here are some examples
      Canada - America
      Politically Left - Politically Right
      Central Gov'nt - Decentralized gov'nt
      Bilingual - Single Language
      Diverse People - Melting pot
      Against War - For War (don't deny it)

      I think that is enough.

      Just because Germany and France are beside each other doesn't mean there people think the same things

      Medevo

      PS since I realize you are not American I just want you to know that I am NOT A AMERICAN, even if I live in North America

    25. Re:USAF junk ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The BBC, yes that bastion of neutrality and honest reporting!

      But since you automatically place all people who don't think just like you and share your politics in the idiot category, you probably see the BBC as a source of journalistic integrity and honesty or maybe even right wing.

      "You're right wing and therefore an idiot" says nothing more than "you disagree with me and are therefore an idiot and a poopyhead too!"

      You can't be taken seriously after making a statement like that.

    26. Re:USAF junk ? by bleckywelcky · · Score: 1


      Actually I agree with a lot more of what you were/are saying than I led on to. I think the U.S. is really hipocritical and ignorant (mainly in hindsight) in many of its actions. And, I think we attack (figuratively) many situations from the wrong angle. We spend too much time in many countries with the wrong interests and not enough time in other countries with better interests. Our Middle East interests are mainly in oil, and that can be argued different ways - but personally I don't think we should spend so much time protecting certain American's priveleges to drive gas-guzzling SUVs at $1.50/Gallon when many other countries pay the equivalent of $4.00/Gallon to drive 6 or 4 cylinder compacts. People were ridiculously yelling "highway robbery" when prices jumped from $1.00 to $1.20 (oh no...) and are still yelling that today as they move towards/past $1.50. I recall a figure that during the oil crisis in England, a small town just outside of London that housed crafts and trinkets shops for tourism had a gas station selling gas for the equivalent of $60/gallon. I would imagine people having heart attacks at an alarming rate if that ever happened here.

      I knew you had a point that was behind your actual arguments, but the face value of what you were saying cried "lay of the little countries and help them be equivalent to countries 10x more powerful and richer" and it basically sounded like communism where countries = people.

    27. Re:USAF junk ? by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      Stereotyping again.... Yes, ALL Americans are politically right, and ALL canadians are left. All american's are for war. Not ONE of us can POSSIBLY be against it. Those anti-war protests you see on TV are just actors - it's a hollywood stunt paid for by the government in a secret plot. American's are all the same (melting pot.) We are mutt's. There are no ethnic communities anywhere. Everyone speaks english. Nobody speaks spanish, russian, japaneese, chinese, vietnamese, french, german, or any other language.

      Give me a break, troll. You obviously know NOTHING about America or Americans.

    28. Re:USAF junk ? by El+Kevbo · · Score: 2

      Not to be anal, but it was a Navy plane and not an Air Force plane.

    29. Re:USAF junk ? by Inthewire · · Score: 1

      A chink in the Chinaman's armor? No shit? Cool!

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
    30. Re:USAF junk ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, if you are no longer stupid enough to land
      your USAF plane into any China airport nearby.

    31. Re:USAF junk ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, that hasn't stopped people ever since from overestimating their power. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kruschev, Lyndon Johnson, Napoleon, Alexander the Great...the list is endless.

      Alexander the Great? As far as I learned, he didn't at any point overestimate his power. There is a reason he's known as "the Great" He conquered every civilization in his path, creating a massive empire. He didn't "lose his head" by the execution that you imply, but fell sick and died of natural causes. Learn your history!

    32. Re:USAF junk ? by formulax · · Score: 1

      Do you think that it is a shame not to speak a language that is spoken by one fifth of the population in this planet? And who send the spy plane to our country? And who attacked our embassy? And who claim Taiwan as "Republic of Taiwan"? What is your feeling when Chinese send our spy planes to California? Or Washington? How about calling "Republic of California"?
      Chinese people will never be kind to Americans like you.
      Perhaps you just need to understand China better.

    33. Re:USAF junk ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmm...America? Americans? Do you mean Bolivians, Canadians, Argentinians, Brazillians, or what would you call those who live in a country who can't even put an "an" at the end of it's name and have it sound right? Last I heard, there was a continent called America, which had it's Northern, Central, and Southern sections (which are considered continents of their own). But I've never heard of a country called "America."

      PS ... Vote Quimby!

    34. Re:USAF junk ? by Kylow · · Score: 1

      "He didn't "lose his head" by the execution that you imply, but fell sick and died of natural causes." Actually, I never stated that he lost his head. I was referring to kings who proclaimed the doctrine of 'might makes right'. Louis the XIV comes to mind. As for natural causes, the jury's still out on that one. "Once in Babylon, he drank heavily at several banquets. One such banquet was hosted by his friend, Medius. In the Armenian version of the story, Psuedo-Callisthenes wrote that this banquet was a conspiracy involving Iollas, Cassander, and others who were unhappy with Alexander. They gave him poisoned wine, and immediately after drinking it, Alexander felt as if he had "been hit in the liver with an arrow." When he tried to throw it back up, he was given a poisoned feather, which ensured that the poison would reach his blood stream. He proceeded to get very sick and his condition deteriorated until his death." --borrowed from http://wso.williams.edu/~junterek/death.htm As for overestimating his power... "In the summer of 325 B.C.E., Alexander and his army had sailed to the mouth of the Indus River, and they began to march west across the dangerous Gedrosian Desert. Nearchus was put in command of a fleet that would take the sea route west rather than marching through the desert. Alexander, on land, lost nearly three quarters of his army to starvation and the harsh conditions of the desert." --borrowed from http://wso.williams.edu/~junterek/goinhom.htm

    35. Re:USAF junk ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americanism, over done to the point of extremism. -my roommate

    36. Re:USAF junk ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still don't believe the trouble we cause for ourselves? Consider Cuba. It used to be a resort with gambling and beautiful beaches and hotels. Then someone in U.S. foreign policy decided that we didn't like the government that housed it, and the United States government armed a young revolutionary named... can you guess? Fidel Castro. Shortly thereafter, Castro overthrows the government, establishes communist rule, and points medium range ICBM's at us.



      Please back this up with some evidence. As I recall it, the CIA was *helping* the dictator that Fidel Castro overthrew. I've never heard your version of the story and it doesn't make much sense that the US would be arming communists to fight dictator-capitalists in the fifties.

    37. Re:USAF junk ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think his point is that you shouldn't make enemies unless you can't avoid it, because you never know when you might need the support of the people you drove away.

      The US started as the underdog, it may one day be the underdog again. Time has a way of doing that kind of thing. (Just look at what happened to Britain, or Rome, or ...) If the US keeps trying to make enemies all over the planet, then they risk having nowhere to turn to when one day they need help.

      But then politicians have never been good at thinking far beyond the end of their term.

    38. Re:USAF junk ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it matter? There was US involvement, it resulted in the US gaining an enemy. 'nuff said

    39. Re:USAF junk ? by Kylow · · Score: 1

      "Please back this up with some evidence."

      Sure thing.

      "In 1898, Cuba gained independence from Spain, and thereafter, until 1934, it was controlled by the USA, who invested in its economy (mainly sugar and tobacco). FDR granted its independence in 1934, and in 1952, Batista came to power. He was right wing, and so acceptable to the USA, but he was idle, inefficient and cruel. Profits dropped and the US people with business interests complained. From 1957, the US supported the rise of a young (30) Cuban lawyer, Fidel Castro (born, 1927), who led a band of 300 fighters called the 26th of July Movement. They helped him gain power in January 1959.

      He began to nationalise industry, collectivise farms and censor the press. The USA realised too late that they had sponsored a Marxist with their investments and profits on Cuba at risk. American aid to Cuba ended in January 1961. Cuban capitalists fled to the USA. It was not until December 1961, that Castro admitted his government was Marxist. Before this he had been trying to get aid from both the USA and the USSR."

      --from http://www.rpfuller.com/gcse/history/10.html

    40. Re:USAF junk ? by saden1 · · Score: 1

      The BBC, yes that bastion of neutrality and honest reporting!

      As apposed to FOX News? Yeah the likes of Rush, G-Gordon and the whole Fox gang are the pillar of neutrality and honest reporting!

      But since you automatically place all people who don't think just like you and share your politics in the idiot category, you probably see the BBC as a source of journalistic integrity and honesty or maybe even right wing.

      All I was saying is that if you are going to call a whole group of people weak minded you should look at your own back yard first.

      Here what the right wing stand for:
      1. No gun control whatsoever...they can't even wait a lousy 3 days to get their hands on a gun.
      2. They apposed genetic research.
      3. To them global warming is a fabrication.
      4. You are automatically labeled a communist if you want to help other people.
      5. And my favorite...they are for the death penalty but at the same time they claim to be pro-life.

      BTE - Weak-minded != Idiot.

      --

      -----
      One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
    41. Re:USAF junk ? by bsharitt · · Score: 1

      To many Americans, the difference between Americans and Canadians seems to be little, however, in Canada we see ourselves as a different people
      Here are some examples
      Canada - America
      Central Gov'nt - Decentralized gov'nt
      -The US has had an increasingly centralized govenment since the civil war in the 1860's when decentralization lost out.
      Bilingual - Single Language
      -I'm American, I speack three languages, and bilingual americns is a growing trend
      Diverse People - Melting pot
      -Now days most natualized americans try to reject the melting pot and keep their old customs.
      Against War - For War (don't deny it)
      -you've got a point there.

    42. Re:USAF junk ? by Wolfier · · Score: 2

      Not to mention China consistently outscore USA in Mathematics (www.imo.math.ca), and starting this year...ACM as well...

    43. Re:USAF junk ? by jonerik · · Score: 2

      And who send the spy plane to our country?

      You did. You forced it to land.

      What is your feeling when Chinese send our spy planes to California? Or Washington?

      Stay in international airspace and it won't bother us a bit. The Soviets used to do it all the time. We kept an eye on them, of course, but it's not like we ever tried forcing them down and creating an international incident.

      How about calling "Republic of California"?

      Again, it's no big deal to us. Texas-boosters commonly refer to their state as the Republic of Texas.

    44. Re:USAF junk ? by powerlinekid · · Score: 2

      Yeah this is offtopic, but I can't take this crap any longer... mod me down, I have karma to burn.

      Once more you prove that collectively, Americans are as dumb as an Ox

      You seem to suffer from the usual "i'm not an american and all I know is that the united states is full of drug-using, enviroment destroying, waste producing, underachieving, fat, lazy, arrogant idiots" syndrome. Dude, get over yourself. Yeah america is fucked in some ways (DMCA, Bush) but so is everywhere else. I have the usual anti-america angst just like the next guy, but when I sit down and think about I ponder well, whats better. And frankly not much... yeah other places have some things better. But all in all America is just as good as anywhere else.

      A recently published study said that 40% of American scientist and engineers are naturalized citizens (foreigners).

      This may be one of the stupidest points I've ever heard. All I can say is "yeah so". And do you question why they came here? Maybe the scientist from India, China, Europe or wherever find America to be a much easier place to innovate and create new products. Maybe they can make more money for their families. Either way, (I suspect its a matter of both) they're here. I work with a lot of different people (IBM) and we all get along and work together. As for 40% being foreigners, well probably about 99% of that other 60% are descendants of foreigners in the last 2-6 generations. Except for Native Americans who have been here for thousands of years, most of us have roots from everywhere. And you know what? It makes us stronger as a nation. So bash america as stupid. Bash america as lazy. Bash america as egotistical. We don't care. There are some damn brilliant people over here. People fighting good causes and actually trying to make the world a better place. Our population as a whole can be slow at times, but thats the same everywhere. Anyway, I'm not going to change your mind at all... but I'm so sick of hearing this anti-america shit that I figured it was time to speak up.

      -powerlinekid

      --

      can't sleep slashdot will eat me
    45. Re:USAF junk ? by sqlgeek · · Score: 1

      Never under-estimate the ability of most anyone who's not from the States to conflate the stupidity of one American with all US citizens. While that fellow's comments were clearly moronic and xenophobic, your knee-jerk America bashing isn't exactly the height of rational thought, regardless of how trendy it may be in your social circles.

      I realize that I'm likely being a bit (perhaps even unduely) harsh, but this type of anti-American elitism so common.

    46. Re:USAF junk ? by sqlgeek · · Score: 1

      Sigh.

      Ok, your point that the US unduely meddles in other nations' business is spot-on. However you fail to note that pretty much every other nation engages in the same damn'd thing; the US is just more effective (not necessarily clever, "effective") at it because of its political, economic & military might.

      As for Castro, the US never supported him. The States' policy certainly did push him toward communism in general and the USSR in particular, however.

      As for Bin Ladin having been "high in the ranks" of the mujahadeen, he wasn't. Back in those days he was pretty much just a Saudi rich boy who was playing revolutionary dilettente. Please.

      And finally, the fact that Pacifica (heavily biased) reports on a Palestinian (heavily biased) having found a piece of exploded munition (likely) that was labelled USA (unlikely) is a bit unlikely. While it's entirely possible that this all happened as reported, Palestinians have in large numbers proven themselves perfectly capable filling in details to make for a more compelling story (same goes for Israelis) and Pacifica is hardly the sort of media outlet to engage in a hard-hitting objective journalist in the face of just the sort of news that they prefer to report.

    47. Re:USAF junk ? by rhost89 · · Score: 1

      California is the "Republic of California", its printed right on the state flag.

      --
      I will bend your mind with my spoon
    48. Re:USAF junk ? by Kylow · · Score: 1
      Sigh.

      Sigh, indeed.

      Ok, your point that the US unduely meddles in other nations' business is spot-on. However you fail to note that pretty much every other nation engages in the same damn'd thing; the US is just more effective (not necessarily clever, "effective") at it because of its political, economic & military might.

      I fail to note it, because, as you state, the U.S. does far more of it than any other country. But does it really matter? If its American policy and its causing big problems for us, who cares that the rest of the world is doing it?

      As for Castro, the US never supported him.

      You are absolutely wrong here. Perhaps you don't consider CNN a reliable source of news either, but I'll quote them just the same. All emphasis is my own.

      " Early U.S. support of Castro soured when nationalization of American businesses began in the hemisphere's first communist state."


      --from http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/americas/9901/02/cuba.cas tro.01/

      Here's more text:

      " Initially the US supported Castro, but relations soon soured as Castro drew closer to the Soviets."


      --http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/docs/acthis20/info 4- 2.html

      " The US supported Castro's overthrow of Batista and supported those who tried to overthrow Castro. Is the US government merely against any Cuban (or Carribean or ...) government which doesn't toe the US line?"


      --http://phys4.harvard.edu/~wilson/complications .h tml

      " At the beginning of his rule, the United States supported Castro. However, once he embraced communism, the U.S. attempted to overthrow him."

      --http://library.thinkquest.org/20176/crevolutio n. htm

      How many more pages would you like that implicitly state that the United States supported Castro before his communist announcement two years after his overthrow of Batista's government in 1961? Moving on...

      As for Bin Ladin having been "high in the ranks" of the mujahadeen, he wasn't. Back in those days he was pretty much just a Saudi rich boy who was playing revolutionary dilettente. Please.

      Once again, that's incorrect. The Soviet incursion was the birth of Osama bin Laden in leadership type roles. This was when he began recruiting soldiers and raising money to funnel to the cause, and led troops into battle. I can't think of a better way to describe a military leader.

      "During the 1980s, the United States supported several ragtag rebel groups eager to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Americans provided funds and arms, including Stinger surface-to-air missiles.

      "Bin Laden was just emerging as a leader, but he was already an Islamic idealist, clearly with no love for the West," Lacoste said in an interview, one of several with veterans of that period who sketch a similar picture."

      --http://www.hypocrites.com/article.php?sid=5177

      " Bin Laden made ample use of the American equipment lavished on rebel groups during the Soviet resistance"

      --http://news.ozarksnow.com/terrorism/binladen/b in 092001.html
      "When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, he went to Pakistan, where he met the Afghan rebel leaders fighting against the occupation. [...] As a military commander, Bin Laden was respected for his organisational skills, his bravery and, above all, for his ability to survive."


      --http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_a si a/newsid_1551000/1551100.stm

      "The first contact with Bin Laden was in 1979, when the new graduate from the Univ. of Jedah got in touch with the U.S. embassy in Ankara, Turkey. With the help of the CIA and the U.S. Armed Forces intelligence services he began to organize in the early 1980s and network to raise money and to recruit fighters for the Afghan mujahidins that were fighting the Soviets."

      --http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol /w tc/oblnus091401.html

      " When the Afghans under bin Laden, backed by the U.S. CIA stopped the construction of the Soviet-Afghan pipeline, the Soviet Union went through an economic collapse and ceased to exist in 1991."

      --http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/bj091701.html

      "And finally, the fact that Pacifica (heavily biased)"

      Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this. The trouble with media is that you have to have an editor deciding which stories run and which stories are cut or never assigned. Because of this, the final work ends up being some representation of that person's thoughts and opinions. However, Pacifica is one of the few places where you can hear the other side of the story, and I do value it for that. Once again, this is all just my opinion, and I understand why you might disagree.

      "reports on a Palestinian (heavily biased) having found a piece of exploded munition (likely) that was labelled USA (unlikely) is a bit unlikely. While it's entirely possible that this all happened as reported, Palestinians have in large numbers proven themselves perfectly capable filling in details to make for a more compelling story (same goes for Israelis) and Pacifica is hardly the sort of media outlet to engage in a hard-hitting objective journalist in the face of just the sort of news that they prefer to report."

      Whether this incident happened exactly as described or not is not all that important. The facts are these:

      1.) The U.S. DOES supply munitions to Israel, including M-16's, tanks, artillery, and assault choppers, among others.

      2.) Israel DOES use these weapons to kill Palestinians and occupy Palestinian neighborhoods against U.S. demands that they withdraw entirely from these areas.

      Whether Israel is justified in attacking Palestinian civilians is not important in the context of this conversation, so don't get distracted by that. The main thrust of my argument here is that this country gives weapons to other countries and then ends up either in direct opposition with them, or begging them to use the weapons in a manner we approve of. This is short-sighted and has gone on for a very long time and will probably continue to occur for ages longer.
    49. Re:USAF junk ? by formulax · · Score: 1

      Oh, we forced it to land? Who crashed their planes into our plane, just because yours is so much bigger(That's a spy plane, of course)? And whose life is lost? Does any Americans lost their lives? But one brave Chinese did! And we did not shoot the plane down. Since that is international airspace, Chinese planes(including warplanes) have the right to fly as well. But your plane crashed towards ours. And our pilot died, your plane then landed in our country! And lastly, don't try to play word games here. We all know that Mr. Bush's "Republic of Taiwan" is referring to an independent country, right? Don't tell me that you don't know, even a three-year old kid kows that!

    50. Re:USAF junk ? by formulax · · Score: 1

      But Taiwan is not Republic of Taiwan. Even Taiwan's constitution said that Taiwan is a part of China. So bend your president's mind with your spoon before bend mine. Do remind your president to read more, and learn more about China's history. And learn from his father. His father is very friendly with China, wasn't him?

    51. Re:USAF junk ? by jonerik · · Score: 2

      Oh, we forced it to land?

      Yes. Get used to it.

      But one brave Chinese did!

      "Brave" isn't exactly the word I'd use. "Careless" is more like it. The guy was hotdogging; like driving two feet behind someone else's bumper - there's no time to react if the person in the other car does something you're not expecting. You can accept it or not, but your pilot would still be alive today if he'd been flying a safe distance away from the American aircraft.

      And lastly, don't try to play word games here. We all know that Mr. Bush's "Republic of Taiwan" is referring to an independent country, right? Don't tell me that you don't know, even a three-year old kid kows that!

      Frankly, as far as I'm concerned Taiwan is a separate country. They have a different economic system than the mainland, a modern capitalist economy, their own military, free elections, etc. And over the past fifty-plus years they've done well for themselves.

      Despite the usual lip service from politicians about the desirability of reunifying China and Taiwan at some future date, the vast majority of Taiwanese I've met - particularly younger Taiwanese - have zero interest in being reunited with mainland China given the political system there. There is absolutely no way China will ever convince Taiwan to reunite except by gunpoint. China would do well to consider why that is.

    52. Re:USAF junk ? by saden1 · · Score: 1

      Hay dickhead, I am an American. Borne and raised in northern Virginia. Lets be honest here...collectively Americans are dumb. They don't know shit about internal afiars let alone world affairs. As for my comments regarding foreigners...its f'ing true. I can't site here and say nothing with all these idiots in here bashing foreigners.

      --

      -----
      One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
    53. Re:USAF junk ? by saden1 · · Score: 1

      I am an American! Is it really shocking to have an American criticize America?

      --

      -----
      One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
    54. Re:USAF junk ? by formulax · · Score: 0

      I don't want to talk about the plane accident. You know nothing about it at all. Go home and check the newspapers, you fool. And about Taiwan issue. Taiwan is not a country simply because: Only 28 governments recognise it as an independent country(And all of them are very small and poor country), and even the constitution of TAiwan does not call Taiwan as a country, but rather a province of China.(By the way, those 28 countries did not recognise Taiwan as a country, but Republic of China, which covers the whole China, according to the consititution of Taiwan) And that Taiwanese did not want to be unified? You are totally wrong. Just look at the result of their election in 2000, only 39% goes to Chen Shui-bian, who supports independence. And the rest goes to those candidates who want a unification. Most young Taiwanese also want one China. In a demonstration held last Saturday, 30% of the protesters are undergraduates. They all want to be unified.(Again, just read more news before talking about all bullshits here) More interestingly, there was a survey conducted last year, and 60% of the citizens in Taiwan even support the "One country, two system".(If you don't believe it, then again go home and read the newspapers, boy) And perhaps you yourself shall consider why.

    55. Re:USAF junk ? by jonerik · · Score: 2

      I don't want to talk about the plane accident. You know nothing about it at all. Go home and check the newspapers, you fool.

      I have. We have a little thing here called a free press. Check into it sometime. And it's interesting to note that you're apparently incapable of discussing the incident without resorting to name-calling.

      Just look at the result of their election in 2000, only 39% goes to Chen Shui-bian, who supports independence.

      You're confusing the election results of a pro-independence candidate with a referendum on independence itself. They're not the same thing. In any event, I didn't say that a majority of Taiwanese are necessarily pro-independence, but that the vast majority of Taiwanese I've met don't want to reunite with China. There's a difference. Taiwanese are nothing if not practical - they know that an outright declaration of independence would mean war with China within a week. Personally, I suspect that the majority of Taiwanese would choose outright independence if China withdrew the threat of war, but they likely find present status quo - in which Taiwan at least runs their own affairs - acceptable for the time being, though granted, that's based purely on my gut feeling.

      Think about it logically for a second. Yes, China and Taiwan have a lot in common - language, history, family ties, etc. I can understand some sentiment for reunification on that level. But as time has passed you've seen two - going on three - generations of people born on Taiwan since the late '40s who have no memory of the mainland; just stories from their parents and grandparents. Maybe they find China intriguing, or maybe they don't. But they have no direct connection with it. And this isn't even taking into account the ethnic Taiwanese who have an even longer history on the island and make up the majority of the island's population.

      And incidentally, Shui-bian Chen still won that election.

      In a demonstration held last Saturday, 30% of the protesters are undergraduates. They all want to be unified.

      Oh please. I can look at any newspaper in the world and find accounts of demonstrations where some group wants something or another. A single demonstration isn't a particularly reliable measuring stick for judging what a population as a whole does or doesn't want.

      Only 28 governments recognise it as an independent country(And all of them are very small and poor country)

      True as far as it goes. But official recognition isn't terribly important in the grand scheme of things, except maybe as an ego-booster. The U.S. and several other countries refused to recognize the U.S.S.R. until the '30s, but that doesn't mean that the U.S.S.R. didn't exist until then. Or consider the history of recognition of your own country's government, for that matter. What's really important - the things that will make or break a nation-state - are trade relations, banking, investment, and things of that sort. And Taiwan has all of that in spades; none of which is subject to Chinese law.

      Incidentally, are you really saying that the diplomatic recognition of a small, poor nation is less valid than that of a big, rich one? Because that's sure how it looks.

      and even the constitution of TAiwan does not call Taiwan as a country, but rather a province of China.

      Yeah, y'know, I've seen you mention that in several other Slashdot posts, but the constitution of Taiwan is actually the 1947 constitution that was written for all of China, at a time when the nationalists were still running both the mainland and Taiwan. The nationalists simply continued using it after they were forced off the mainland in '49; presumably because they still considered themselves the legitimate government of China. In any event, their constitution has been amended on several occasions since then (all in the 1990s, in fact), and the question of independence would be dealt with similarly. But make no mistake - the Taiwanese constitution is not immutable.

      More interestingly, there was a survey conducted last year, and 60% of the citizens in Taiwan even support the "One country, two system".

      A poll like this is meaningless at the point of a gun, even putting aside for a moment the fact that you don't attribute a source for the poll, the size of the population sampled, or the statistical margin of error. Withdraw the threat of invasion if Taiwan were to declare independence, then take a poll of that sort and I think you'll see some very different results.

    56. Re:USAF junk ? by formulax · · Score: 0
      I'm very happy to know that you understand that the constitution is written in 1947 for all of China. So that means Taiwan was a part of China at that time, right? So tell me, when did Taiwanese annouce their independence? How can a country be independent when they did not even annouced it? Tell me the day please. Don't tell me that 1949 is their independence. Because it is the year that Chang escaped to Taiwan. But he had never say Taiwan is an independente country. So as his son. And Mr. Lee, and, the 'president' now Chen Shui Bian: He never said that Taiwan is independent. In fact, he said that he will never annouce independence.

      You don't understand the international rules about how to diffrentiate a country and a state. No one recognise it, and the UN did not accept it, means that it is not a LEGAL government. And what I mean by saying poor is that Taiwanese is giving money to those countries every year in exchange for their recognition. If they stopped giving money, I do wonder if there is any country to recognise them?

      So you mean that people are forced to tell lies in a survey? Come on, this is just survey, ok? If you talk about pressure, then the pressure from some Taiwan politicians is much more than the pressure from PRC. Some Taiwan politician(pro-independence) can just call somebody as a betrayer simply because he invested in mainland. Isn't this pressure bigger? Some Taiwanese like the idea of one country, two system, but they dare not to speak up.

      I admit that those people who was born in Taiwan may not have a memory of China. But don't neglect the power of education. If you have ever been in Taiwan, you will discover, that the history and geography text books are teaching things about mainland China, not Taiwan. And most of them, most importantly, call themselves as Chinese(not only in the terms of race, but nationality, that is different in Chinese language, so I can differentiate it, for example, Singaporeans call themselves as Hua Ren, but Taiwanese call themselves Zhong Guo Ren). Now come to the demonstration. This demonstration is pro-unification. The reason I mention that 30% of the demonstrators are undergraduates is to tell you that not all youngsters are against unification. That demonstration is definetely not a small one, it is organised by an organisation called Organisation of China Unification.

      The best proof of Taiwan is not independent come from those pro-independence guys. They held a demonstration as well last month, calling the government to annouce independence. If Taiwan is independence, do the government to annouce it again? It is the best proof that Taiwan is NOT independent because even themselves did not recognise themselves as independent.

      Lastly about free media. That's the most interesting one. Does free media mean to tell big lies on the newspapers. Well, for myself, I've seen many cases that western medias is not reporting the truth, or only half of the truth. The news about Taiwan and mainland is one of them. The plane incident is one. Tiananmen is one. And the attack to our embassy is yet another one.

    57. Re:USAF junk ? by jonerik · · Score: 2

      I'm very happy to know that you understand that the constitution is written in 1947 for all of China. So that means Taiwan was a part of China at that time, right? So tell me, when did Taiwanese annouce their independence?

      They never have, of course. To have done so would have been counterproductive to the nationalists' stated goal of defeating the communists and returning to power on the mainland. The fact remains that the two cultures have diverged a great deal over the past five decades, and they're not going to be growing any closer together in the coming years.

      No one recognise it, and the UN did not accept it, means that it is not a LEGAL government.

      Does that mean that your country's government wasn't legal until 1971 when the Chinese seat at the UN was taken from Taiwan and given to China? You can't have it both ways.

      I admit that those people who was born in Taiwan may not have a memory of China. But don't neglect the power of education.

      I don't, but at the same time I think you're placing too much hope there. When I was growing up in New England we were taught British history since we had originally been a British colony and we have that shared history in common. But it's not like any of my classmates were filled with a desire to be reunited with Great Britain.

      The same holds true in other countries; Canada with its British and French roots. Latin America with Spanish and Portuguese origins. But an interesting thing happens: cultures split as a result of time and distance. At some point British colonists started thinking of themselves as Americans. At some point Spanish settlers realized they were Mexicans. And something like that has been happening on Taiwan for several years, with native Taiwanese and Chinese refugees (and their children) starting to think of themselves as Taiwanese in a national sense. It doesn't happen all at once, and not everyone starts thinking in those terms (there were considerable numbers of British loyalists even during our war of independence). But as the people who originally came from the mainland die off, reunification is going to seem a lot more abstract to the people on Taiwan: "Reunify with China? Why? I've never even been there. Anyway, what have they ever done for us except fire missiles around the Straits of Taiwan whenever we have an election coming up?"

      Oddly enough, China's relationship with Taiwan reminds me a lot of a guy who's just never been able to get over the fact that his ex-wife broke up with him years ago. And he shows up at her house every once in while, yelling stuff up at the window like "I love you! Come back to me! You still love me - I know you do! If you don't come back to me...I'll kill you!" Which is both pathetic and scary at the same time. Trust me, you catch more flies with honey.

      So you mean that people are forced to tell lies in a survey?

      Not exactly, but people can feel intimidated in that kind of situation depending on how the questions are phrased and who's asking the questions. For example, imagine a poll conducted by, say, a news magazine in which the survey question is this: "Yes or no - Do you favor the creation of a national secret police force which would be answerable only to the President?" It's pretty safe to say that most people would answer "No." On the other hand, imagine that you're called at home by someone who identifies himself as working for the government and are asked this question: "Yes or no - You wouldn't be opposed the creation of a national secret police force which would be answerable only to the President, would you?" Subtly different, yet intimidating.

      In any event, I took about a half-dozen statistics courses in college and part of my job has to do with statistical analysis. For that reason I'm always suspicious of surveys unless I know the source, the methodology, the sample size, and the way the questions were phrased. In the case of the independence question, that puts an additional twist on the survey since a threat of war enters into the equation.

      The best proof of Taiwan is not independent come from those pro-independence guys. They held a demonstration as well last month, calling the government to annouce independence. If Taiwan is independence, do the government to annouce it again? It is the best proof that Taiwan is NOT independent because even themselves did not recognise themselves as independent.

      Hair-splitting. Taiwan has never formally declared independence, and doing so would require a constitutional amendment. But, in fact, "the best proof" that Taiwan is independent is that it enjoys all the trappings of any other nation; its own laws, its own military, schools, industry, free and regular multi-party elections, and international trade (including WTO membership), none of which answers to China. As a result, Taiwan enjoys a sort of de facto independence.

      Lastly about free media. That's the most interesting one. Does free media mean to tell big lies on the newspapers.

      Media outlets in the U.S. have the freedom to do that, though that freedom comes with the responsibility of accepting the legal and economic consequences in the case of libel or if the paper is just flat-out making up stories. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that the press in the West is perfect. My biggest complaint is that corporate interests take priority over honest journalism more often than I'd like. But by the same token, an American reporter will likely keep his job even if he questions an official government account of some event. And even if ABC won't do a story that paints Disney in a bad light, the New York Times probably will. The fact that the press isn't government-controlled here means that a story will probably get out eventually, no matter what.

      Well, for myself, I've seen many cases that western medias is not reporting the truth, or only half of the truth. The news about Taiwan and mainland is one of them. The plane incident is one. Tiananmen is one. And the attack to our embassy is yet another one.

      Well, I doubt that you and I are going to agree on much about those issues. But you seem annoyed about China's treatment from both the U.S. government and the media. Fair enough. But you might want to ask yourself sometime if they might not have a point or two that's worth paying attention to.

    58. Re:USAF junk ? by formulax · · Score: 0
      Does that mean that your country's government wasn't legal until 1971 when the Chinese seat at the UN was taken from Taiwan and given to China? You can't have it both ways.

      Oh boy, you really know nothing. Go and check the documentation about accepting PRC. It did not say it "accept", but "recover" the PRC's seat in UN. For your information, it did not say ROC or Taiwan is not a member of UN any more, but "chase out the representative of Chang Kia-shi". So read more history, ok?

      They never have, of course. To have done so would have been counterproductive to the nationalists' stated goal of defeating the communists and returning to power on the mainland. The fact remains that the two cultures have diverged a great deal over the past five decades, and they're not going to be growing any closer together in the coming years.

      Then they are not independent. No country in this planet became independent even before they have annouced it.

      don't, but at the same time I think you're placing too much hope there. When I was growing up in New England we were taught British history since we had originally been a British colony and we have that shared history in common. But it's not like any of my classmates were filled with a desire to be reunited with Great Britain.

      That's different. You learnt history of Britain like learning a foreign history. But Taiwanese taught their kids in the way that this is their own country's history. That's a major differentce.

      Oddly enough, China's relationship with Taiwan reminds me a lot of a guy who's just never been able to get over the fact that his ex-wife broke up with him years ago.

      Again, read! Reading is fun. History is beautiful.

      So now we come to a conclusion. Taiwan is a "country", but it never annouced independent, the people there refuse to believe they are living in China, but yet call themselvs Chinese. They say that htey are Taiwanese, not Chinese, but yet they are taught with Chinese history text. They are recognised only by 28 countries and not accpted by any international organisations, and yet Taiwan is a country. What an odd country it is!

    59. Re:USAF junk ? by jonerik · · Score: 2

      Oh boy, you really know nothing. Go and check the documentation about accepting PRC. It did not say it "accept", but "recover" the PRC's seat in UN. For your information, it did not say ROC or Taiwan is not a member of UN any more, but "chase out the representative of Chang Kia-shi". So read more history, ok?

      You're conveniently avoiding my original point. Again - Taiwan held the China seat at the UN until '71. They were recognized as the legal government of China until that time. In other words, from '49 until '71 China - your China - was in much the same position that Taiwan is in now. And yet it's clear that China didn't vanish into a black hole during that time.

      My point is that you're relying far too heavily on this whole UN/legal recognition thing. Nationhood doesn't boil down to a piece of paper with an official seal on it, and nations oftentimes exist in fact before being recognized by the rest of the world. Events don't hold still just so they can be rubber-stamped by a bureaucrat.

      You keep avoiding this point, so I'll say it once again: Taiwan's culture has split from China's in a number of ways over the past fifty years. They're capitalist, your country is communist (albeit a heavily modified form of communism). They have a political process with several parties where you have one. They have freedom of religion where the mainland does not. They have a relatively free press while China's is subject to state control. Most importantly, they don't take orders from Beijing. Yes, there are cultural similarities in a number of areas, but one can say the same of the US and Canada. It still doesn't mean that they should be joined at the hip. I'm sure that there's considerable sentiment for reunification, though from what I understand there are few in Taiwan who want to be part of a united China that's communist. So that leaves the status quo and independence as viable options. In any event, the final choice is up to the Taiwanese.

      Then they are not independent. No country in this planet became independent even before they have annouced it.

      They have a de facto independence since they're certainly not under the control of China. Heck, let Beijing try to order the arrests of a bunch of Falun Gong members and anti-communist rabble-rousers in Taipei. What's that you say? They can't? Case closed.

      That's different. You learnt history of Britain like learning a foreign history. But Taiwanese taught their kids in the way that this is their own country's history. That's a major differentce.

      Not really. Before independence we were British subjects from 1620 to 1776. British history up to 1776 was also our history, and it was more or less taught to us that way since their prior actions led eventually to the settlement of North America.

      So now we come to a conclusion. Taiwan is a "country", but it never annouced independent, the people there refuse to believe they are living in China, but yet call themselvs Chinese. They say that htey are Taiwanese, not Chinese, but yet they are taught with Chinese history text. They are recognised only by 28 countries and not accpted by any international organisations, and yet Taiwan is a country. What an odd country it is!

      Taiwan participates in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, the Asian Development Bank, the Central American Bank for Economic Integration, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the International Olympic Committee, the Wildlife Conservation Law, and the World Trade Organization. They all sure sound like international organizations to me.

      An odd country it might be, but a country it is nonetheless. It's one of the world's 20 largest economies and they've built a vibrant, modern society with a standard of living comparable to many European nations. They've earned their place in the sun.

    60. Re:USAF junk ? by formulax · · Score: 0
      Go and check the document. That is what it says. It "recovers", which means that PRC IS a legal government since 1949, but due to some reasons the UN did not realise it, and until 1971 they discovered that problem and thus "recover" the seat, and chase out that illegal representative of Chang. As clear as that.

      You keep avoiding this point, so I'll say it once again: Taiwan's culture has split from China's in a number of ways over the past fifty years. They're capitalist, your country is communist (albeit a heavily modified form of communism). They have a political process with several parties where you have one. They have freedom of religion where the mainland does not. They have a relatively free press while China's is subject to state control. Most importantly, they don't take orders from Beijing. Yes, there are cultural similarities in a number of areas, but one can say the same of the US and Canada. It still doesn't mean that they should be joined at the hip. I'm sure that there's considerable sentiment for reunification, though from what I understand there are few in Taiwan who want to be part of a united China that's communist. So that leaves the status quo and independence as viable options. In any event, the final choice is up to the Taiwanese.

      The whole thing is ridiculous. One China is a fact. It cannot be changed simply because mainland China is a communist country. So what you mean is that if China became democratic, Taiwan became one part of China and once it is a communist country, Taiwan is not a part of it. Is this what you mean? It is true that Taiwan did not obey Beijing, but we never say that Taiwan is a part of PRC, but a part of China. That China can be PRC or ROC, or any others.

      Not really. Before independence we were British subjects from 1620 to 1776. British history up to 1776 was also our history, and it was more or less taught to us that way since their prior actions led eventually to the settlement of North America.

      That doesn't change any thing. You ARE independent NOW, therefore your point of view is very different from the British. But Taiwan, amazingly, still keeps almost the same view as mainland even today. Both of sides said that Japan invaded us in 1937, USA and other seven countries invaded us in 1900. Both of sides condemn these invasions. Both of sides taught their students there is only one China, just one said that PRC is the legal government while the other said that ROC is the legal one. I do wonder if you have ever been in Taiwan.

      aiwan participates in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, the Asian Development Bank, the Central American Bank for Economic Integration, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the International Olympic Committee, the Wildlife Conservation Law, and the World Trade Organization. They all sure sound like international organizations to me.

      These organisations are different. They do not require its member to be an independent country. Hong Kong is the member of these organisations as well. Macau is a member of these organisations.

      n odd country it might be, but a country it is nonetheless. It's one of the world's 20 largest economies and they've built a vibrant, modern society with a standard of living comparable to many European nations. They've earned their place in the sun.

      They will not. Actually they are the best example of how democracy will affect one country's economy when the country is not ready. Just look at their news, there are fights between election candidates everywhere, there are news about illegal political trade everywhere. In the past two years when the new government come to power, they have already used up the money they saved for more than fifty years. The biggest problem for Taiwan is that they have democracy before they have a strong middle class. Their economy will collapse if this kind of situation continues.

    61. Re:USAF junk ? by jonerik · · Score: 2

      Go and check the document. That is what it says. It "recovers", which means that PRC IS a legal government since 1949, but due to some reasons the UN did not realise it, and until 1971 they discovered that problem and thus "recover" the seat, and chase out that illegal representative of Chang. As clear as that.

      What do you mean "discovered the problem?" You mean they didn't realize until 1971 that something on the order of 800 million people weren't recognized by the UN? C'mon, don't be disingenuous. You're more intelligent than that.

      So what you mean is that if China became democratic, Taiwan became one part of China and once it is a communist country, Taiwan is not a part of it.

      More or less. Taiwan doesn't take part in the day-to-day affairs of the Chinese government and the reverse is also true.

      These organisations are different. They do not require its member to be an independent country. Hong Kong is the member of these organisations as well. Macau is a member of these organisations.

      As are also a number of legitimate nations. In any event, you're being evasive. First you say that Taiwan belongs to no international organizations. Then, when given a list of international organizations that Taiwan does belong to, you sidestep the issue by saying that, yes, Taiwan belongs to those organizations, but that they don't count. So which is it?

      They will not. Actually they are the best example of how democracy will affect one country's economy when the country is not ready. Just look at their news, there are fights between election candidates everywhere, there are news about illegal political trade everywhere.

      Believe it or not, that sort of behavior isn't entirely uncommon in democracies; particularly in relatively young ones like Taiwan. It's unfortunate (though sometimes kind of funny), but not indicative of a country that's falling apart because democracy was introduced too soon.

      In the past two years when the new government come to power, they have already used up the money they saved for more than fifty years. The biggest problem for Taiwan is that they have democracy before they have a strong middle class. Their economy will collapse if this kind of situation continues.

      I sincerely doubt it. Admittedly, capital flight is something of a problem for the Taiwanese, but I haven't seen anything that would lead one to believe that the country's economy is in danger of imminent collapse because of it. In any event, far poorer countries than Taiwan have made democracy work, and far richer ones have managed to screw it up.

    62. Re:USAF junk ? by formulax · · Score: 0
      What do you mean "discovered the problem?" You mean they didn't realize until 1971 that something on the order of 800 million people weren't recognized by the UN?

      Of course not. They realised that the government in Taiwan cannot represent the whole of China. They realised that the legal government of China is the People's Republic of China since 1949.

      More or less. Taiwan doesn't take part in the day-to-day affairs of the Chinese government and the reverse is also true.

      No, they don't. But I've already said that China is not equals to PRC. PRC is a government, but China is a country. Taiwan belongs to China, but the government in Taiwan does not obey the government in mainland.

      s are also a number of legitimate nations. In any event, you're being evasive. First you say that Taiwan belongs to no international organizations. Then, when given a list of international organizations that Taiwan does belong to, you sidestep the issue by saying that, yes, Taiwan belongs to those organizations, but that they don't count. So which is it?

      You are certainly more stupid than I think. When I refer to "International organisations", I definitely refer to UN, WHO, and something like these. They are the organisations that require their members to be a COUNTRY. But for those you've listed, like WTO and IOC, their members need not to be a country.

      By the way, Taiwan participate in these organisations under the name of Chinese Taipei, not Taiwan or ROC. This perhaps is another proof that Taiwan is a part of China.

      believe it or not, that sort of behavior isn't entirely uncommon in democracies; particularly in relatively young ones like Taiwan. It's unfortunate (though sometimes kind of funny), but not indicative of a country that's falling apart because democracy was introduced too soon.

      I'm not sure whether Taiwan will be successful in the future. But I know they failed at the present. And for mainland China, it cannot fail a single second. It is a country with 1.3 billion. Once it collapse, the whole world will suffer. Can you image 1.3 billion people that do not anything to eat? Do USA wanna accept 1.3 billion people in starvation?

      sincerely doubt it. Admittedly, capital flight is something of a problem for the Taiwanese, but I haven't seen anything that would lead one to believe that the country's economy is in danger of imminent collapse because of it.

      That's only because you do not read the newspapers. Indonesia is one of the example. It achieved 10 to 12% economical development in the past, but unfortunetely, it is now one of the poorest country in Asia. All thanks to democracy that comes to early. I remember that a Japanese used to say that if democracy comes too early, someday it will become democrazy. That is mostly true in Asian countries.

      far poorer countries than Taiwan have made democracy work, and far richer ones have managed to screw it up.

      It is not a problem of whether the country is rich or poor, but when does democracy come. US is fine in democracy because you've practiced it for more than 200 years, you have a very strong middle class. But in most Asia countries, we do not have a strong middle class. People will really go crazy(democrazy) when democracy comes too early. Let's take Taiwan as an example. More than 75% voted in the presidential election. TRell me what's the number in US. In US, this number is less than 60%, sometimes even less than 50%(in France). Why? because they are "democrazy"!

    63. Re:USAF junk ? by jonerik · · Score: 2

      Of course not. They realised that the government in Taiwan cannot represent the whole of China.

      What, it took them 22 years to reach that conclusion? For people who are supposedly pretty smart, they sure are slow learners.

      They realised that the legal government of China is the People's Republic of China since 1949.

      Hilarious. Listen, Taiwan would still be sitting in the China seat at the UN if Nixon and Kissinger hadn't come up with the idea of cozying up to China as a way of making the Soviets behave. The prospect of a billion or so future consumers buying western products also had a bit to do with it. But don't delude yourself with the notion that the consciences of the members of the UN were bothering them. After five years, maybe. I'd even go with ten years. But the UN ignored the PRC for 22 years because it was convenient to do so. And they've ignored the ROC for the past 31 years because it's similarly convenient to do so.

      You are certainly more stupid than I think.

      Tsk tsk tsk.... Namecalling again. To quote Molière, "A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation."

      When I refer to "International organisations", I definitely refer to UN, WHO, and something like these. They are the organisations that require their members to be a COUNTRY. But for those you've listed, like WTO and IOC, their members need not to be a country.

      But that's not what you said, is it now? Your original comment on that was "They are recognised only by 28 countries and not accpted by any international organisations[.]" You didn't qualify the definition of "international organizations." Sidestepping your original line of argument isn't a particularly effective way of conducting a debate.

      I'm not sure whether Taiwan will be successful in the future. But I know they failed at the present.

      How? Their standard of living is four or five times higher than on the mainland. They have a free press, free elections, freedom of religion, a healthy balance of trade, and are a center of international shipping. Doesn't sound like much of a failure to me. They're not without problems, but I could say the same of the mainland.

      And for mainland China, it cannot fail a single second. It is a country with 1.3 billion. Once it collapse, the whole world will suffer. Can you image 1.3 billion people that do not anything to eat? Do USA wanna accept 1.3 billion people in starvation?

      How in the world do you reach the conclusion that because I believe that Taiwan is independent (in all of the ways that are important) that I'd like to see China collapse and 1.3 billion people starve? Seriously, look back at what I've written over the past week. Believe me, I am not a fan of the PRC's system of government, but the collapse of China isn't a desirable alternative.

      Indonesia is one of the example. It achieved 10 to 12% economical development in the past, but unfortunetely, it is now one of the poorest country in Asia. All thanks to democracy that comes to early.

      Heh. Indonesia has a lot of problems, but too much democracy isn't one of them. It'd be more appropriate to link the country's economic problems to corruption, difficulties with their banks, a weak legal system, a huge foreign debt, and a few other problems like assorted secessionist movements. Not to mention the usual problems you'd expect when 230 million people are spread out over 6,000 or so islands.

      Let's take Taiwan as an example. More than 75% voted in the presidential election. TRell me what's the number in US. In US, this number is less than 60%, sometimes even less than 50%(in France). Why? because they are "democrazy"!

      I'd be the first to agree that low voter turnout is a problem in the US. Opinions as to why vary, though a few of the main theories are as follows:
      1) Cynicism. The notion that all politicians are crooks and that things will be about the same no matter who's running things. A variation on this theme is that even if not all politicians are crooks, their handlers and advisors are so dependent on polls and focus groups that the real candidate is never given a chance to emerge.
      2) Apathy. The notion that what the politicians are talking about has nothing to do with me, as well as the problem that really charismatic politicians who can inspire a nation the way Kennedy did are either hard to come by or when they do emerge, people are cynical about them (see #1). One of the negative effects of both Watergate and Bill Clinton's presidency on American politics was that it's easier to not get your hopes up than to actually be enthused about a candidate and end up feeling disappointed and betrayed in the end.
      3) Disenfranchisement. The feeling on the part of some voters (usually those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder) that their vote really doesn't matter, and, in fact, that there are those in power who would be altogether happier if they didn't vote at all.

      There's a certain amount of sour grapes at play in any of these reasons, and particularly in #3: "My guy didn't win, so somehow the system was set up against him." And there might also be some truth to all three reasons.

  2. Now that's funny by The+Original+Bobski · · Score: 2

    I once knew a fellow back in the 80's from China who was contantly buying up scrap equipment with the intent to ship it home. Now they don't want it.

    --
    satire, n: 1) witty language used to convey insults or scorn; 2) a form of humor lost on most slashdot moderators.
    1. Re:Now that's funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You're full of shit motherfucker. You never knew anybody in the 80s. Nobody bought up scrap equipment and tried to ship it to China. That's bullshit you fucking bullshitter. Fuck you. You're a fucking liar, you lying motherfucker.

  3. I've got a good idea where it goes. by tg_schlacht · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Think twice before you throw that those computer parts in the garbage. Do you really know where it's going?"

    Why yes, yes I do.

    If I put it in the trash it goes to a dump.

    If I take it to a recycle center it is more likely to be shipped to China.

    1. Re:I've got a good idea where it goes. by lanalyst · · Score: 1

      ....not to mention the hole dug in my garage that goes straight to China...

    2. Re:I've got a good idea where it goes. by mrfaustus · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why yes, yes I do.
      If I put it in the trash it goes to a dump.
      If I take it to a recycle center it is more likely to be shipped to China.


      This is generally why I don't recycle anything. The whole recycling craze instituted a couple years back doesn't help anyone but America's enemies. While the American enviromentalists handicap American businesses by bullying the government to protect "the enviroment", our enemies like China, are allowed to freely develop an industry which will soon rival the entire western world. China can do this because they don't have any of these enviromentalists that pressure the government to sign horrible initiatives like the Kyoto treaty (way to go Bush!), or give them incredibly high minimum wages, allowing them the economic freedom to protest in the first place. It's just insane.

  4. toxic junk by Anonymous+Cowrad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems perfectly reasonable that they want to keep lead, mercury and all the other nasties out of their groundwater. This is definitely going to be a problem in the US within the next couple decades, and I wish we were as proactive as China.

    Christ, I just said I wish we were as proactive as China. Has hell frozen over or something?

    --

    --
    pants ahoy
    1. Re:toxic junk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The absolutely hilarious part is that they fucking bought it. It's not like the Americans forced it on them. They bought it. The Americans are just smart enough to get rid of it. THe only reason they didn't sell it to the Mexicans is cause they're still (physically) attached to the US.

    2. Re:toxic junk by Saeger · · Score: 3, Interesting
      definitely going to be a problem in the US within the next couple decades

      No it won't. In the next couple decades molecular nanotechnology will be quite mature.

      Once we have the ability to build things molecule-by-molecule (pollution-free), that would imply we'll also have the easier ability to take things apart and sort then store the basic molecular building blocks for later reuse.

      The ultimate in clean recyclability isn't that far off...

      <futurist>Your home 'trashcan' in 2030 will probably be more like a compost heap on speed, with pipes carrying away the constituent molecules into a future "feedstock grid"</futurist>

      Sorry for going off on a tangent... I can't help myself sometimes. :)

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    3. Re:toxic junk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you take CHEM101 you learn that it takes an assload of energy to break molecular bonds you dumfuck. It will always be cheaper to landfill our old shit in someone elses backyard.

    4. Re:toxic junk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Molecular nanotech does seem like the next industrial ( and medical ) revolution . But how abaut the energy question . When 6000000000 people will want to be far richer than the upper class is today ( whith MNT i dont think anyone will acept the unequalities we have today ) the energy consumption vould rise to whole new levels . I mean even iff we could easely assemble power plants , that to takes energy and we wuold still need fuel (oil , coal ) or set aside large arials for solar or wind power . I dont see how the energy question can be esealy solwed whihtout upploading to energy efficient computers and then who realy cares about the enviroment . So considering that it would be energy consuming to recycle the junk it might wery well be large dumps off toxic electronic junk from an ever groving computer industry even in a nanotech world . There wont be poor people geting hurt taking them apart however .

    5. Re:toxic junk by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      It seems perfectly reasonable that they want to keep lead, mercury and all the other nasties out of their groundwater.

      Hmm. Considering how much of the electronics being sent to china was manufactured there in the first place, it seems fair. Doesn't it?

      Frankly, it would be a lot more cost effective to just create a massive dump in the desert in nevada. There is no ground water so no problems. It's silly to ship this stuff overseas.

    6. Re:toxic junk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yes that's right people, soon all our environmental problems will just magically go away without normal people making any effort.

      What a load.

    7. Re:toxic junk by Morky · · Score: 1

      Excellent idea! Also, the toxicity problem from this electronic garbage is not from circuit boards in their normal benign state, but when the Chinese are extracting metals from them. It is being done by poor people and children using crude techniques and chemicals; they are poisoning their surroundings. The Chinese government is taking a positive step to halt this. An earlier poster is correct that China was buying the stuff, so was their responsibility to do something about the problem. The stuff wasn't toxic when it was sent to them. However, the U.S. needs to do something in general about it's production of consumer waste. Huge taxes on uncessary packaging would be a good start.

    8. Re:toxic junk by Atryn · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that if I can take apart a $100 bill molecule by molecule and record te process, I'm pretty sure that counterfitting new ones would be pretty darn easy molecule by molecule...

      Hopefully we'll have done away with cash by then.

      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
    9. Re:toxic junk by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      No it won't. In the next couple decades molecular nanotechnology will be quite mature.

      That would be nice, yes. But only a fool would base public policy on the speculation about what technologies may be available in the future - what if, 50 years ago, policy makers had decided that by the year 2000 we'd all have flying cars?

      We can't sanely keep fouling the nest with the excuse that e-z cleanup is just a few decades away.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    10. Re:toxic junk by Saeger · · Score: 2
      Your flying car analogy doesn't stick; it was a bad forecast. Nanotech isn't in the same boat.

      Here's how you make bad predictions (from UTF):

      1. Ignore the scientific facts, or guess.
      2. Forget to ask whether anyone wants the projected product or situation.
      3. Ignore the costs.
      4. Try to predict which company or technology will win.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
  5. China bans toxic American computer junk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Electronic scrap puts the lives of rural villagers at risk

    Beijing has announced a clampdown on the import of electronic junk from the US and other developed countries which is being stripped by Chinese peasants in primitive and dangerous conditions.
    The ban follows an outcry by western environmental groups and in the Chinese press about reports that young children are employed to smash up computers and that local water supplies have been poisoned by toxic waste.

    A new list of banned items will include "TV sets, computers, Xerox machines, video cameras and telephones", according to the national environment agency.

    Visitors to villages near Guiyu town in the southern province of Guangdong have seen printed circuit boards and other junk"cooked" over open fires to extract valuable metals.

    One Chinese reporter saw a four-year old girl prising copper coils out of shattered components. "Completely unprotected, without even basic safety goggles, the girls pound away and laugh as bits of metal and plastic fly."

    In Beilin village, the reporter noted, women armed with pliers worked in front of small furnaces "to retrieve chips from circuit boards immersed in pools of molten solder".

    Raising fears that China was becoming a "dumping ground" for electronic junk, the country's environment agency said this week that police would crack down on "the smuggling of dangerous wastes". However, it appeared to leave a loophole by saying that if "proper methods" were used, the environment need not be harmed.

    The trade in so-called e-waste in Guangdong has persisted in spite of claims last year that the provincial government was taking effective action.

    Local dealers say they suspended work while inspections were being made, and residents claim that police officials have been paid off.

    A Shanghai reporter who visited the Guiyu area under cover was threatened with violence when local bosses discovered his identity. Earlier one of the bosses had told him that the local water was so polluted "that our faces come out in scabs if we wash in it".

    Villagers say they know the health risks but have no alternative because the financial yield from farming is so low. In any case the land is now too poisoned to grow crops.

    The environmental groups Basel Action Network and Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition said in a report this year that up to 80% of electronic waste from the US was shipped to countries in Asia including India, Pakistan and China.

    The report cites three reasons why so much waste is exported from the US: labour costs in Asia are very low, environmental and occupational codes are poorly enforced, and US law does not impose any controls on such exports.

    The US is the only industrialised country to have failed to ratify the 1989 UN Basel convention which calls for a total ban on the export of hazardous waste.

    Most e-waste in Guiyu comes from the US with smaller amounts from Japan, South Korea and Europe. The report describes how printer cartridges are ripped apart to extract toner and aluminium, and cathode-ray tubes are hammered open for their copper yokes.

    Because of ground water pollution, drinking water has to be trucked in. Irrigation canals have been filled with broken monitor glass laden with lead, and plastic e-waste.

    Chinese press accounts suggest that up to 100,000 people may be employed in processing e-waste in Guiyu. Hundreds of truck journeys every day bring in supplies from the port of Nanhai - close to the provincial capital of Guangzhou - where the waste arrives in container loads.

    Some operations were halted after earlier revelations in the Hong Kong press, and tougher controls are expected after the new ban. Even if these are effective the problems of resulting unemployment and land contamination remain to be tackled.

    1. Re:China bans toxic American computer junk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you hear Americans seriously asking why much of the world hates them so much.

      It isn't a difficult question to answer.

    2. Re:China bans toxic American computer junk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because our lives are better than theirs and there's nothing they can do to make their lives just as good because they lack the skills and culture required for success.

      For example: see France. Right skills, wrong attitude. Result? Slow spiral into economic collapse and second world status.

    3. Re:China bans toxic American computer junk by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      So...

      They buy our garbage and are dumb enough to let all the poisons get into their ground and water.

      Blame USA!

      Tim

      --
      Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
    4. Re:China bans toxic American computer junk by netcoyote · · Score: 1

      Yep, all the ills in the world are the fault of the USA. We do nothing right.

    5. Re:China bans toxic American computer junk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Your post is logically flawed. The "they" who buy your junk are not the same "they" whose back yards are polluted by it. The US are certainly to blame if they're shipping toxic waste to "waste disposal countries" who they know aren't going to dump it safely. You might as well pay a "waste disposal company" to dump it in your neighbours back yard.

  6. Don't throw it in the trash by rob-fu · · Score: 1, Funny

    Leave it on the side of the dumpster. Someone else will pick it up.

    It's kind of like throwing out old furniture. You know someone will drive past it and wonder why it's being thrown away, and then they pick it up and take it home.

    1. Re:Don't throw it in the trash by Anonymous+Cowrad · · Score: 2, Funny

      A little tip: Never put a sign that says "free" on stuff you want people to take, it'll never get taken.

      Put a sign that says "$100" on it and it'll be gone in two minutes.

      --

      --
      pants ahoy
    2. Re:Don't throw it in the trash by The+Original+Bobski · · Score: 2

      I'd agree. A neighbor down the block tried to get rid of a 12' dish by placing it by the road with a "free" sign on it. It was a month before it finally disappeared. But then, 12' dishes are not much in demand these days.

      --
      satire, n: 1) witty language used to convey insults or scorn; 2) a form of humor lost on most slashdot moderators.
    3. Re:Don't throw it in the trash by Tablizer · · Score: 2
      I'd agree. A neighbor down the block tried to get rid of a 12' dish by placing it by the road with a "free" sign on it. It was a month before it finally disappeared. But then, 12' dishes are not much in demand these days.

      I don't know about that. It seems NASA might have use for them:

      http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/29/212220 &mode=thread&tid=160

  7. There has got to be a way to break this shit down by LordZardoz · · Score: 2

    Surely there has to be a way to break down these plastics and metals in such a way that they are no longer a threat. Burn them at super hot temperatures, subject them to strong chemicals that can break them down, or whatever.

    Of course, the above suggestions are useless, but how much effort has actually been put into figuring this problem out anyway?

    END COMMUNICATION

  8. If only by browser_war_pow · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The US Government would stop letting NYS use Virginia as its garbage dumping grounds.....

    1. Re:If only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that's New Jersey. Take a drive through Perth Amboy one day... it smells like ass.

    2. Re:If only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, those jokes...

      "Can you tell me how to get to Bayonne?"
      "Sure, just roll down your window and follow the stench!"

      "She told me to kiss her where it smelled funny. So I took her to Newark."

  9. question by 0bjectiv3 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does "electronic junk" include Windows?

    --

    "Saddam Hussein cavorts with terrorists."
    1. Re:question by magicslax · · Score: 1

      Probably not. Isn't toxic waste its own category?

    2. Re:question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a troll. TROLL. troll. tRoLl, TTrrOOll, Totororolol, T.R.O.L.L, t/r/o/l/l t\r\o\l\l, trororororoll, trrrrooollll!

    3. Re:question by PacoTaco · · Score: 1
      Does "electronic junk" include Windows?

      You know, it probably does. Imagine how many Windows licenses are floating around in those scrap piles. If we could harvest them somehow, then we could make some serious money. :)

    4. Re:question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it include those dozens of Linux CDs taped on the covers of books and magazines?

  10. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wtf is this offtopic? He/She mentions China in the post. Fucktard moderating.. eat my dick, dipshit bitches

  11. are they afraid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that it might come with linux on em and then it will spread freedom?

  12. Computer Garbage by Medevo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With new modern recycling methods we can remove almost all the re-useable stuff out of computers, so what 'US junk' is china preventing from entering the country.

    I mean if they were trying to block old 486's from coming in, why don't they let them in and build a Beowulf parallel tasking computer that would rival that of NASA's supercomputers.

    Or perhaps this is just china trying to say 'we don't need the USA. The USA needs us. We are in control' as china is shipping us tons and tons of computer parts, and etc that will be 'junk' within the year.

    If you don't try, you will never gain the opportunity to fail.

    Medevo

    1. Re:Computer Garbage by Bartab · · Score: 1


      I mean if they were trying to block old 486's from coming in, why don't they let them in and build a Beowulf parallel tasking computer that would rival that of NASA's supercomputers.


      Power. As in electricity.

      Figure 150 watts per unit. 8760 hrs/year x .15 KWH per machine = 1300 KWH per unit per year. A good marginal rate for power is $0.24 per KWH. Let's say the Chinese are ultra efficient and their wonderfully functioning communistic economy doesn't have nasty things like profit raising costs, so let's give them $0.12 per KWH.

      Let's be really nice and say they're getting loads of 300 mhz machines in (doubtful). The 10 machines required (mhz doesn't just add folks) to equal one 1.7 P4 would cost $1560 to power for one year. More than the cost to buy the P4 itself.

      Exactly how many many 300mhz machines do you think will be needed to match NASAs comuting power?

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
    2. Re:Computer Garbage by ncc74656 · · Score: 2
      A good marginal rate for power is $0.24 per KWH.

      Where? If you're paying that much for electricity, you're getting ass-raped. I'd figure that $0.10/kWh or less would be a bit more typical. (I'm paying about $0.08/kWh, and that's after substantial rate increases.)

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    3. Re:Computer Garbage by Medevo · · Score: 1

      The Chinese government controls the power industry, so getting the power is not a problem.

      Also the Chinese government might not like bringing in state of the art computer parts for its citizens, this would slow down the amount that gets to the government also.

      A last point is that it was a joke, but I suppose everything posted on slashdot should be taken literally.

      Medevo

  13. mod parent post +5 FUNNY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! that is soooooo funny!

    Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like yelling.

  14. Re:Idiot environmentalists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We should turn the ANWR into a new e-dump for all this e-waste.

  15. don't we... by bsDaemon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    import most of our "junk" of any kind from China anyway?

  16. US ban China Junk by Bouncings · · Score: 3, Funny

    The obvious comment here, is that perhaps the US should ban junked electronics from China. (ie; those to come fresh out of the factory)... hehe.

    --
    -- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
    1. Re:US ban China Junk by txdadu · · Score: 1

      But that would be banning trade with China, where would the politicians get funding for their campaigns?

    2. Re:US ban China Junk by Bouncings · · Score: 1

      Damn. You got me there. Saudi Arabia, I guess.

      --
      -- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
    3. Re:US ban China Junk by LinuxCumShot · · Score: 0

      Canada! Bling bling!

      --
      -- OMFG = Oh My Floatse Goatse
  17. question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does "electronic junk" include Linux?

  18. There is by JanneM · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There is. Almost all materials can be taken care of in various ways; for most materials you don't even have to burn it. Some plastics can be reused instead of oil to make new plastics; metals can be extracted and used again and so on.

    The trick is to make manufacturers design this possibility into the products. There is little point to know how to take care of the different materials if you can't separate them cleanly, or if you can't identify the material. In the EU, car manufacturers (and by and by, other product manufacturers) have to take disposal into account, by considering disassembly, marking materials with a material code and so on.

    /Janne

    --
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
  19. Should I feel bad? by papasui · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The article author sorta makes me feel like I'm supposed to feel bad that my old harddrive ends up in China. Now, I don't have any experience with this but I'm guessing that China is purchasing this junk or is atleast allowing the US to ship it to them for a chunk of money. I don't think that we're flying it over Beijing and dropping it by the plane load, could be wrong but I'd think we'd have a few more problems with China if this was the case. If anyone other country out there wanted to house the US's toxic waste I'm not gonna feel sorry for them because their nation is ran by idiots. My $0.02.

    1. Re:Should I feel bad? by Steve+Cowan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well I think the article is intended to be thought-provoking, but there is definitely some sensationalism - I certainly don't think that by putting my old defective TV out at the curb that I'm contributing to the child labour system.

      Obviously somebody is picking up this scrap. Somebody else in China accepts it.

      I fail to understand, though, how this process can possibly be profitable for anybody! Even to paying somebody 5 cents an hour to pick copper coils off circuit boards would probably yield less profit from raw copper than I would be paying for labour!

      Semiconductors pulled from PC boards have no value because they are far too unreliable to be re-used in production.

      Since the 1980's, there is too little solder used on circuit boards to be of any value.

      Big transformers are worth money, but it is impossible to visually tell how they are wound, so there would be a great deal of trial and error in just getting the damn things to work in anything.

      Switches and pots also have reliability issues, and even switches in perfect condition generally have size issues that prevent them from being used in anything.

      Computer cases contain a significant amount of recoverable metals, but they are large and heavy, so there would be little point in shipping them overseas when you could make more money by recycling them here in North America. After all somebody in China would have to make money from this, as well as somebody in North America...

      Is it just me or does this just whole thing seem like an impossible business model?

    2. Re:Should I feel bad? by jcoy42 · · Score: 1

      The article author sorta makes me feel like I'm supposed to feel bad that my old harddrive ends up in China.

      Don't throw out that old hard drive, strip it instead! Inside you'll find a couple of very strong rare earth magnets (scroll down to the section labled Drive Magnets once you get past the ferrofluid) that you can have all kinds of fun with or use to pick up all those screws you dropped when you were building that new computer.

      And the platters make nice wind chimes.

      --
      Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
    3. Re:Should I feel bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you should feel bad... the US is shipping it's toxic waste to poor countries, the money most likely going to a few corrupt bureaucrats and junk dealers while polluting farmlands and rivers - forcing the farmers to dangerously sift through the garbage trying to find enough stuff to pay for feeding their families.

      Basically, the US is causing long-term problems in poorer countries (where the short-terms gains go to a corrupt few) instead of dealing with its own garbage, which it can easily afford to do if it had the political will. But, I'm sure, the Will of the American People is to keep their TVs a tiny bit cheaper by saying "fuck it, save money, who cares what happens to the chinese peasants, it's their own government's fault (never mind that they have no say in their government's decisions)" instead of forcing manufacturers and waste collectors to deal with these things responsibly.

      So, yes, feel guilty.

      [Exagerration, of course, but it illustrates the point.]

    4. Re:Should I feel bad? by isorox · · Score: 1, Troll

      You might as well mod me down as a troll right now, but who cares, I've got plenty of karma :)

      I'm not gonna feel sorry for them because their nation is ran by idiots

      Yet you expect the rest of the world to feel sorry for you because your nation is run by idiots (and corrupt buisnesses)

    5. Re:Should I feel bad? by evilviper · · Score: 2
      You've got to admit that the USA claims te be high and mighty as far as human rights goes. Then go hapilly exploiting any non-Americans that they can.

      Dumping waste in China, NAFTA, Sweatshops in Asia and everone just looks the other way, claiming ignorance.

      "Sure we recieve a device (that takes hours to assemble) for a few cents above the cost of materials, but we had no reason to believe workers were being exploited."

      "Sure were sending tons of junk to China, but we had no idea that Chinese citizens would be harmed by it."

      I believe the Bad Religion song American Jesus sums it up nicely:
      i feel sorry for the earth's population
      'cuz so few live in the U.S.A.
      at least the foreigners can copy our morality
      they can visit but they cannot stay
      only precious few can garner the prosperity
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    6. Re:Should I feel bad? by pyrrho · · Score: 2

      >I'm not gonna feel sorry for them because their nation is ran by idiots.

      why not? that's like not feeling sorry for a slave whose "master" is an idiot. I think this even holds true in a democracy because it doesn't matter what the system is called, only it's empirical real-world performance. How does/is it run? If it runs in a way that the people in the country don't effectively choose who "runs the country" to any degree of control, pointing out their tools of control is a good help, but doesn't make them actually free or in control of their idiot rulers. Under multiple choice republican democracy (aka. representative democracy) each party controls the nomination, they are limited to party members on the one hand, and more or less hand picked on the other. So whatever basic beliefs the viable parties (whom are the effective parties) hold in common, is removed from the choices. To use a mathematical analogy, it's as if you have a vector that can go in any direction except negative-x-ward leaving whole quadrants unexplorable.

      In contrast to this is direct democracy, where, for example, everyone votes direclty on the things that the congress would normally vote on, Bills, agenda, all of that.

      --

      -pyrrho

    7. Re:Should I feel bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that the stuff isn't really getting recycled or even properly dumped.

      The "recycler" charges you N dollars to take the junk off your hands.

      It costs them M dollars to ship the stuff to China, where M N.

      It costs them zero dollars to dump the junk in a river, so profit is simply N - M.

      And M is lower than you'd think--remember our trade imbalance with China? All those ships and containers are already coming here delivering cheap stuff made there, and they have to get back to China to bring over the next load of Star Wars action figures, so might as well make yet more money doing it.

    8. Re:Should I feel bad? by Tungbo · · Score: 1

      You should feel bad that the US government refuses to be responsible for hazardous waste being shipped to locations where it is probably that they will contaminate the environment.

      You should feel bad that the US corporations refuse to include the full cost of the consumption of a consumer item in its sales price as European corporations are starting to do. This distorts the economic equilibrium and passes the costs onto the common.

      Before you say that contamination of another country's environment is not you concern. Think again. In the global market, pollution have a funny way of being cycled around the world. Mercury contamination in another continent, for instance, can easily end up in the fish you eat in your big city restaurant.

  20. Can't break down heavy metals by Roy+Ward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You can't break down the heavy metals such as mercury and lead - I don't think that thare are any harmless compounds involving them.

    It is potentially possible to extract and reuse them however, although doing this probably involves taking recycling (and preferably the cost of recycling) into account when designing the computer.

    1. Re:Can't break down heavy metals by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      (* You can't break down the heavy metals such as mercury and lead - I don't think that thare are any harmless compounds involving them. *)

      If you think about it, mercury and lead come from *somewhere*. We are not creating *more* of it than already existed on the planet. Only nova's can do that (so far).

      Therefore, the solution appears to be to put it back where it came from, the ground.

      Besides, it is usually much more cost effective to simply burry it in the desert. Somebody estimated that the total hard-to-recycle waste of the US for the next 200 years could fit into an area roughly about 40 x 40 x 0.5 miles in the desert. I don't remember the exact numbers, but there is plenty of land just sitting there doing nothing.

      Maybe in 2000 years we will find a cheap way to lunch it toward the Sun or something.

      Anyhow, it came from the ground, so lets simply put it back in the ground. Nobody complained about it before it was dug up. So put it back in a place similar to where it came from.

    2. Re:Can't break down heavy metals by Erris · · Score: 2
      You can't break down the heavy metals such as mercury and lead - I don't think that thare are any harmless compounds involving them.

      Oh, Oh, I know, I know! We could burn them and mix them up with dirt and send them to big holew in the ground, such as abandoned lead mines, then mine them again. Then again, we could just smelt the solder, mix it wit some rosin and roll it up on spools.

      --
      DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
    3. Re:Can't break down heavy metals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the perfect solution to getting rid of toxic materials, bury it in the ground!!! Umm NOT!! When they were mined from the ground, they were already in relatively small amounts. The amount of crap that would be dumped "back" into the ground would be ridiculously greater than was "originally" there... So, just because the desert lands have yet to be developed doesn't mean we should turn them into toxic wast dumps, ESPECIALLY when there's a chance for that crap to get into the water table.

      AH, whatever, some guy in his garrage somewhere will probably figure out a better way to get rid of it...

    4. Re:Can't break down heavy metals by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      (* Yes, the perfect solution to getting rid of toxic materials, bury it in the ground!!! Umm NOT!! When they were mined from the ground, they were already in relatively small amounts. The amount of crap that would be dumped "back" into the ground would be ridiculously greater than was "originally" there *)

      You seem to be suggesting that 1 + 1 = 5

      If you mean that the *concentration* was originally more diluted, then dilute the scrap. Grind it up.

      I intuitively feel that my suggestion is probably impractical somehow, but I have yet to figure out exactly why. The math seems right.

    5. Re:Can't break down heavy metals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I intuitively feel that my suggestion is probably impractical somehow

      I can think of two reasons:

      First, turning the metals back into some less-concentrated form (from which the metals won't simply leach) and disposing of large quantities of that form will cost money, and it may be cheaper to recycle them. There's a big difference between what is technically possible and what is economically possible.

      Second, just because mercury and arsenic and the like exist naturally doesn't mean that they are good for you. There are places where the groundwater is naturally a bit toxic, but that doesn't mean the residents are happy about it. Where are you going to find a community that is willing to say, "sure, make our water toxic"? It won't matter whether you've diluted the mercury; the answer will be the same: "not in my backyard," which, I suppose, is exactly what China is saying.

    6. Re:Can't break down heavy metals by Roy+Ward · · Score: 2

      I'm guessing a bit here, but I've got some idea why your suggestion would be impractical:

      A lot of the stuff that is mined is found in what are naturally quite inaccessible forms such as ores in rocks, which is unlikely to get into the rest of the environment on its own. Concentrations exist because they are trapped where they are relatively stable, otherwise they would have already been scattered.

      We come along and extract the stuff by crushing the rocks and refining the ore (quite often doing a considerable amount of damage such as open cast mining in the process).

      Having done this, there is no way of 'putting it back' as we can't go and embed it back where it was found. We don't seem to be able to create containment that doesn't leak (or perhaps we just don't want to afford to).

    7. Re:Can't break down heavy metals by Master+Bait · · Score: 1
      Somebody estimated that the total hard-to-recycle waste of the US for the next 200 years could fit into an area roughly about 40 x 40 x 0.5 miles in the desert. I don't remember the exact numbers, but there is plenty of land just sitting there doing nothing.

      I think they should put all that waste stacked into abandoned Kmarts. After all, very soon they will be sitting there doing nothing. There still could be crowds of people just standing in front doing nothing, just like they are now. Kmarts are already ugly, environmentally-controlled, storage boxes.

      --
      "Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
      --Tom Schulman
    8. Re:Can't break down heavy metals by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      (* A lot of the stuff that is mined is found in what are naturally quite inaccessible forms such as ores in rocks, which is unlikely to get into the rest of the environment on its own. Concentrations exist because they are trapped where they are relatively stable, otherwise they would have already been scattered. *)

      Okay, so I think what you are saying is that it is *chemically merged* with other compounds in its original source such that it is less likely to seep into the water supply or air.

      Okay, that makes sense.

      And, I suppose it might be cheaper to recycle than to "re-merge" it into its original form.

      Thanks.

    9. Re:Can't break down heavy metals by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      (* Second, just because mercury and arsenic and the like exist naturally doesn't mean that they are good for you. There are places where the groundwater is naturally a bit toxic, but that doesn't mean the residents are happy about it. *)

      Okay that makes sense.

      Now, what if the residents had to pay a fee to have the original stuff mined out, since miners are removing it from their drinking water source etc.

      Then that same money could be used to recycle the stuff later.

      Somehow, I don't think that will work either.

      Okay then, dig a big hole in the Earth and dump it into the molten core.

  21. What?! by JAVAC+THE+GREAT · · Score: 3, Funny

    Who throws away electronics?? You'd have to be crazy to throw away anything, even moreso to throw away electronics!

    1. Re:What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dead monitors are probably the big culprit though. They aren't worth fixing in most cases as it costs about $70 just to have the damn thing looked at by a shop, and if it turns out that the tube is blown, you're better off just buying a new one due to the price.

    2. Re:What?! by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      (* Who throws away electronics?? You'd have to be crazy to throw away anything, even moreso to throw away electronics! *)

      I doubt you are married.

  22. EU Ratifies Kyoto Treaty by YearOfTheDragon · · Score: 1

    Comment by EABinGA: In the real world, economic growth and capitalism have actually been very good for the environment. The richer a country is, the better its environment is.(Score:4, Informative)
    Capitalism isn't as perfect as so many people thinks.
    Capitalism need people worried about the envirnoment, otherwise environment is nog going to be protected.

    Villagers say they know the health risks but have no alternative because the financial yield from farming is so low. In any case the land is now too poisoned to grow crops.
    At China capitalism didn't work so fine either.
    Capitalism don't exclude solidarity with other people, or other countries.

    Who thinks that all is fine with the current system, needs to think more about it.

    --
    -= If you fight Dragons long enough, you will become a Dragon =-
  23. Xerox Machines? by scrote-ma-hote · · Score: 1
    A new list of banned items will include "TV sets, computers, Xerox machines, video cameras and telephones"

    Cool, we can just sell those non-Xerox photocopiers to the Chinese. Sweet. I feel a bit sorry for Xerox though. Maybe they could remove the label that says it or something...

  24. Re:There has got to be a way to break this shit do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure there is, let me explain the current method:

    1. Asia produces massive amounts of technical hardware, everything from memory to motherboards.

    2. Asia ships the hardware to the US, where the price is drastically marked up, various letters of the alphabet are pulled out of managers asses to produces the markets name, which is really just an acronym, and we purchase the product.

    3. We use the product. Rather than throw it out, we ship it back to asia - dumping it riverside. Poor asian peasants than search through the refuse, *automatically* separating the valuable components from the garbage, and then trade it for fish.

  25. another insidious CIA plor foiled.... by catalina · · Score: 1

    Aha! They caught on to the CIA plot to slowly poison their youth, so that when W. decides to take the war to China, they won't have enough strength to resist.

    1. Re:another insidious CIA plor foiled.... by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      (* Aha! They caught on to the CIA plot to slowly poison their youth, so that when W. decides to take the war to China, they won't have enough strength to resist. *)

      Philip Morris appears to be in on a similar plot. China is one of their biggest customers.....I mean victims.

  26. Simple solution... by phillymjs · · Score: 5, Funny

    Take a Sharpie and write "Caution! U.S. nuclear secrets inside!" on the equipment you want to get rid of. Then the Chinese will be more than happy to take it.

    1. Re:Simple solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why caution? I would think TOP SECRET would work better.

  27. It's been proven... by mstrjon32 · · Score: 1

    "One Chinese reporter saw a four-year old girl prising copper coils out of shattered components. 'Completely unprotected, without even basic safety goggles, the girls pound away and laugh as bits of metal and plastic fly.'" Well, it's been proven, my intelligence level is that of a four-year-old girl.

    1. Re:It's been proven... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A four year old lead poisoned half-blind chinese peasant girl, no less.

  28. and here I though they used it for fertilizer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there used to be a most excellent Electronic surplus store in Evanston, (no, not American Science, but they were in the same building...) E.R.A Electronic Resale Associates.

    They had tons of great stuff cheap. I got a pair of original factory replacement panels ( with all the lights and dials..)for an old Univac for $50.

    They now hang in my garage and the lights blink and stuff....

    when they went out of business, I bought as much as I could afford and could store, then I said "What happens to the rest of this stuff?"

    I was told that it would be shipped to CHINA where it was ground up and used as fertilizer.

    That didn't seem plausible at the time, but I thought there's alot of stuff I don't know, and maybe this is one of them.

    one of them stuff I mean.

    beer and grammer don't work too good today.

  29. The New Slashdot ... by pgrote · · Score: 4, Funny

    When did Slashdot become EccoDot? EnviroDot?

    First Kyoto, then this. Next we'll see that Richard Stallman's talks contribute to global warming. :-)

    1. Re:The New Slashdot ... by bstadil · · Score: 1

      When did Slashdot become EccoDot? EnviroDot?

      Stuff that Matters
      Nuff said

      --
      Help fight continental drift.
    2. Re:The New Slashdot ... by pgrote · · Score: 2

      Of course it also says, "News for Nerds." Which means that the stuff that matters is for nerds.

      I still don't see the link between the two environmental stories and nerds.

    3. Re:The New Slashdot ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next we'll see that Richard Stallman's talks contribute to global warming. :-)

      Well, don't they? After all, THAT is hardly news.

    4. Re:The New Slashdot ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But don't even nerds breathe air? Unless you're talking about the ones that go to St*r Tr*k conventions...

    5. Re:The New Slashdot ... by dhogaza · · Score: 2

      Not his talks so much as his farts and belches. Get your greenhouse gas priorities straight :)

    6. Re:The New Slashdot ... by Stween · · Score: 1

      Well the environmental problem here is that the issue arises from dumped electronics.

      Then, this story qualifies more than many stories posted on /. ("latest kernel pre-release out!" anyone?)

      This is indeed 'news for nerds', and quite definately 'something that matters'.

  30. Recycling by Jedi+Binglebop · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually, a mob in Australia developed a way of making some very good plastic like products using wheat. They can vary the thickness and other properties of the plastic to suit different ranges of requirements.

    If electronic circuit board manufacturers used a plastic that was reasonably solid for, then so long as the board doesn't get soaked in water (which most boards aren't, right), then it'll stay together. If these boards are soaked in water, or if they are left in the open to get rained on or be buryed, then they will decompose.

    This would also make it easy to recover metals from an electronic board by simply soaking it in a solution of some kind to disolve the plastic away from the metals.

    The solutions are there, they just need someone with enough courage to take them on!

    -JB

    --

    "I love deadlines. I love the "whooshing" sound they make as they pass by." - Douglas Adams.

    1. Re:Recycling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice. How about some Linkage?

    2. Re:Recycling by shoppa · · Score: 2
      If electronic circuit board manufacturers used a plastic that was reasonably solid for, then so long as the board doesn't get soaked in water (which most boards aren't, right), then it'll stay together.

      Current PC board assembly techniques subject the base material to stuff a lot more harsh than water. Laminate, etch, mask, flux, solder, and wash processes all involve either water-based baths or chemicals that are a lot better solvent than water.

      The processes have improved greatly in recent years, and the worst of the harshest stuff (Carbon Tetrachloride and fluorocarbon solvents) are almost nonexistent. The trend has been very much away from the "nasty" chemicals and towards water, in fact.

    3. Re:Recycling by NeuroManson · · Score: 2

      Don't forget as well, Henry Ford's experiments in composite body panels using hemp fiber and resin... While they'll survive water baths very well, just grind them down and they should be biodegradable, or at least smokable...;)

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    4. Re:Recycling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You read that in a Fabulous Furry Freak Bros. comic book, didn't you?

    5. Re:Recycling by NeuroManson · · Score: 2

      Why yes, but it was an established part of Ford history, back when Henry Ford was supporting nazi Germany... Hemp fibers are, in fact, able to be formed into resinated panels, due to their tensile strength, possibly even stronger than glass (but no way stronger than steel, lets be reasonable)...

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  31. Being an American by certsoft · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I bet I'll get modded down by the flag humpers here but it seems like almost every day I read something that makes me ashamed to be an American. It would seem that if a treaty might cost some of our precious business profits it won't get ratified. On the bright side I'm not a breeder so I don't have to worry about the world my kids will live in.

    1. Re:Being an American by Tralfamadorian · · Score: 1

      Excellent Karma Whoring! I give you an 8!

    2. Re:Being an American by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      (* I bet I'll get modded down by the flag humpers here but it seems like almost every day I read something that makes me ashamed to be an American. *)

      I am curious. What country *do* you wish to be a member of?

      Where is this superb place? I am packing my bags and ready to hop in a plane to go there. I am only awaiting for you to give me the name (and maybe a little research to check your claims).

      (* On the bright side I'm not a breeder so I don't have to worry... *)

      Well, I am, and I will make sure my kids turn out to be aholes, just like me. You are leaving nobody to counter them.

  32. deja-vu: "the US failed to ratify" a treaty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The US is the only industrialised country to have failed to ratify the 1989 UN Basel convention which calls for a total ban on the export of hazardous waste.


    That sounds familiar... 4 stories ago there was an article which mentioned that all the European countries ratified an environmental treaty that the US decided not to. For a country that made the phrase 'team player' an overused cliche, the US always seems to do its own thing.
    1. Re:deja-vu: "the US failed to ratify" a treaty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doing our own thing has lead to the highest standard of living the planet has *ever* seen.

      I feel so guilty being an American... oh wait. No I don't!

    2. Re:deja-vu: "the US failed to ratify" a treaty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      doing our own thing has lead to the highest standard of living the planet has *ever* seen.

      Nonsense. This aggressive unilateralism has more to do with the Bush administration than anything else. It's pretty hard to see how they are responsible for anything to do with improvements in the standard of living. So don't feel guilty about being American -- feel guilty about being ignorant instead.

  33. Part of a Bigger Problem by Kylow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Of course, this is all just part of a much larger picture. For the past few years, relations with China have not been good. When we're not hitting one of their embassies with a missile (and effectively enraging their population), we're running spy missions off their coast. Then to ease the world's mind, we say that everyone does these things, but I do wonder how tolerant we'd be of a Chinese plane flying off the coast of California collecting data. Yes, it would appear that we may be on a collision course with China. Bush has repeatedly stated that China is a "strategic enemy", and Chinese leaders haven't exactly been glowing in their assessment of Bush. I remember an old Vulcan proverb that stated, "Only Nixon could go to China."

    The new administration doesn't seem too concerned with the power of China, and that may be a grave folly. Not that this is any worse than Clinton practically getting into bed with the Chinese and selling secrets and favors, but it will be morbidly interesting to see how this potentially enormous future conflict develops.

    1. Re:Part of a Bigger Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The new administration doesn't seem too concerned with the power of China, and that may be a grave folly."

      Yet you also say Bush has stated that China is a strategic enemy?

      Well, which is it? Is he aware of the threat or not?

      Sheesh!

    2. Re:Part of a Bigger Problem by Kylow · · Score: 0

      Well, perhaps I mispoke. What I intended to imply was that he doesn't seem to value repairing diplomatic relations with them at all. For example, he's constantly speaking poorly of them in speeches. In fact, I'm surprised he didn't include China in his short-sighted Axis of Evil speech.

    3. Re:Part of a Bigger Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      I do wonder how tolerant we'd be of a Chinese plane flying off the coast of California collecting data.

      More tolerant than you'd think. While I was in the Navy, I saw more than a few Chinese/Russian ELINT outfitted trawlers out in SoCal. Never heard of China or Russia running airborne ELINT ops off our coast, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

    4. Re:Part of a Bigger Problem by Kylow · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, but I meant if it were to come to light and the American people were to find out about it. China hadn't mentioned it among its people until it became an incident.

    5. Re:Part of a Bigger Problem by Tardigrade · · Score: 1

      http://www.insightmag.com/news/254144.html

      China might be getting a current/former Russian spy base in Cuba.

    6. Re:Part of a Bigger Problem by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      (* When we're not hitting one of their embassies with a missile (and effectively enraging their population) *)

      The gov pumped it into a bigger issue than it otherwise would be from a press perspective.

      The US gov said it was an accident and the Chinese gov says it wasn't. Unless they have evidence that we did it on purpose, they should have given the US some benefit of doubt in their press.

      IOW, they are using mass media to stir frenzy, similar to how Yugoslovia turned neihbor against neihbor. They bussed in students to protest and (probably) riot. It is as if they *want* tension. It is not that different from Osama bringing up hotpoint issues and alleged conspiracies over and over again instead of emphasizing coorporation and similarities.

      (* Then to ease the world's mind, we say that everyone does these things, but I do wonder how tolerant we'd be of a Chinese plane flying off the coast of California collecting data. *)

      Who said they don't? (I don't think they need to since it is far easier to plant human moles in the US than the other way around.)

    7. Re:Part of a Bigger Problem by thogard · · Score: 1

      I don't think the Chinese embassy wasn't a mistake. The explosions were very small. The only cruise missiles the US had at the time with small explosives were the very high precision ones. The run of the mill $800,000 unit can take a building but the high precision ones can be programmed to go through specific windows but they run about $2m each. These are the type that hit Milosevic's house . One was rumored to have blown up his bed. A day before the attack on the house, he had give a speach with some reference to statues in the garden and the next day a wall on his house is leveled but the statues in the garden weren't harmed. Based on that we know someone who can target these things has a way of sending messages.

      The Chinese had observers in the area and may have been tring some of their new equipment to find out just how hard it is to shoot down the F117. There had been some political issues about the Chinese observers just days before the F117 got shot down.

    8. Re:Part of a Bigger Problem by formulax · · Score: 1

      First, this is not a mistake, since your general had already said that only two out of ten thousand missiles will be mistakenly hit the target. And second, the protests are not controlled by the government. I was one of the protesters at that time. All of us were just very angry about all these things. USA had been very unfriendly with us since 1989.

    9. Re:Part of a Bigger Problem by bsane · · Score: 1

      It only became an incident because they flew their plane into ours. Maybe it wasn't an accident?

    10. Re:Part of a Bigger Problem by proletariat · · Score: 1

      I've heard the Chinese embassy bombing wasn't a mistake. What I heard was that the Chinese were selling satellite and intelligence data to the Serbs. They were repeatedly warned by the US to stop. When they did not stop the US waited until the embassy was empty and then bombed it to send a little message.

    11. Re:Part of a Bigger Problem by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      (* First, this is not a mistake, since your general had already said that only two out of ten thousand missiles will be mistakenly hit the target. *)

      I am not quite sure what you mean. Could you please clarify?

      It was not a mechanical failure, but a human error.

      (* USA had been very unfriendly with us since 1989. *)

      Any specifics? Tienamen Square killings were inexcusable. Killing people just because they want political reform is *not* acceptable these days.

    12. Re:Part of a Bigger Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pardon me, but the wars in Yugoslavia could have been evaded had americans not pushed the republics into fighting inspiring zeal by not letting Yugoslavia to fall apart at the very beginning. I happen to live in a peaceful part of the region, and cannot believe this would have happened without strong american "help". It was no surprise that the wars began, after all that political fuss. And there will always be people, who are ready to kill, just for the fun of it, if you push them in the right direction. Anyone remember Kosovo? Albanians were armed with american weapons, and were supported by the US, because they were the "victims". Then, the perfectly peaceful country of Macedonia was plagued by armed "rebels", coming from Kosovo, later classified as terrorists (even helping the al-quada or whatever it is spelled - according to some tv news), after September, 11th. I still think the problems of Macedonia could be solved without the bloodshed. Too late, though..

      Guys, US sucks. I dreamed about getting to the great country of freedom once, but not any more. Not after what happened to Macedonia :(

      I understand that you guys have to look after your own interests, and everyone's interests somethimes include fcsking with the others (like it or not - we all have to lie at times :) but please, be careful when praising the US as the savior of the world, etc. This is just political FUD.

    13. Re:Part of a Bigger Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Any specifics? Tienamen Square killings were inexcusable. Killing people just because they want political reform is *not* acceptable these days.

      Relations between the US and China have been rather cold since 1949. For specifics, see Vietnam war, Korean war, and the "cold war".

    14. Re:Part of a Bigger Problem by formulax · · Score: 1

      That piece of history is not so clear right now. No evidence has showned that any students were killed by gun or army. Most of them died due to starvation(which is started by themselves). Secondly, the reason armies entered the square is because a policeman has been burnt by the students. And some students even possessed weapons. They were armed. But if I were the president, I will make the same decision. People at that time need money, need food, need a stable economy, not political reform. Look at Indonesia, look at southeast countries, even look at Taiwan. Their political reforms happened too fast, which is bad to economic development. Most importantly, there is 1 billion people in China at that time. Once China's economy collapse, the whole world will suffer. Do USA want to accept 100 million Chinese who are starved and do not have a job?

  34. Other peoples junk... by Mulletproof · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Mod it as flamebait, but I have to be just a teense suspiscious whenever China does something for humanitarian reasons. "We don't want our citizens getting hurt rifling around in all this junk!" is the supposive claim. Then I read the first paragraph:

    "Beijing has announced a clampdown on the import of electronic junk from the US and other developed countries which is being stripped by Chinese peasants in primitive and dangerous conditions."

    Ladies and gentlemen, free entrerprise has come to China in a form they probably least expected. Beyond the "poor little girl poking her fingers in glass" and and "people washing in scab producing water" sypathy routine, I notice there is scarcely a word mentioned on what happens to this junk. These people are scavenging TV sets, computers, Xerox machines, video cameras and telephones, not to mention boiling circuit boards for valuble metals. Make no mistake: Money is being made by the private citizen, completely independent of the government and they don't like it one bit. Squash indepenence and bash the US in one blow, what could be better!?

    Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the conditions the reporters mentioned bare some truth and it's kinda sad that happens that way, but beneath this sympathy propaganda piece there is a revolution taking place.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
    1. Re:Other peoples junk... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With The U.S. populated by ignorant assholes like you it's no wonder some people hate the country enough to fly planes into buildings. You want more and you want it cheaper and if some brown 8 year old kid gets cancer as a result: hey, it's a part of capitalisim.

    2. Re:Other peoples junk... by dattaway · · Score: 2

      Nice little flaming rant there, too bad its emotionaly charged without much fact.

      Its not the fault of the United States for junk being exported. We do have very strict laws regarding wastes, where the originator is responsible of the waste "from cradle to grave." If someone generates waste, they are responsible for any harm and cleanup costs required even if they sell it to a rogue disposal service. This means if my business unloads mercury ridden waste and its discovered years later in a landfill that cannot properly manage its environment, I would be responsible for the entire cleanup.

      How this law affects waste that leaves our borders would be interesting. Those who export junk are sure to have had a legal team investigating this grey area. If they had dumped it anywhere within our borders, within a few exeptions (major political bribes^H^H^H^H^H^Hdonations) it would be a guaranteed death of a company.

  35. computers aren't nerdy enough for you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Sure, the story was environment-related, but it was about old computers affecting the environment. There's your link.

    I challenge any full-blooded nerd to read:
    women armed with pliers worked in front of small furnaces "to retrieve chips from circuit boards immersed in pools of molten solder".

    and not get a hard-on.
  36. Re:USAF junk ? Smart Move China !!!!!! Smart Move by geekster_2000 · · Score: 0

    eom

  37. The perfect excuse for mods less than -1 by Mulletproof · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Sad little man. I'll mod him -12 to make up for Slashdot's oversight.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
  38. Translation / In other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We don't need any more rotting Apple ]['s or XT's!

    Just send us the good stuff!

  39. mod parent post +5 FUNNY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    recycling Linux makes a great coaster

  40. just where *do* we take them? by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    (* Why yes, yes I do. If I put it in the trash it goes to a dump. If I take it to a recycle center it is more likely to be shipped to China. *)

    Where *are* we supposed to take it? It is harder to get rid of an old PC than it is to get a new one.

    Nobody wants them. Sometimes there are public funded events to pick them up, but you have to go out of your way to find them, and they don't happen very often.

    Although I hate taxes, one interesting idea is a disposal tax on each machine or motherboard sold to pay for collection and disposal costs. It is kind of like the aluminum can tax in some states. It generally works.

    1. Re:just where *do* we take them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give it to slashbots - firewalls based on old machines are all the rage, right?

    2. Re:just where *do* we take them? by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      (* firewalls based on old machines are all the rage, right? *)

      But a new machine might be 10+ times more powerful than an old one. It is probably a lot more cost-effective to babysit 10 newer machines instead of 100 old ones. Plus, the 10x electricity costs one would be dealing with. And the rent costs, and nags from your wife/room-mate/land-lord.

    3. Re:just where *do* we take them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      > Where *are* we supposed to take it? It is harder to get rid of an old PC than it is to get a new one.

      Not really, when I replace a computer I demand the seller to get the old one and recycle it properly, and I want to see document as a proof. Not every retailer wants to do that, but hey, it's their loss. :)

    4. Re:just where *do* we take them? by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      (* [It is harder to get rid of an old PC than it is to get a new one.] Not really, when I replace a computer I demand the seller to get the old one and recycle it properly, and I want to see document as a proof. Not every retailer wants to do that, but hey, it's their loss. *)

      You seem to be reaffirming the original claim. It will cost money and runaround time to demand such conditions. They will likely tack on the disposal effort to the total price. I doubt it will be the "lowest bidder" who is the most recycle-friendly.

  41. Did anyone else read the title as... by Froze · · Score: 2, Funny

    China bans U.S. electronics crap

    rather than

    China Bans U.S. Electronic Scrap?

    --
    -- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.
  42. Impossible? Nah.. by Mulletproof · · Score: 2

    These are peasants doing this after all and it's probably not being done for cash, but on the barter system. Don't take my word for it, however. As far as why bother shipping it there to begin with, it probably cost less than what it costs to dispose of it in a nation that actually cares. Some places charge stiff penalties in doing so, so why not ship it off to somebody waiting in China? And why bother repairing the transformers at all? Sure, some might be salvagable, but that's quite a bit of copper and other metal to be used (size depending). 5 cents might not be much anywhere else, but when you and your friends are living in squalor, it's an economy. Hell, guys in places like Thailand survive off the used tabacco industry-- the process of picking the leftover tabacco out of peoples used buds and reconstituting them into "recycled" cigarettes.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
    1. Re:Impossible? Nah.. by BLAG-blast · · Score: 1
      Hell, guys in places like Thailand survive off the used tabacco industry-- the process of picking the leftover tabacco out of peoples used buds and reconstituting them into "recycled" cigarettes.

      Buds? great, I would be up for picking the leftovers out of peoples buds... ;)

      Not too keen on tabacco though.....

      --
      M0571y H@rml355.
  43. nerds will be taking baths soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    and ironing their star wars shirts

  44. recycling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's actually profitable to do the recycling here in the US and sell the scrap for the raw materials. The problem with China was that they did it in a totally half assed and unsafe way. I worked for a place in Portland that's doing a great job at it and staying profitable too. The best thing was that the owner hired me to go in and pick through anything that was still usable or repairable. He realized after I left that it was costing him more to sell stuff on ebay than he was making. Now they just grind it up whole regardless of condition. It's sad to see such fun stuff go to waste, but what can you do? Al least it's not ending up in the land fill and polluting our groundwater (more).

  45. Re:There has got to be a way to break this shit do by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 2

    This is one of the reasons that the EU intriduced a bill making companies responsible for the recycling of the computer they sold. This means that companies can't simply say its someone else's problem. This bill has the effect of encouraging companies to find ways to make computers more recyclable, otherwise impossible to recycle computers will effect their bottom line.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  46. You could be right by Erris · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Quoth the article:

    However, it appeared to leave a loophole by saying that if "proper methods" were used, the environment need not be harmed.

    As the US Internal Revenue Service is fond of saying, "All income is taxable." Proper methods, without doubt, will consist of paying a licensing fee. If all those "made in China" tags on electronic junk is a guide, the Chineese government does not mind paying an environmental price. If they are developing anything like their Former Soviet friends did, the price will be high. This blurb, like any other where there is no freedom of speech and press, is just propaganda.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
    1. Re:You could be right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, it appeared to leave a loophole by saying that if "proper methods" were used, the environment need not be harmed.

      Also note that it's THE ENVIRONMENT that need not be harmed. What about the PEOPLE???

  47. The U.S. Should Retaliate by guttentag · · Score: 3, Funny
    ...China has banned US's electronic junk...
    The U.S. should retaliate by banning China's electronic junk mail. If they don't want our garbage, why should we accept theirs?
    1. Re:The U.S. Should Retaliate by DigitalHammer · · Score: 1

      Actually, its not Chinese servers that deliver the junk mail directly. Usually, its Crackers/spammers from other countries comprimise the servers' security settings and rerouting their spam. Software on those servers are usually outdated, contain a lot of bugs, and have many security holes. Also, most system admins in China cannot read the English-language manuals. As a result, they cannot upgrade their software or get security patches, and cracker/spammers can do their dirty work via Chinese servers.

      Heres some related links:

      http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,50455, 00 . tml (Not All Spam is From Asia)

      http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,50856, 00 . tml (China Sweet, Sour On Spam)...on the political situation of spam in China.

  48. Squalor by Mulletproof · · Score: 2

    There's a reason Chinese peasants are working on this stuff in primitive and dangerous conditions. It's because they're freakin' Chinese peasants. No boat, no lights, no motorcar, not a single luxury. The fact that their own government is all of a sudden caring for them is nothing but a smoke screen-- They are peasants because the government doesn't give a damn and still doesn't. Sure, there are ways to do this safely, but they probably A) Can't afford it and B) Would have to involve the government which is making damn sure they stay peasants anyway.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
    1. Re:Squalor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn right. There's still a thiving black market in this stuff. You should see it - Huge piles of junbks lying around, buckets of acid just sitting around town so components can be broken down to recover gold, copper, etc. It's pretty shitty. But then, it should be any surprise this goes on considering what America does with its nuclear waste...

    2. Re:Squalor by cscx · · Score: 2

      But then, it should be any surprise this goes on considering what America does with its nuclear waste...

      Oh yeah, like that time the Boy Scouts caught Mr. Burns playing "hide the ooze..."

    3. Re:Squalor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah and America cares about your sorry ass. Somehow you think for people to be considered people they need to be materialistic and have luxuries, well you know what some people in this world look past all the glitz and are quite happy. Fucking American, materialistic piece of shit.

  49. I helped sell it to them... by rMortyH · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And they were only too eager to buy it. Besides a hiccup during the spy plane fiasco, chinese buyers were lining up to buy old tech from the scrapyard where I work and scrounge in San Francisco. It stopped cold the day they got into the WTO, months ago.

    Chinese people showed up with money and bought container loads of unsorted scrap. Done deal, it's miller time. Honestly, we assumed without even thinking about it that it was being recycled in factories, though probably unsafe ones, or that the working stuff would go to schools or offices, where a 386 would be worth the trouble to set up. Who cares, they're doing more with it than us.

    So the bottom has fallen out of the scrap market, and now monitors are toxic waste you have to pay to get rid of. But, there are still countries buying.

    Is this the fault of the bad, bad US? Should we be required to keep our junk away from irresponsible people? Have we forced anyone? Or even been deceptive?

    You know, people from India buy old tires by the container to ship to india. Other countries do it too. Totally bald, worn out tires. They just love 'em. You know where they wind up? ON CARS! GOD! This HAS to kill people.

    We've been told that these are NEW tires, and if we're worried we should go and see what an OLD tire looks like. So are they killing people, or saving lives?

    It just ain't like it is here, in most places! It may be hard for us to understand, but 'chinese peasants' with scrap to sort, and people filthy rich enough to have a car to put bald tires on, are a hell of alot better off than at least 50% of the people on this planet!

    You know there's a famine in africa right now, and I don't think they care about dying of cancer in 30 years. All they can think about is keeping their children alive for just one more day. Think about that when you're in the supermarket. Go when they're throwing out the fruit. That's when I go.

    I'd like to solve these problems, but it's saturday, and we've got tires to stack. Maybe we'll save a life.

    =Rich

    1. Re:I helped sell it to them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Is this the fault of the bad, bad US? Should we be required to keep our junk away from irresponsible people? Have we forced anyone? Or even been deceptive?

      Absolutely! If you hand it off to a "waste disposal" or "recycling" company, knowing that they're going to use it to poison people, you are to blame. Paying someone to kill others is not morally a whole lot better than doing it yourself; indeed, US law takes a dim view of those who pay others to commit crimes. In this case, you avoid the legal problems by arranging for heinous acts to be committed in territory where they are not illegal, but that doesn't change the moral issues a whole lot.

      It may be true that in some cases, the "junk" might actually be useful. But it's not always true, and in the case of dangerous toxic waste that is not handled appropriately by the buyer, it's pretty clear that it's doing more harm than good.

    2. Re:I helped sell it to them... by ReverseC · · Score: 1

      I work at a grocery store and I HATE it when the produce dept. throws away the "bad" fruit. Thankfully the backery and deli depts. donate the out-of-date products. There's this one guy in the produce who is ignorant to the fact that 3/4 of the world would love to eat the fruit he's tossing in the garbage. I know why he does it though...because the managers don't want to see ripe or spoiled fruit/vegetables on the shelfs. I always try to catch him before he throws everything in the trash and I usually find lots to munch on.

    3. Re:I helped sell it to them... by bsane · · Score: 1

      What do you want them to do? Fly the fruit in refrigerated containers to the 3/4s of the world that would like it? It would be cheaper if the store had some of the produce directly shipped there. I suppose someone local to you may want it, but they're probably not starving to death either...

  50. Hear hear!! by ToastyKen · · Score: 2
    You know, it really ought to be the parent of this post, the AC post, that should be modded up, not the post by papasui. Just because someone in China is buying it doesn't mean that it's good for the people in China. And, more importantly, papasui, everyone here is always complaining about how undemocratic China is.. If so, how can you condemn all its citizens for what a few people, even if it's the gov't, do?

    If anyone other country out there wanted to house the US's toxic waste I'm not gonna feel sorry for them because their nation is ran by idiots.

    This comment makes NO SENSE! If a country is run by idiots, that's all the MORE reason to feel sorry for its inhabitants!

    Unless, of course, you're suggesting that any country whose gov't you don't like is also automatically populated by idiots. (See note about democracy above.)

    1. Re:Hear hear!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think if the country is run by idiots the people should vote them out... oh wait... China... nevermind!

  51. Guilty to be an American? MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, it's slashdot where it's cool to hate America and all things American!

    Mod him up as insightful!

  52. Re:Being an American ... is a shame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    All thi forum proves you are right: it is the shame to be an American. Americans discuss that China bans their toxins. But why noone asks an obvious question, obvious for any cultured people of course: Why America did not ban first it's own toxin from being exported to any other country?

    That's a pretty clear test checking the level of culture. And it seems that most of Americans don't pass the test. They blame the rest of the world but they cannot see own sins. They want to control the world but they are not perfect in the control of themselves. They want to bring culture to the rest of the world and they don't have culture in their own hearts.

    Why? Because of poor public education? Or because US government keeps Americans blind for better control? Americans should answer such questions themselves.

    But what gives me a hope is that not all Americans are so blind and stupid.

  53. Garage Sale economics by Mulletproof · · Score: 2

    Ain't nothing wrong with your enterprise, my friend. You sell it and people are looking to buy it; Free Enterprise at it's best. Sure these people are buying what is might be considered toxic and unsafe in the better developed countries, but what some of these people don't seem to understand is that they probably know that already. The fact that they're doing it isn't a reflection on the US or any of the other countries vaguely refered to in that artical. They aren't "evil" for inundating these poor, poor villagers with our junk. It's not as if we're secretly coming in black boats in the middle of the night to dump it on foriegn shores for some hapless villager to stumble across and say, "WHOA! We're in the world did all these computer parts come from!? They weren't here last night!" The people of these countries are DEMANDING it. And is it this guys fault he's selling "potentially" toxic items to them? Hell no. You could be accused of the same thing for selling your murcury filled thermometer in a garage sale. Surely you didn't intend for somebody to crack it open for the stuff inside, right? And if he does, is that your responsibility? Repeat after me: "NO." But somehow, China's pasting the blame everywhere else, simply because it's convinient. Their people want this junk. They are willing to dangerous thing to extract profit form this junk. If anything, thier desperation is a reflection on their government, not ours.

    My hat is off to you, man. You've probably done more for some of these peoples lifestyle than half the humanitarian organizations out there by giving them another source of income beyond the bountiful wealth they're obviously recieving from their own governments.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
    1. Re:Garage Sale economics by NeuroManson · · Score: 2

      You know, by California law (and probably other states), it's illegal to sell toxic/carcinogenic items without a big sign in the front door that informs buyers of this fact... I wonder, then, how many computer retailers fail to have said signs in their doors, and how many are liable for prosecution under Californian law? Since a good deal of computer manufacturers are in CA as well, they would be required to have the same sign on their shops and factories (since many act as in house retailers as well)... The lead is just one factor, another is mercury and dioxins that exist in some electronic components...

      Just shows you how far ignorant lawmakers can take things...

      It's like the Denis Leary joke about making the warning labels larger on cigarettes, "Holy sh!t! These are bad for you! I thought they were supposed to have vitamins and stuff!!!"

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  54. Yeah, America! by Mulletproof · · Score: 1

    "But then, it should be any surprise this goes on considering what America does with its nuclear waste..."

    Um, bury it in holes in the desert?

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
    1. Re:Yeah, America! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That too, but I was thinking of it being shipped overseas. Japan apparently has recycling plants that accept some, but larger quantities get sent to Africa and dumped. I guess you have to blame the locals for letting it happen, but I reckon there should be i18n trade restrictions on waste products.

    2. Re:Yeah, America! by Morky · · Score: 1

      Nuclear waste is not getting dumped in Africa. The U.S. is too concerned about terrorists getting their hands on spend nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste.

  55. We need nanotech developed to clean the world.. by thenarftwit · · Score: 1

    It's about time that the industrialized countries of the world developed nanotech to clean up all the toxic wastes of the current industrialized world. In doing so, we will also have developed neat nanotech solutions to our current hi-tech needs and also which will probably be a magantude better and not so damaging.

  56. Tee-hee! by Mulletproof · · Score: 1

    Well, I got a chuckle out of it ^__^ I'll mod you +3(funny)

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
  57. Team-player? by Mulletproof · · Score: 2

    When did that happen? If that were the case, we'd be living like you guys.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
  58. Flag Humpers R Us by Mulletproof · · Score: 1

    Then why are you still here? And why wasn't this thread been modded as off-topic? I've already debated the Kyoto treaty enough, but it's not the topic here. That's the reason you should be modded down, not because of your busted-ass opinion. Time to move on.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
  59. Re:There has got to be a way to break this shit do by drinkypoo · · Score: 2
    Basically any kind of plastic can be recycled into a pretty useful plastic these days, if you have enough of the various types. The resulting plastic is greenish, so it has to be painted; You can't really mold many colors into it, if any. So it's not a perfect solution, but I hear it's cheap.

    There's still plenty of uses for mercury and lead, so it would be nice if it were recycled too. I don't know how cost-effective that is, though.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  60. If I may interject... by Mulletproof · · Score: 1

    Lets say you have a broke VCR. Your friend finds out and offers to buy it. Is this a bad thing? Not yet. Most people would shrug their shoulders and say sure, why not? Your buddy gives you $20 for the thing and the he trots home a happy camper. Later that week you happen to mosey by his house and glimps him at work in his garage, VCR parts strewn everywhere, buckets of chemicals, the works. "What the hell are you doing!?" you ask. "Do you know how many valuble components and metals can be salvaged from a busted VCR!?!?" he proudly proclaims.

    The point: Are you now responsible for your friends actions? If he suffers a chemical burn trying to extract the copper off a circuit board, is that your fault? Are you going to offer to pay his medical bill because you very indirectly aided in his injury? Repeat after me: "No, No and No". And that's what's happening here. These guys aren't getting wholesale barrels of toxic waste, they're buying broken stuff that we've thrown away. What they do with it is their business. Even that VCR has enough toxic chemicals to make somebody sick if not handled (ie; diassembled/melted down) correctly. You buy potentially toxic crap all the time, the only difference is that it works. So is it the department store's problem if you get a wild hair up your ass and decide to take apart the monitor you're reading this post on, landing some phospherous poisoning in the process? No. In most cases, I'm betting the serious health risk only becomes one after the customers perform their voodoo disassembly on it, not because this guy is intentionally selling razor blade laced candy.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
    1. Re:If I may interject... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The point: Are you now responsible for your friends actions? If he suffers a chemical burn trying to extract the copper off a circuit board, is that your fault? Are you going to offer to pay his medical bill because you very indirectly aided in his injury?

      You omitted the fourth question -- is the analogy relevant. And the answer is the same. The analogy breaks down because you're making the (bogus) simplification that a "country" is analogous to a person. Again, the problem is that the waste disposal corp who are being sold the junk are harming other people. Of course, if your neighbour only uses it for self-harm, that's not your fault, but if your neighbour profiteers by harming others and you know about it, and you actively facilitate it, then you bet you're as guilty as hell.

  61. ~Chuckle~ by Mulletproof · · Score: 1

    Ok, it was a grin and not a hard-on, but face it; Computers are cool these days. to be a true nerd you have to say "Linux rules!" with a strait face ^__^

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
    1. Re:~Chuckle~ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, to be a true nerd you have to say "linux sucks", and be able to explain point by point why. Only to then point out you still use linux anyway, because it's better than anything else.

  62. Correction and more info.. by MxReb0 · · Score: 0

    China banned importing electrical scrap for salvage over a year ago, but organized crime continues to bring it in. The people use toxic acid baths to reclaim bits of gold. It is hazardous to their health and environment. India is also a large importer of this waste. Your computer scrap only goes to these places if you do drop it off at a recycling center. If you trash it, it goes to your local land fill. CRT monitors are very bad for the environment. Contact your local government to find out where yu can safe ly leave your CRT. If your PC works at all, schools and even jails will want it for donation.

    --

    MAKE YOUR TIME
    1. Re:Correction and more info.. by bsane · · Score: 1

      If your PC works at all, schools and even jails will want it for donation.

      I've heard on NPR that most schools and charities end up as repositories of computer junk that technically still works but no one will ever use. The end result is that these organizations are now stuck with the responsibility of disposing of your worthless (but still working!) pc.

  63. Attention all Space-Cadets... by Mulletproof · · Score: 2

    This one is mainly to the haters in this thread who seem to think the US bares the sole burden of this junk "problem".

    "Beijing has announced a clampdown on the import of electronic junk from the US and other developed countries..."

    No chance yours could be one of those now, is there? Riiiighhht....

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
    1. Re:Attention all Space-Cadets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And as long as you're not the only one being bad it's ok? You sounds like a nice person with high moral standards.

    2. Re:Attention all Space-Cadets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Beijing has announced a clampdown on the import of electronic junk from the US and other developed countries..." No chance yours could be one of those now, is there? Riiiighhht....

      That's an interesting point, and I'd say that those countries are no better if they're also dumping waste oversees. Of course, your position would be that America is doing it, therefore it must be OK (-;

  64. Cable Theft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Geeps, Its the cable companies that steel our undersidewalk area. Cabletheft= cable companies not having to comply with city and county law.

    Why do they charge $40 bucks a month for advertising paid for media?
    Maybe cause they don't have to comply with local law.
    Long live public access!
    Long live community owned cable
    Down with Jerks who bully, and dimwits who get paid off

  65. Trans-Pacific shipping costs -- not an issue by Reziac · · Score: 2

    If you don't think it's worthwhile to ship chunks of metal (frex, old computer cases) to the far east for recycling, consider this:

    Dunno about now, but in the 1980s, the majority of steel construction beams used in the U.S. were made in Japan (and ALL of the lightweight beams were from Japan). Where did the Japanese plants get the raw materials? The U.S. shipped crushed automobiles to Japan, where they were melted down and molded into construction beams suitable for export (considering steelworkers union wages, this was quite cost-effective compared to domestically-produced steel).

    If you've ever drilled thru an I-beam and found there are hard and soft spots, that's a direct side effect of the haphazard nature of recycled steel. (The things you learn when you build your own flatbed trailer from scratch..)

    Shipping via a slow freight boat is pretty cheap, so that's not an issue.

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  66. Great theory (if you completely ignore the facts) by mrbnsn · · Score: 1

    Chinese peasants have been encouraged to make money as private citizens, completely independent of the government, ever since Deng "To Get Rich Is Glorious" Xiaoping launched the opening and reform policies in 1978.

    The biggest problem the Chinese government currently faces is kicking all the employees of loss-making state-owned enterprises off the government teat without sparking an insurrection of hundreds of millions of laid-off workers.

    If you have any suggestions for how to solve that problem, you can put them in the suggestion box outside Zhongnanhai. I'm sure they'll be read with great interest.

  67. Huh? by Mulletproof · · Score: 2

    "Chinese peasants have been encouraged to make money as private citizens, completely independent of the government"

    My ass they've been encouraged to do anything but live in fear of the government in which they live under. You just stated the total anti-thesis of communist society, which undeniably China is. Let's look at their consitution, shall we? (all definitions list from here on are from Mirriam-Webster)

    Article 1
    The People's Republic of China is a socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants.

    Socialism 2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.

    Democratic 1 : of, relating to, or favoring democracy 1a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority. b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

    dictatorship 3a : a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique b : a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated c : a despotic state

    ...led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants.

    I haven't even gotten past Artical 1 of their constitution and it's so riddled with inconsistencies and bullshit it's pathetic. Oh, China is led by those peasants encouraged to make money alright. Heh. Let's continue.

    Article 2
    All power in the People's Republic of China belongs to the people. The National People's Congress and the local people's congresses at various levels are the organs through which the people exercise state power. The people administer state affairs and manage economic, cultural and social affairs through various channels and in various ways in accordance with the law.

    While it's true that the power does belong to the people, China is certainly doing their damned best to keep them from excercising it. The "people" this artical mentions is a very small group of individuals obviously cut off from reality. I'll skip artical 3 because it simply mentions governmental power distribution. Look at it on your own time.

    Artical 4
    All nationalities in the People's Republic of China are equal. Bullshit. The state protects the lawful rights and interests of the minority nationalities and upholds and develops a relationship of equality, unity and mutual assistance among all of China's nationalities. Bullshit Discrimination against and oppression of any nationality are prohibited; HA!!!! any act which undermines the unity of the nationalities or instigates division is prohibited. The state assists areas inhabited by minority nationalities accelerating their economic and cultural development according to the characteristics and needs of the various minority nationalities. Regional autonomy is practiced in areas where people of minority nationalities live in concentrated communities; in these areas organs of self-government are established to exercise the power of autonomy. Bullshit All national autonomous areas are integral parts of the People's Republic of China. All nationalities have the freedom to use and develop their own spoken and written languages and to preserve or reform their own folkways and customs. Bull LeShit.

    Most constitutions attempt to be true to their writing. This one is a stack of lies and I'm only 4 articals deep. If the Chinese people were given as much leeway as you and their constitution claimed, I doubt they'd have the atrocious human rights record they do or that the rest of the world would have as many issues as they do with them. News flash: It ain't just America. What Mr. Xiaoping said and what actually happened are two way different things. The long and short of it is that free enterprise is happening right now and the government is stepping in to squash it. You can claim public saftey from toxic waste, but then I have to wonder why these peasants are doing it in the first place, risking their lives to recycle this crap. Greed? Somehow, I doubt it.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
    1. Re:Huh? by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      > Greed?

      Here's a concept that doesn't come easily to a good segmant of the american slashdot crowd - neccessity.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    2. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China is fully into Enterprise, just only for the Government - lots of JVs going on with US and International Companies. But hey, that's OK because it's Communism and the Government IS the people therefore everyone benefits!

      When will those idiots learn that it's not fooling anybody, and they lost their face a long time ago.

  68. Nuclear Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's sufficient Uranium in the sea to power nucler plants for a million years... With the current *geological* processes of subduction and erosion adding to that stock, there's enough uranium to supply the worlds entire energy needs for the next 5 *billion* years. Yeah, it'll make the cost of uranium go to 10x-40x the current costs.. But Uranium is only 40th the cost of a kWh. (the rest is the capital investment in the plant)

    With this option, energy need *never EVER* go above $.10/kW*H forever. Just moved so I don't have the URL's stating and proving this.

  69. so I take it you're volunteering.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With new modern recycling methods we can remove almost all the re-useable stuff out of computers

    If that's true, then why are we sending it to China? Unless we already *have* removed the re-usable stuff and are just sending them the broken crap that nobody wants. Funny that they don't want our trash; those poor Chinese accept gladly whatever we deign to dump on them.

    why don't they let them in and build a Beowulf parallel tasking computer that would rival that of NASA's supercomputers

    Hey, since you've got all the answers for China, why don't *you* build a Beowulf cluster out of the mostly-broken, crappy 486-es and take responsibility for disposing of the non-working components in your backyard? My guess is that they aren't doing it for the same reason that no one in the U.S. is doing it either -- because the rate of computing return on investment in discarded 486-es is not so good (and getting comparatively worse every month).

    If you don't try, you will never gain the opportunity to fail.

    Allright, so we can expect the "Medevo Beowulf Cluster" to be rivaling NASA's supercomputers next year?

  70. To all you anti-american fuckers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you. You act like your shit doesn't stink. You prance around with your fucking "Europe is so enlightened" attitude. Tell me this motherfuckers, "Where did the majority of barbarian activities against other humans occur?" That's right...Europe!

    Let's see, if we count up all the atrocities that occurred in your fucking little enlightened society we'd run out of RAM in our beowulf cluster right quick wouldn't we?

    You fucking hypocirtical piece of shit bastards amuse me. You talk of how babaric we are here in the US and how we debase and devalue human life. Hell our country was founded by a fucking genocide that you Europeans created!!!!!

    Now that your bastard son has grown more powerful than you can imagine, you weak ass faggotty EU card carrying fuckwads bitch and moan like GNU/Stallman about how evil we are.

    Pot...kettle...black...

    So shut the fuck up and realize that you're just as bad, if not worse because the US is your fucking fault!

    1. Re:To all you anti-american fuckers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did the majority of barbarian activities against other humans occur?" That's right...Europe!

      Only because the whiteman hadn't made it to North America until recently. 'Course when he did, he didn't muck around killing the natives did he?

      Don't blame your actions on the past. Look at Australia - a country essentially founded by convicts. Or Scandanavian countries that were Vikings a few years back. They're doing just fine now.

      Just take a chill-pill and realise we're all people and we're all equally weak-assed and fagotty - or equally not. Deal with it.

      Besides, a week from now we could all be dead when India and Pakistan start shooting nukes...

  71. Responsible disposal by henben · · Score: 1

    So, I have an old dead (ie I don't know how to fix it or it's not worth my time) PC that I want to get rid of. What's the right thing to do with it?

  72. form an Uber-country by matt_maggard · · Score: 1

    Yes you may be correct that there is no perfect utopian country that you could move to. Some european countries seem to be better world citizens and better to their populations thatn the US but I am sure those countries have drawbacks as well. What I want is for the US to start taking the leadership role that it claims it has. Why won't our government say "fuck it, proposal xyz may not be popular but it is the right thing to do." Since GW Bush has such a high approval rating right now he could push through legislation that companies might not like but are to the benefit of society. Of course that will never happen. It seems that Republicans in particular believe that companies are the greatest thing ever thought up by human kind. Oh well, too bad for all of us.

    -matt

    1. Re:form an Uber-country by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      (* and [Europe] better to their populations thatn the US *)

      Does that "better" include a 70% tax rate and double the unemployment?

      If Chinese companies want to buy scrap and re-process it, that is their perogative. If their gov mis-manages it, why should we be the blame?

      The US is the biggest scapegoat on the planet. When other country governments are in hot water with their citizens, the first thing they do is blame it on the US to distract attention from their own greed and stupidity.

      I would rather save our "meddling power" for something more important.

    2. Re:form an Uber-country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If Chinese companies want to buy scrap and re-process it, that is their perogative. If their gov mis-manages it, why should we be the blame?

      If you are knowingly supporting a criminal, you are GUILTY. Let's put it another way -- did you know that if you are a Chinese national involved in any way in the administration of forced abortions, your immigration application is essentially screwed ? (it's right next to the questions about whether you committed mass murders in Haiti, or fought alongside communist insurgents in Columbia). So the position here is that there is not a substantial difference to being an accomplice to a crime and committing it yourself. I would argue that handing toxic waste to a "waste disposal" company, knowing that they are going to poison people for profit is a heinous and reprehensible act, not substantially worse than (for example) working in a hospital that performs forced abortions.

      The US is the biggest scapegoat on the planet. When other country governments are in hot water with their citizens, the first thing they do is blame it on the US to distract attention from their own greed and stupidity.

      That may be so. But this doesn't mean we should knee-jerk to justify everything the US leadership do. Rather, it means that we should view them, like any other government, with a critical eye, though we should also recognise that the US government are one of the less irresonsible forces.

    3. Re:form an Uber-country by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      (* If you are knowingly supporting a criminal, you are GUILTY. *)

      If you sell guns, you know that a certain percentage are going to be used for murder. Does this make gun sellers "guilty"?

      (* But this doesn't mean we should knee-jerk to justify everything the US leadership do. Rather, it means that we should view them, like any other government, with a critical eye *)

      I agree, but this is not a significant issue IMO. It is not the US gov's job to monitor businesses inside OTHER countries. We have enuf issues in our own country to worry about.

      China is a relatively powerful and well-off country these days. If they can't or don't solve their own problems, then I find them the guilty party. If it was some war-torn rag tag country barely surviving, then I might have more sympethy.

      (* did you know that if you are a Chinese national involved in any way in the administration of forced abortions, your immigration application is essentially screwed *)

      Immigration filters like this is an issue *in* the US. You are comparing apples to oranges. IOW, it is our problem because they are coming to US soil at that point.

  73. What a bunch of Hooey!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whatever..

    This is just a bunch of political baby talk.

    Either the lead gets on the hands of the struggling in china, or it gets in the air of rural America or Canada.---and that's big C for (tolerant)Capitalism

    Everybody in the dead PCB gold reclamation business knows they can:

    1. Save up their dead boards, bury them boxed under in the fields until the price of gold goes way up.

    2. Grind up their boards with a recycle machine and send off the sampled goods to the acid bath cookers in
    a. Canada or
    b. rural America (illegal, trying to be out of EPA reach)

    3. Sell the boards to middlemen who dream about sending the trucks loaded with boards to Canada to cash in bigger.

    or
    4. Sell really unsorted dirty boards and whatever dead electronics to someone else in incredibly large quantities for supercheap (Poor Asia)

    any way you look at it, the global market is driven by the dream for great re-usable chips, and the staple of Gold value

    (Six months ago)
    Local Dallas
    Mainboards : 50 cents a pound
    Cards : $1.00 a pound

    Gold market driven

    save up a carload of boards and you could have $500 there, just in gold value.

    An old Chinese woman may try to get you to help her land the large container contracts for circuit boards, then you may find out she can only pay less than what your local recyclers will.

    delimma

    OK, give her the unsorted mix of all the trash even cheaper, china buys it gratefully, generates some quick $, jobs, and a health problems----but who cares?! Everybody gets what they want, because of money, go home and cry about something else, China. You got enough problems already... ahem... governmentally ill speaking

  74. English by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    English is one of the most complex languages in common usage. Chinese, on the other hand is actualy pretty simple.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The chinese *spoken* language might be easy but the written one sure isn't. I have been taking chinese as my second language at college and, though the first quarter was easy, it has become quite difficult. There are about 1,000 symbols I am supposed to remember for my final - I have maybe 200 memorized to the point that I could write them off the top of my head. To speak semi-fluently in chinese you need about 5,000 words.

      Chinese grammar is pretty simple, but it can be confusing for an english speaker. For instance, to say "I am working at 8:00 tonight at the store." it would be rearanged to "Tonight 8:00 I at store work."

      zaijian
      NR

  75. No, we call taiwan the "republich of china" by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    We call Taiwan the "Republic of China" (ROC), because, of course, the true government of the middle kingdom resides there. Someday the Guomindang will return to power and Chang Kaisheck will leave his temporary grave and be buried next to Sun Yet San as the Communist rebels are defeated!

    (btw, no American would be bothered by the term "republic of california" or whatever because just calling california a seperate country wouldn't make it so)

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:No, we call taiwan the "republich of china" by formulax · · Score: 1

      Of course calling Republic of California won't make it a republic, but calling Repulic of Taiwan will hurt the feelings of 1.3 billion Chinese who is living in mainland. And Republic of China is not as bad as Republic of Taiwan. Chinese leaders have already said that whatever China it is called, People's Republic of China or Republic of China, is not a problem as long as Taiwan government admit the one-China policy! Just for your information, Chang Kaisheck is not as great as Sun Yet San, just like Mao Zedong is not as great as Sun Yet San. Therefore it is better to bury Mr. Chang in his homeland:-)

  76. Re:Being an American ... is a shame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Americans should answer such questions themselves.

    Nope. They should ASK such questions themselves. As we all must at sometime in our life.

  77. Well... by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    Current eletronics arn't harmed by water unless they are powered. Also, some eletronic boards are washed with de-ionized water after being put together (spesificaly, Intel motherboards are).

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  78. China is not communist anymore. by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    "It's not bad to get rich" -- Deng Xiao Peng.

    Money is being made by the private citizen, completely independent of the government and they don't like it one bit. Squash indepenence and bash the US in one blow, what could be better!?

    China hasn't been an officaly communist country since Mao died, the current leadership is not anti-capitalist at all.

    Can't let facts get in the way of a good screed though, no sir.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  79. Jesus you're an idiot. by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    Do you live in china? Do you know anyone who lives in china? Have you ever talked to anyone who was from china?

    Listen dumbass. China is not communist, you can start a bussness irrespective of the government. The chinese constitution isn't followed by anyone.

    Yes, this is an instance of free enterprize being curtaled. How is it any diffrent then minimum wage and worker-saftey laws in the US?

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Jesus you're an idiot. by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      The Chinese constitution is 'followed' any time one of the big Communist Party controlled conglomerates needs to get it's way.

      Do you think the big water projects have been decided democratically, by the people in the regions that are being permanently flooded and cease to exist as land?

      The People's Liberation Army is a huge industrial conglomerate. They own factories, and (sadly) they own the people who work in said factories.

      Added to this- what kind of government is it when the best one can say about it is 'the constituion isn't followed by anyone'??

    2. Re:Jesus you're an idiot. by Mulletproof · · Score: 2

      "Do you live in china? Do you know anyone who lives in china? Have you ever talked to anyone who was from china?"

      Live? Nah. As to the latter questions; yes and yes. I've stepped foot on it. Can you say the same?

      --
      You need a FREE iPod Nano
    3. Re:Jesus you're an idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Added to this- what kind of government is it when the best one can say about it is 'the constituion isn't followed by anyone'??

      That would be a "dictatorship", but not necessarily a "communist" one.

  80. Technofix will cure everything (was Re:toxic junk) by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Quoth Saeger:
    No it won't. In the next couple decades molecular nanotechnology will be quite mature.

    Technofix.

    When I was a kid, people built nuclear power stations. 'Don't worry', they said, 'in the next couple of decades nuclear reprocessing technology will be quite mature'. Now it's time to pull the bloody things down, and still no-one has come up with a safe solution to the waste problem. But never mind. Tachnology will fix everything. It's just around the corner.

    And there will be jam for tea tomorrow.

    --
    I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
  81. Since when was China cared about their land? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China is making a mistake doing this. They make a lot of money disposing of this old crap, and they'll lose it all now. And really, since when has China cared about their land? The government there has always disregarded the environment, so this is a big change.

  82. Re:Being a Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I am curious. What country *do* you wish to be a member of?

    ...err... Canada?

    I am only awaiting for you to give me the name (and maybe a little research to check your claims)

    Your research is welcome :)

  83. Re:Technofix will cure everything (was Re:toxic ju by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

    Nuclear reprocessing technology has been blocked by politics, not just technical challanges.

  84. Not at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I disagree. English is not my natural language, but while learning it I discovered it to be one of the simplest languages out there. The only thing difficult about english is spelling it correctly (and pronouncing it correctly ofcourse, but you have that with all languages), but I'm assuming here spelling with 26 letters is still simpler than spelling with over 500 symbols.

    Major advantages english has over other languages:
    - gender of a word is ignored
    - complex concepts can be explained simply by connecting lots of simple words, without any form of connection between the words but a space. In other languages you have difficult forms of connection between the simple words (I'm thinking of german here).
    - although there are plenty of ways to cnojugate a verb, you can cover all times with very little conjugations. Other languages don't make it so easy (especially french). Conjugations are also usually pretty simple. In fact, knowing three basic conjugations for each verb can carry you through just about every situation. (e.g.: do, did, done)
    - and so on, and so on ...

    Apart from esperanto, english is the simplest language I know.

    However, because english is an indo-european language, and chinese (whatever dialect) is not, to a chinese speaker it's probably very difficult to learn english, because there are almost no known linguistic concepts. It's like learning to speak all-over. Especially if they haven't learnt another language before. The capability to learn more than one language needs to be flexed early in life, or it becomes much harder to acquire.

    1. Re:Not at all by autopr0n · · Score: 2

      - gender of a word is ignored

      There's no gender in chinese either.

      - complex concepts can be explained simply by connecting lots of simple words, without any form of connection between the words but a space. In other languages you have difficult forms of connection between the simple words (I'm thinking of german here).

      Same as in chinese

      - although there are plenty of ways to cnojugate a verb, you can cover all times with very little conjugations.

      Chinese has no conjugations what so ever. No tenses either.

      Chinese grammar is much simpler then english. You don't even have connecting words like 'the' or 'is' to stick in sentances. Something like "I want to go to the store" in english is "wo xiang chu shangdian" in chinese, literaly "I want go store". Much simpler.

      --
      autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  85. Morals R Us by Mulletproof · · Score: 1

    Nah, I just can't stand the hypocrisy here, thanx ^__^

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
  86. Re:Being a Canadian by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    (* [What country *do* you wish to be a member of?]
    ...err... Canada? *)

    Go there. Beat it!

    BTW, Canada is not signif different than the US. Osama would also flatten Canada if given a chance. He just goes after the more iconic targets first.

  87. Nuts. by sean23007 · · Score: 2

    Oh, damn it. I had a 2150 node cluster supercomputer that I had been using to simulate nuclear explosions. I was trying to get rid of it, and China was my number one option. I guess that's out the window then...

    --

    Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
  88. Sorry, my bad by Medevo · · Score: 1

    My stereotyping shows just how good our society is at brainwashing people.

    And that I had not had caffeine for about 3 days

    Medevo

  89. Re:Technofix will cure everything (was Re:toxic ju by Saeger · · Score: 2
    ... no-one has come up with a safe solution to the waste problem

    Well, since you bring it up, there is a much better solution to handling nuclear waste than simply burying it in limestone, and better even than placing it near subduction zones in the ocean and waiting for the Earth to gobble it up.

    What is this "unrealistic" technofix you ask? geopolymerization -- we bind the liquid/solid waste in micron-sized "cages" which taken as a whole is like synthetic rock. It's many times safer than current containment; safe enough even to put on a playground (unless you completely pulverize the thing). Break a conventional waste container and it's game over; break the rock and you only release minute quanities from the cages shattered near the breakline.

    Glad to meet you Pessimist. I'm an Optimist. Balance the two of us and we get Reality eventually.

    --

    --
    Power to the Peaceful
  90. Speaking as an Ox... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please do not insult my intelligence by comparing me to an American.

    Americans buy "pet rocks". I wouldnt. I work hard in the fields for my living and I stumble accross plenty of rocks, more than sufficient for my basic existence.

    Inch square "beachfront property" for $49.95... "Yeah, sure I'll take two!" say the yanks.

    Please don't even get me started on the "Greenhouse Helmet" (all above courtesy of a copy of FHM discarded in my field) or canned "Arizona Air".

    As for that study, I'd wager that a further 20% said they were "genuine" Americans just out of pity...

    Ali the Ox