Slashdot Mirror


Digital Waste Worth More Than Gold, Copper Ore

tcd004 writes "Imagine sheer mountains of discarded Pentium IIIs, tractor trailers overflowing with discarded wall warts. Photojournalist Natalie Behring visited Guiyu, China and documented the world's biggest digital dump where, for $2 per day, the locals sort, disassemble, and pulverize hundreds of tons of e-waste. The payoff is huge: computer waste contains 17 times more gold than gold ore, 40 times more copper than copper ore. But the detritus also leaches chemicals and metals into local water supplies."

302 comments

  1. Imagine a digital dump by nmoog · · Score: 4, Funny

    1s and 0s as far as the eye can see!

    1. Re:Imagine a digital dump by Kris_J · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think I saw a 2

    2. Re:Imagine a digital dump by G-funk · · Score: 1

      I think I saw a 2

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    3. Re:Imagine a digital dump by ookabooka · · Score: 1

      Thats odd, I saw what looked to be a superposition of 0 and 1.

      --
      If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
    4. Re:Imagine a digital dump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry Kris_J, there's no such thing as 2.

    5. Re:Imagine a digital dump by digitig · · Score: 5, Funny

      I always wondered what /dev/null actually looked like!

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    6. Re:Imagine a digital dump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10

    7. Re:Imagine a digital dump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > /dev/null

    8. Re:Imagine a digital dump by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 0, Redundant

      There's no such thing as 2!

      --
      Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
    9. Re:Imagine a digital dump by zaguar · · Score: 2, Informative
      Futurama Quote:

      Bender: Ahhh, what an awful dream. Ones and zeroes everywhere... and I thought I saw a two.
      Fry: Don't worry, Bender: there's no such thing as two.

      --
      "Sure there's porn and piracy on the Web but there's probably a downside too."
    10. Re:Imagine a digital dump by StarfishOne · · Score: 1

      Has anyone seen my cat? ;-(

    11. Re:Imagine a digital dump by Andrew+Kismet · · Score: 1

      -hides Steven Hawking's gun, innocently-

    12. Re:Imagine a digital dump by StarfishOne · · Score: 1

      I bet you're hiding such an item using Heisenberg's uncertainty principle! :P

    13. Re:Imagine a digital dump by gyranthir · · Score: 1

      Schroedinger wasn't at the dump today.

    14. Re:Imagine a digital dump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      A digital dump? Yah, that'll happen if you don't get enough fiber.

    15. Re:Imagine a digital dump by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      I've only seen analog dumps. Everything from irrational numbers to floating decimals piled high.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    16. Re:Imagine a digital dump by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

      It's the mythical place where people have been emptying their bit buckets for years.

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    17. Re:Imagine a digital dump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      has /dev/blackhole been disproved by cosmologists then? I allways thought that was environmentally sound. We just got to pollute some other universe instead.

    18. Re:Imagine a digital dump by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      I called Cat Heaven, but they waffled on the issue.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    19. Re:Imagine a digital dump by Xichekolas · · Score: 1

      This entire thread is getting pretty sad.

      --

      Self-referential Sigs are cool on /. these days...

      54

    20. Re:Imagine a digital dump by LordEd · · Score: 1

      Sure there is, its when you put a 1 and a 0 beside each other: "10". You must be confused with monsters and 4 am. These are just stories made up to scare young children.

    21. Re:Imagine a digital dump by Kris_J · · Score: 1

      There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that get Futurama references and those that don't.

  2. We rule. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heh, look at all those motherboards.

    Fuck do we ever rock.

  3. Environmentally irresponsibility by nmoog · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you say that it's environmentally irresponsibility to throw away computer equipment, your girlfriend can't get mad that you've got a cluster of Amiga2000s making your house look like a digital dump.

    1. Re:Environmentally irresponsibility by nmoog · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh cut and paste. My good friend and bitterly enemy.

    2. Re:Environmentally irresponsibility by ACE209 · · Score: 1

      yup - and her next birthday present will be a bracelet of microchips.
      17 times more gold than gold ore - best gift ever.

      --
      "we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
    3. Re:Environmentally irresponsibility by TheSoggyCow · · Score: 0

      I don't know what's wrong with the world... My Celeron 466 is still alive and kicking. Its still top of the line!
      --
      Moo, Moo, Moo

    4. Re:Environmentally irresponsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Girlfriends and Clusters of Amiga2000s are mutually exclusive.

    5. Re:Environmentally irresponsibility by QuickFox · · Score: 5, Funny

      Girlfriends and Clusters of Amiga2000s are mutually exclusive. I realize that by asking what this means I'll lose every single geek point I might have had, as I reveal my ignorance about some arcane technology that is undoubtedly known to every geek in the Universe except me, but still I have to ask: What's a Girlfriend?
      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    6. Re:Environmentally irresponsibility by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's a Girlfriend?

      If I remember my Spanish right, it's the English word for "Amiga".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Environmentally irresponsibility by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 1

      "What's a Girlfriend?"

      Well, her name is Lara Croft and she's from out of town.

      --
      There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    8. Re:Environmentally irresponsibility by Vare2 · · Score: 1

      Please stop posting pictures of my backyard, kthnx.

    9. Re:Environmentally irresponsibility by Xiph · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, the term girlfriend (as in more than just friendly with) is "novia", "amiga" is a friend that happens to be a girl.
      Of course, this is slashdot, so i guess parent is right..

      --
      Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
    10. Re:Environmentally irresponsibility by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      What do you mean, there's a difference between a girlfriend and a friend that happens to be a girl?

      You mean, like, it could be a girl that can ... you know, hehe, well, ... dunno how to say it... well, a girl that can actually play Halo?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Environmentally irresponsibility by ElleyKitten · · Score: 1

      Girlfriends and Clusters of Amiga2000s are mutually exclusive.
      Yes. I'd take your Amigas and then you'd have neither.
      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    12. Re:Environmentally irresponsibility by mike2R · · Score: 1

      What's a Girlfriend?

      This old tech support enquiry may give you some pointers:

      Subject: Tech Support

      Last year I upgraded from Girlfriend 7.0 to Wife 1.0 and noticed that the new program began unexpected child processing that took up a lot of space and valuable resources. No mention of this phenomenon was included in the product brochure.

      In addition, Wife 1.0 installs itself into all other programs and launches during system initialization, where it monitors all other system activity. Applications such as Pokernight 10.3 Drunken Boys Night 2.5 and Sunday Football 5.0 no longer run, crashing the system whenever selected. I cannot seem to keep Wife 1.0 in the background while attempting to run some of my other favorite applications.

      I am thinking about going back to Girlfriend 7.0, but the un-install does not work on this program. Can you help me, please???

      Thanks, Joe

      ------------------

      Dear Joe:

      This is a very common problem men complain about but is mostly due to a primary misconception. Many people upgrade from Girlfriend 7.0 to Wife 1.0 with the idea that Wife 1.0 is merely a UTILITIES & ENTERTAINMENT program.Wife 1.0 is an OPERATING SYSTEM and designed by its creator to run everything.

      It is unlikely that you would be able to purge Wife 1.0 and still convert back to Girlfriend 7.0. Hidden operating files within your system would cause Girlfriend 7.0 to emulate Wife 1.0 so that, in the end, nothing would be gained. It is impossible to un-install, delete, or purge the program files from the system once installed. You cannot go back to Girlfriend 7.0 because Wife 1.0 is not designed to do this.

      Some have tried to install Girlfriend 8.0 or Wife 2.0 but end up with more problems than with the original system. Look in your manual under "Warnings-Alimony/Child Support". I recommend that you keep Wife 1.0 and just deal with the situation.

      Having Wife 1.0 installed myself, I might also suggest you read the entire section regarding General Partnership Faults (GPFs). You must assume all responsibility for faults and problems that might occur,regardless of their actual cause. The best course of action will be to enter the command C:\APOLOGIZE. In any case, avoid excessive use of the Esc key because -- ultimately-you will have to give the APOLOGIZE command before the operating system will return to normal. The system will run smoothly as long as you take the blame for all the GPFs.

      Wife 1.0 is a great program, but very high maintenance. Consider buying additional software to improve the performance of Wife 1.0. I recommend Flowers 2.1 and Chocolates 5.0. Do not, under any circumstances, install Secretary With Short Skirt 3.3. This is not a supported application for Wife 1.0 and is likely to cause irreversible damage to the operating system.

      Best of luck,

      Tech Support.
      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    13. Re:Environmentally irresponsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      girlfriend?

    14. Re:Environmentally irresponsibility by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      You mean, like, it could be a girl that can ... you know, hehe, well, ... dunno how to say it... well, a girl that can actually play Halo?

      Actually, in Spanish, a girl who can play Halo would be a(n) halita. Or something.

    15. Re:Environmentally irresponsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the term girlfriend (as in more than just friendly with) is "novia", "amiga" is a friend that happens to be a girl.
      Of course, this is slashdot, so i guess parent is right..

      Slashdotters would add a space: novia + space = no via or translated, no way.
    16. Re:Environmentally irresponsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you have to karma-whore, at least do it right.

      the correct spelling would be "noiva" actually (and it means "fiancé", not "girlfriend")

      kthnx

  4. Years ago I saw this on Discovery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Years ago I saw this on a Discovery documentary. It was surprising how much gold they got out of old electronic junk. Perhaps we should sen all our discarded computers to third world countries (emergency aid, ya know), so that they can disassemble them and sell them back to us for a penny.

    I'll start on a letter to Bush.

  5. Good for them by unkaggregate · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Finding a good use for old parts. They're better than most people I know who throw away a whole computer just because the latest software won't run on it. And if they can alleviate any toxic seepage into the soils doing so even better.

    It's kind of sad though that environmental laws here, even though they mean well, ultimately make it too costly for us to recycle PCs here compared to China.

    1. Re:Good for them by demon+driver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not so much environmental laws, it's the low wages which generate manual jobs in countries like China, where, by the way, unemployment is an even greater problem than in the western world, and so is the pressure on people to get any jobs there are, even if it's going to ruin their health and shorten their lives drastically.

      And regarding both environmental and social standards it would be rather short-sighted to further lower our western standards only to be more competitive to countries which are even more exploitative towards both environment and populace. Instead, efforts should go in the direction of installing world-wide minimum standards in both regards...

    2. Re:Good for them by speculatrix · · Score: 2, Informative

      take a look at The Undercover Economist where he discusses the sweat shops in the Philippines and other developing nations; for many people it truly is a decision between working in awful conditions vs starving (or taking even worse work, such as in the sex trade), and that usually western-run sweat shops are actually much better than local ones and drive up wages and improve working conditions by offering choice, and therefore as the competition for workers increases they get treated better.

    3. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My boss asked me to come over to her house to setup her new computer. I helped her set it up and asked why she got a new one. She got a new one because it was running too slow. It was full of spyware and other crap. This was almost a year ago now.

      It was a 3Ghz computer with 200gb of hd and 1gb of ram. Her new one was better then that and I cant remember the specs.

      See even bought a new laptop not too long ago because the fan was too loud.

      It would be nice to have money like that.

      I get a new computer every 5 years if I'm lucky...

    4. Re:Good for them by MichailS · · Score: 1

      And ironically, it is apparently not "costly" as there is apparently a net profit to be made.

      I'm thinking this of nuclear waste as well - in the future, our descendants will curse us for hiding that sweet burned-out fuel so deep...

    5. Re:Good for them by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      She got a new one because it was running too slow. It was full of spyware and other crap. This was almost a year ago now.
      Did you tell her that the old one was beyond repair - dangerous, in fact - and offer to [wink] safely dispose of it for her?
      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    6. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      www.freegeek.org

      Read please.

    7. Re:Good for them by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

      My father's boss recently bought a new laptop because his old one was constantly crashing, even after reinstalling windows. I asked if I could have a look at this laptop, opened it up and dusted it out. It hasn't crashed since.

      I gave it back with ubuntu installed on it, and they're still using it. (my good deed this year).

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    8. Re:Good for them by ajs318 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Instead, efforts should go in the direction of installing world-wide minimum standards in both regards...
      How about a law demanding that goods may not be imported, if they were manufactured under conditions that would not be acceptable in the destination country?
      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    9. Re:Good for them by ArmedGeek · · Score: 1

      Note that the workers are paid $2 per day. In the US you'd have to pay at least $5.75 (or whatever minimum wage is) per hour. Profitable ? Not so much.

      --
      Work is punishment for failing to procrastinate effectively.
    10. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      aye...at some point, industry takes a backseat to having healthy citizens.

    11. Re:Good for them by mobby_6kl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > How about a law demanding that goods may not be imported, if they were manufactured under conditions that would not be acceptable in the destination country?

      How about a law that would ban US imports in France (and other european countries) because the poor American workers have to work for more than 35 hours a week?

    12. Re:Good for them by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Instead, efforts should go in the direction of installing world-wide minimum standards in both regards... What're you? 10 years old? Tell you what, lets make full employment compulsory while we're at it so that everyone in the world has a job and make the minimum wage $100/hour so that nobody in the world is poor. It would be just as successful.

      --
      Deleted
    13. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that many of them don't even get 14 days paid vacation. The sort of law that the grandparent suggested would basically make importing illegal.

    14. Re:Good for them by dave_boo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So another person that's wanting to apply their morality on someone else. Sex work is one of the oldest professions. If you'd have a girlfriend, you know that you have to pay. Same thing if you visit a hooker. How many slashdot geeks don't have a girlfriend because they're living in mommy's basement? All woman want security. If they can't provide for it themself, they want to make sure their mate can. Those that practice prostitution, especially in the South East Asian part of our world are just more open about it.

      Take for instance my inlaws. Starting with my wife's parents. They are from up country, near Nakhon Sawan, and have, for the area, a successful life. They are farmer, raise cattle, and manufacture wooden goods such as chairs, tables, and doors. Now, even with all this income, due to the economic enviroment they're in, it's not enough. So their two daughters went to Bangkok to find work. I met my wife working in a 7-11, where about 5000 THB($143) a month. Her sister got a job working in a metal factory. She's only making 6000 THB($172) a month. Now, if you figure that rent will cost you around 3000 THB($86) a month (that includes utilities--but don't be expecting to run the air con or have more than a single room and forget about hot water), you're left with 3000 THB($86). Even if you sent NO money home, that leaves you with 100 Bhat($3) a day. Granted, you can take on roomates, but with the aforementioned living conditions, how many can you realistically accomodate? Let's say you take on 1 roomate. That lowers you monthly expenses for the room to 1500 bhat($43), leaving you with 4500 THB($129). So you're now looking at 150 THB($4) a day. Still not much, but if you could live on 100 THB($3) a day, you can send home 1500 THB($43) a month.

      Now, they have 2 younger brothers. Both are in school, but they have to pay. The older one's school is 6000 THB($172), and the younger is 3000 THB($86). The family is very much into making this sacrifice because they don't wish for the boys to live the same life that they've been subjected to. So, just for making the payments, the family needs to come up with 9000 THB($257) every month. This doesn't cover room and board for the older one either. Add in costs raised from just living, you can see that money is always tight. The fact that farming is a seasonal income does absolutely nothing to improve their situation. I've been trying to get them to become more reliant on the furniture making portion of their life, possibly paying workers to man their fields, but they're stubborn old people. Add in the constant bill paying, house upkeep, taxes (government has to get their share!).

      I've taken over the responsibilty of paying for their educations. This has been a huge financial boon for the family. I was truly appalled at the teaching conditions in their old shool. It was practically rote learning, which I hate with a passion. If you can't teach someone to learn on their own, they aren't learning.

      But I digress. Going back to the prostitution business. A girl can work in a bar and make anywhere from 500 THB(14) to 3000 THB($86) a night. Obviously, the more they sling their "goods", the more they make. Not only that, some even end up with sponsors (which I never understood) who pay for them not to continue working. Quite a few of those with sponsors continue working in the bars, so not only do they have a steady income from some foreign sponsor, but continue to make money on an almost daily basis going with customers. Do they need to do this. Obviously not. Does it make more money for family. Assuredly. I wouldn't expect someone who is not of Asian origin to fully understand the ties between family (I'm not Asian, so I can't understand it fully, but I respect it), but the duty that people feel for taking care of their family is real. Everyone takes jobs they wouldn't necessarily agree with, but make more money for them.

      The culture also doesn't stigmatise prostitution like most Western one

    15. Re:Good for them by ajs318 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No it wouldn't. It would, however, level the playing field. Manufacturing industry in the West can't hope to compete with third-world countries where they get away with things like not paying workers a decent wage, having them work in dangerous or unsanitary conditions, or polluting the environment. Why is it OK to treat Chinese workers like that but not British, European or American workers?

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    16. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or taking even worse work, such as in the sex trade


      *blinks* The sex trade can't be as bad as starving, or working as slave labor. It wouldn't exist or be as deplorable if it wasn't for European and American patrons who spurred the growth of the industry in the first place.

      Vietnam war veterans I'm sure all have stories (which they probably won't tell) about the Vietnamese whorehouses that were built and set up exclusively to service them.
    17. Re:Good for them by BlackGriffen · · Score: 2

      Maybe, but you could also impose tariffs. Certainly impose them to a balancing degree, and possibly to a punitive degree.

      I see no reason to let them profit because American's are on the whole too lazy to bother with the well being of overseas workers.

    18. Re:Good for them by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > because the poor American workers have to work for more than 35 hours a week?

      This reminds me of a quote by a Communist worker from the excellent book Wild Swans:

      "How can you even think about such things [in this context, asking a girl out on a date] while the capitalists in America are living in an abyss of misery?"

      This was around the times of the hideous (and Mao-imposed) famines in the Great Leap Forward.

    19. Re:Good for them by speculatrix · · Score: 1

      putting aside the morality, the health aspects (risk of aids, hepatitis, HPV etc) of being a sex worker and the risks of violence are considerable.

    20. Re:Good for them by demon+driver · · Score: 1

      lets make full employment compulsory Why that? Because, as technological progress continues, less and less people's work will ever be needed again to produce what this planet's economy wants to produce?

      so that nobody in the world is poor Which only sounds infeasible for those who insist that the current system of "distributing" the world's wealth is in order. The world's wealth as an absolute value would actually be more than adequate for no single human being having to remain poor.

      One good thing about globalization is that in time it will teach more and more western believers in capitalism that the 21st century state of their world-ruling religion is going to make them, too, poorer and poorer, while the only ones remaining to accumulate more and more wealth will be those who can profit from the gaps of living standards between nations and world regions. Everyone else will, in the long run, be on the losing side, environment included. For which the steadily increasing unemployment even in the core nations of industrialization, over the whole of at least the last three decades, is merely one indication.
    21. Re:Good for them by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      What do you wanna do? Stick your head in the sand and pretend the world is perfect?

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    22. Re:Good for them by demon+driver · · Score: 1

      a law demanding that goods may not be imported, if they were manufactured under conditions that would not be acceptable in the destination country ... would only have a possible effect if your country's imports had a significant share of the other country's exports. Not speaking of the difficulties in overseeing those conditions in every country yours is importing from...
    23. Re:Good for them by speculatrix · · Score: 1

      Ok, so, lets look at this as purely a supply/demand situation. If being a sex worker is all that great, how come the price is so high? Surely, there'd be so much supply that the earnings would be no different from being in some other retail work or waitressing? Why do people choose to work long hours in a factory instead of a few hours in a brothel?

    24. Re:Good for them by demon+driver · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No wonder believers in a "free market" like to draw such "conclusions". But talking about world-wide social minimum standards does of course not mean minimum wages without minimum social security, while you're implying it would simply mean abolishing sweat shops implying ex-workers starving to death.

      Trying to describe "western-run sweat-shops" as the great new saviour for third-world countries, just because their exploitation is slightly less brutal than that of "local ones" (I won't take that as a proven rule either), is simply cynical.

    25. Re:Good for them by speculatrix · · Score: 1

      Trying to describe "western-run sweat-shops" as the great new saviour for third-world countries

      I didn't way they were a good thing, merely that before people condemned them they should consider the facts.

      Back on topic a bit: many people seem unaware that just as there's a European wide RoHS directive, so there's one in China too which is more stringent and posing problems for European exporters.

    26. Re:Good for them by dave_boo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For the exact reason you listed. Demand. Foreigners come here to partake of the trade. I should have qualified my post (I typed for a long time and was too lazy to go back an preview it) by saying those are the earnings of those who service foreigners. Those who work the locals make less. The favourite customers are Japanese. Thai's refer to them as the 3'ers. 3", 3 minutes, 3000 bhat. Some people do attach some stigma too it. The fear of AIDS, unwated pregnancy, etc. is also a deterrant. And a lot of girls only do it to supplment their incomes. Uni girls do it for a new phone for example.

      I wasn't around before foreigners started increasing the price of sex. However, I have traveled through Dubai on numerous occasions. My routine usually went like this: First, shower followed by a trip to a barber for a haircut and a proper shave. Than it was off to a coffee shop, where I could get the best Turkish coffee. Next was some real food. Than a bar was hit up. Obviously, all these trips were made in taxis. I don't know if the drivers get a referall fee, but I have yet to ride in one where the man didn't offer to take me to see the ladies. One time I questioned the driver about it. He told me he had been there 7 years, and in the begining, he had to pay something like 50 dirhams for time with a lady. It has now increased to something like 350 dirhams since all the foreigners are going through there. Mostly Americans coming down from Iraq and having full scrotums. Had they not started doing that, would their prices be that high now?

    27. Re:Good for them by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Imagine how much better the competition would be if western run sweat shops actually had good conditions.

    28. Re:Good for them by Richthofen80 · · Score: 1

      unemployment is an even greater problem than in the western world
      Depends on what you mean by the 'western world'. if you mean the United States, we have a less than 5% unemployment rate, which means we are actually experiencing a labor shortage. (http://www.bls.gov/ 4.5% in April)

      Instead, efforts should go in the direction of installing world-wide minimum standards in both regards...
      Enforceable by whom?

      Also, who are we to tell third world nations how to live? If it means that citizens can earn enough money to buy food and build capital and equity; and perhaps even scratch out a meaningful existence, don't they have a right to? What if they make a conscious choice to pollute 2 square miles of land in exchange for relative prosperity?

      I think we should butt out. They're recycling old computers and selling the gold that will make new computers. that's fine with me.

      --
      Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
    29. Re:Good for them by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      Which only sounds infeasible for those who insist that the current system of "distributing" the world's wealth is in order. The world's wealth as an absolute value would actually be more than adequate for no single human being having to remain poor. Clearly you are 10 years old. Rather than relying on your idealistic model of how humans should behave, try observing how humans actually behave. I suggest you investigate human psychology and economics, which is simply human psychology applied to money.

      --
      Deleted
    30. Re:Good for them by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      What do you wanna do? Stick your head in the sand and pretend the world is perfect? No, what I do is I put my money where my mouth is and actually invest in the developing world.

      --
      Deleted
    31. Re:Good for them by mobby_6kl · · Score: 0

      > Why is it OK to treat Chinese workers like that but not British, European or American workers?

      Because they're Chinese? Wait, don't mod me down (just yet), this isn't some sort of wacist comment. The British, American, and European aren't treated like that because they decided not to be treated like that. These workers are Chinese, citizens of the sovereign glorious nation of China, and they (the government, society, and individuals) decide how they want to work.

      I could understand intervening if they were being forced to work there against their will and the conditions were much worse than they are now. But that's not the case, the standards are simply not on the level of rich countries because, well, China is still mostly a very poor country.

    32. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you'll find that how humans "actually" behave depends on their culture, which is learned. Your ad hominem attacks and your blind faith in what you think is correct is all I need to know about you. Max Planck was right, people need to die for ideas to change. How old are you?

    33. Re:Good for them by demon+driver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So another person that's wanting to apply their morality on someone else. Sex work is one of the oldest professions Your indifference to one of the world's biggest humanitary problems does not make it better. You're clearly not seeing that even your own words indicate that many women who live below the standards of those you were talking about come to prostitution only as a last resort, while they'd never even think about it under economically secure conditions. And, exceptions notwithstanding, prostitution has always been that way, in any place on the globe. It may well be, though, that in regions where the "normal" exploitation of human workforce has long since aggravated into sexual exploitation as a mass phenomenon, that a general attitude of resign sets in, as noone sees a chance to alleviate the situation, which has already become too commonplace.

      Want proof? Count prostitutes in places where prostitution is such a mass phenomenon, introduce adequate social welfare there, count prostitutes four weeks thereafter.
    34. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      get away with?

      doubt you would reduce your quality of life to level that playing field.

      Let's start by charging a weeks wages for those shoes your wearing.

    35. Re:Good for them by King_TJ · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I tend to agree about tariffs being a viable option to help "level the playing field". But "Americans are, on the whole, too lazy to bother with the well being of overseas workers"??

      I fail to see how "laziness" has ANYTHING to do with the discussion. It doesn't seem to me like it's America's responsibility to ensure the well being of overseas workers that don't work for our own companies. America seems like it is always called upon/expected to step in whenever there's a global issue. (Anything from cries for food or monetary assistance when a nation encounters a large disaster, to sending in troops to assist in matters which don't directly affect us.) Then, we're just as often criticized for "meddling" where we "don't belong".

      The only aspect of this we should directly be concerned with in America is the financial one. (EG. Does importing from nations that refuse to uphold standards of living comparable to ours hurt OUR economy in the long-run? If yes, then we need to take actions that help fix it.) Otherwise, for all I care, China, with their poor stance on human rights and environmental issues, can wallow in their own pollution and filth.

    36. Re:Good for them by dave_boo · · Score: 1

      It is not a last resort. Rather it's the easiest resort. Had my girlfriend and her sister been so inclined, they could have put away quite a bit of money. But they chose not to do that, rather toil away in the factories and stores. Even if it was a last resort, how is the phenomenon of university students, who by default come from more well to do families, also an issue? As far as it being a last resort, you understand that not everyone shares your distaste for the profession. Some see it as nothing more than a job. You can not support your argument by saying that exceptions notwithstanding than making an ultimatium that excludes those exceptions. That reduces your assertions to a non-defendable debate based on rules defined solely by you.

      If a woman chooses to work in this profession, how is that exploitation? There's many cases of the workers not needing the money, but choosing it for the exciting life it brings.

      My understanding is that even with the oustanding social programmes in Germany and the Netherlands, there is still quite a large workforce in the prostitution scene. Of course, that could be one of those exceptions not withstanding........

    37. Re:Good for them by ElleyKitten · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you'd have a girlfriend, you know that you have to pay.
      Bullshit. I've spent more on boyfriends than they have me. Sex shouldn't be about money, and the faster society gets over that concept the better things will be. Anyways, your wife's family sucks. The girls have to get crap jobs, but the boys get to go to school? And the girls have to send money home to pay for their schooling when they can barely make by themselves? Maybe if the people there found it just as important to send the girls to school as the boys there would be less prostitution.
      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    38. Re:Good for them by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

      It's not so much environmental laws, it's the low wages which generate manual jobs in countries like China
      Good! Then if we insist they follow our environmental regulations, it won't hurt them much at all, and we'll have less ecological destruction. I'm glad we're in agreement.
    39. Re:Good for them by demon+driver · · Score: 1

      Some see it as nothing more than a job. So some do. But none of your argument proves that this was the rule rather than the exception anywhere on this planet.

      even with the oustanding social programmes in Germany and the Netherlands, there is still quite a large workforce in the prostitution scene. Of course, that could be one of those exceptions not withstanding No exception at all. You might simply have overlooked that the crumbling social security systems in Germany and the Netherlands can no longer disguise the fact that poverty has always been there, and is more and more increasing, even within those rich western countries. The prostitution business there is nearly exclusively recruiting from the lowest social classes and has always done so. Such prostitutes come both from within their own countries and increasingly from Eastern European countries where social problems still are a lot worse, and the "employment situation" is nearly never an equitable one. Prostitution by free will is clearly the exception there, not the rule, and prostitution is widely regarded as a severe form of exploitation. Even though, on paper, prostitutes nowadays have the status of regular workers both in Germany and the Netherlands, in order to at least try to ensure a minimum amount of worker's rights.
    40. Re:Good for them by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      "The prostitution business there is nearly exclusively recruiting from the lowest social classes and has always done so. Such prostitutes come both from within their own countries and increasingly from Eastern European countries where social problems still are a lot worse, and the "employment situation" is nearly never an equitable one."

      I could say the same thing about the landscaping business, factory workers, migrant farmers, etc except in the US they come from Mexico or Central America.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    41. Re:Good for them by demon+driver · · Score: 1

      It is always enlightening to see that, by apologists of the prevailing system of unjustness and mischief, only a scientifically unsubstantiated belief in a world and a humanity that cannot change is considered somehow mature, while world and humanity are changing all the way at a speed never experienced before, only hindered by the world's structures of power - and only to some amount by themselves - to turn the changes to a healthier direction. Human nature does not in the least stand in the way of a kinder system, and to that account there indeed exist major scientific results, as the research in psychology by Erich Fromm, and recent neurological research backing Fromms theories up. Ten year olds, all of them?

    42. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ugh, Thank-you. I suppose we know why this guy had to go to go east to find a wife.

      "If you'd have a girlfriend, you know that you have to pay."
      "All woman want security."

      Give me a fucking break.

      And while I do agree that there's nothing inherently wrong with sex work, everyone ought to keep in mind that at present -- conditions can be very dangerous for workers, young people (guys too!) are often pressured or forced into jobs, while others take them out of desperation and a lack of alternatives. That's something to be very worried about.

    43. Re:Good for them by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      That's all well and good, except inhaling fumes from burning lead, is like *REALLY* bad for you. Seriously, I wonder what the functional working limit is for these people, I can't imagine inhaling lead fumes for more than five years before going stark raving mad.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    44. Re:Good for them by dave_boo · · Score: 1

      Sex shouldn't be about money, but that's what it boils down to all too often. Would most girls rather be with a guy who has money than who doesn't? Wouldn't you? I know it's kinda a crass overgeneralisation, but it's fairly true.

      As far as my wife's family sucking......nothing can be further from the truth. The society they live in sucks, no doubt about it. The reason that the older 2 children, who coincidentally are girls, weren't able to get a really good education is due to lack of affordable quality education. It isn't that they didn't want them to, in fact, they take whatever courses they can because they're curious. That's how I was able to meet my wife....she was studying English and wanted to practice it on me. As soon as the boys finish their schooling, they'll go to work and send money to help support the family. Than everyone will have to send less. And since the family is so close knit, if one of the sisters ever needs money, SOMEBODY will come up with it.

    45. Re:Good for them by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      I suggest you investigate human psychology and economics, which is simply human psychology applied to money.

      There is a bit more to economics than just human psychology. Scarcity, for example, is a property of the physical world and not merely a product of the human mind.

      Anyway, the GP's suggestion would work great -- in the short term. Everyone would have enough for survival, at least, for a week, or maybe even a month or two. After that people would begin to feel the effects of eliminating all the incentives for productive labor and saving. The only two ways out would be forced labor or a return to capitalism, which is the natural state of society in the absence of any aggressive use of force. Considering history, though, the former seems more likely during a worldwide panic of that magnitude -- though capitalism would doubtless return as well in the form of extensive "black" markets, barter, favors, etc.

      Incidently, I had thought all the scarcity-deniers died out a long time ago. How did the GP manage to escape the rise of modern economics?

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    46. Re:Good for them by ElleyKitten · · Score: 1

      Sex shouldn't be about money, but that's what it boils down to all too often. Would most girls rather be with a guy who has money than who doesn't? Wouldn't you? I know it's kinda a crass overgeneralisation, but it's fairly true.
      I can't speak for most women (because there's about 3.5 billion women out there and I don't know most of them - but neither do you) but I've never made decisions about who I will date based on the money he makes. My husband is a school bus mechanic, and my only issue with that is it's dangerous and I worry about him. Girls shouldn't be raised with the idea that a man will support them when they grow up, because too often that doesn't happen. Women need to be just as independent as men.

      As for your wife's family... I'm sorry if I made assumptions, but it sounds like her brothers are getting more of an education than her and her sister have/are getting. If that's the case, then that's plain unfair (if it's not, then I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions). Is there any reason why the two oldest can't be in school with the youngest working until the older can send them to school? Is that how it would be if the boys were older and the girls were younger?
      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    47. Re:Good for them by demon+driver · · Score: 1

      capitalism, which is the natural state of society in the absence of any aggressive use of force

      people would begin to feel the effects of eliminating all the incentives for productive labor and saving The old capitalist dogma, based on nothing but ideology. Mankind has survived and progressed fine before captalism emerged, with periods of a lot less pressure to do things. You're batantly denying the fact, by the way, that there never was more "aggressive use of force" than through capitalism, starting with governments forcibly taking away the populace's self-sustenance after the bourgeoisie succeeded feudalism, culminating in the first industrial revolution. As stated in another post, there is no such human nature as being productive only under massive pressure. Enough periods, cultures and societies indicate it, and so does modern psychology and neurology.
    48. Re:Good for them by babblefrog · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Sometimes I'm just blown away when somebody's view of the world is so narrow. "What I have in my own (rich) country, people in poor countries should have too!".

      What the heck would you consider the minimum those workers in some of the worlds poorest countries should have? $7.00/hour minimum wage? Sick leave, vacation leave, retirement plan? 6 months of unemployment if they get laid off?

      When the industrial revolution started in the west, people ran from the farms to work in the "dark satanic mills", because they made a lot more money than they would have otherwise. For many it was a choice between a job and starvation, just like the "sweat shop work" that you are talking about.

      Sometimes I think some of our western friends would prefer if the people starved, instead. How about comparing the working conditions in the "sweat shops" to the conditions of other poor people living in those countries, instead of to the condition of westerners working in air-conditioned cubicles. More of an apples-and-apples comparison, I mean.

    49. Re:Good for them by Devrdander · · Score: 1

      First I have to applaud you, you break the stereo type. But I also have to point out you are taking offense strongly to the consensus here. On average Men do make more than Woman, even in the same jobs. Its a bitter pill of society you have to accept. There are still more house wives than house husbands and although America has made a big swing towards dual income house holds its usually the man that brings in the larger salary and the woman who has the disposable job instead of a career. Those margins of separation are thinning rapidly state side but in China the stigma that males are superior to females is still strong. This is the reason why the majority of adoptions in the US from Asia are female, because families will have multiple children till one is born male. In the country regions where the 1 child laws aren't enforced, which seems to be the region that parent speaks of, they generally depend on the male children to take the reigns, get an education, and find a decent career. Since the market tends to favor men in positions of power a male has a much higher earning potential there than the females. This is probably rooted in the labor background of the region, where a male would probably be more productive in a physical labor profession.

      As far as the exploitation statements are concerned. In countries (specially Asia) where the moral code wasn't written based on a Christian background of belief things like sex alcohol and other drugs aren't viewed in the same light. Although they may be acknowledged as social blights due to health concerns (Spread of disease, addition and destructive behavior), they aren't necessarily viewed as morally objectionable. Emotional ties of sex can actually vary

    50. Re:Good for them by lee1026 · · Score: 1

      Well, I doubt you can name a single one of those periods and cultures where people were not under great pressure to do things. The workweek in feudalism was 6 days, for example, which is hardly an improvement over modern sweatshops. Before then, you have slave labor under the Romans and the greeks.

    51. Re:Good for them by dave_boo · · Score: 1

      Don't worry about assumptions.....I may have made one or two in lumping ALL woman into the requiring security group. As far as your husband being a mechanic; that's a good profession. I can't speculate on how much money he makes, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with his job if he likes doing it--except for it bothering you of course.

      The reason that the younger couldn't have helped the older is that the two sisters are aged 28 and 26. After their parents got a little better financially, they had the two boys, who are currently aged 16 (just turned 2 months ago....had to buy him his first cellular-nicer than mine, but I hate the stupid things), and 11. Unfortunately this age gap prevents anything of the sort you're proposing. I'm currently trying to set up a family business that will employ all of them to allievate the strain, but it's hard going.

      Actually, anecdotal evidence, i.e., me sitting at a Starbucks and watching people leaving the local university suggests that the majority of the students are in fact female. I would say a good 65% of them.

    52. Re:Good for them by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Well... One thing I have learned in my travels is that there are huge cultural differences about gender roles.

      My wife is from Indonesia. My favorite country to visit is Ecuador. I am familiar with both places.

      One of the largest challenges of my marriage is the fact that I value many things over security, while my wife believes that my primary responsibility is to provide financial security for the family. Obviously I recognize the need for some security but it is a lower priority than it does for her because I believe that real security comes from a combination of living a fearless life and doing what you are best at. Hence I think it is a product of what is important, not a goal itself. For the first two years after I started my business, we fought about it for this reason. True my parents helped provide a base of security but it was not the sort of thing she wanted.

      Many cultures see the family as a security net. It is not about confusing sex and money, really-- it is about helping out those in your family in various ways. Sex is secondary to support, I think. But one thing that often comes from blowing this aspect out of purportion is that some women (including my wife, btw) are taught from adolescence to be afraid of their husband leaving them, and hence they see sex not as something to do for their own benefit so much as a way to ensure continued support.

      So the situation is more complex than people who have not lived in many other countries and learned to get along in other cultures understand. When you understand how hard it is for many of these people to send all their children to school. When they have to decide who gets education based on how that is going to impact their quality of life, it is easy to point fingers at them and say they are doing something wrong. But it is probably not the family's fault because fixing the problem is going to require a drastic change in the way even public education is funded in Asian countries (currently even public primary schools charge tuition that puts them out of the reach of most people).

      In Indonesia, the situation is further complicated by religious groups (mostly Salafi Muslim) playing politics with education and trying to turn the systems to the advancement of their religious viewpoint for all citizens of the country.

      These problems are solvable but not by blaming the wrong people. In the late 1990's, Ecuador adopted a commitment to make primary and secondary education available free of charge for all children. Although Ecuador's economy is still in really bad shape, this may prove to be a way out of the problem. I am involved in a number of economic development programs in Ecuador so I keep track of this sort of thing.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    53. Re:Good for them by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      I understand your point. And I think that there are limits to what intervention should be done.

      I *do* think that companies that do business in the US (Nike, Shell, Wallmart, etc.) ought to be held accountable to how they treat overseas workers and overseas commercial partners (though these are different issues-- Wallmart in particular is known to use tactics with manufacturers in China that would be unthinkable here). I think that we can and should impose some minimum standards which are higher than local laws may be.

      I do not think that we need to be pressuring other governments to raise those standards.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    54. Re:Good for them by Touvan · · Score: 1

      It's awesome that there can be forward progress in those nations, as it was great when very similar things happened here in the U.S. My hope is that we'll find a way to continue to lift those third world populations further out of poverty, while ensuring that their new situation will be stable into the future. Any gains they make will be lost, if the western-run shops pull out at the first sign of cheaper labor. It would also be great if the west could do this without sacrificing the progress we have made here in our own history.

    55. Re:Good for them by dave_boo · · Score: 1

      Firstly, I don't know why I'm responding to an anonymous coward.

      However, I didn't have to go east to find a wife. I wasn't even planning on getting married. I had my share of girlfriend's in the states. However, I've always been attracted to Asian women. The fact that I ended up here and found her is just a happy co-incidence. I didn't know there was some edict saying you had to marry in your own "race" and country. Your statement smacks of bigotry.

    56. Re:Good for them by narsiman · · Score: 1

      Do you really need a law to do an act of conscience. The next thing you would want is the government to tell you what you can or cannot eat.

    57. Re:Good for them by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      ". . . many women . . . come to prostitution only as a last resort, while they'd never even think about it under economically secure conditions."

      How many people get to choose their line of work under "economically secure conditions"? The folks that genuinely enjoy their jobs are the exception rather than the rule. People work primarily because they need to provide for themselves and their families. Few have a choice of working vs. not working. How many women do you think would work waiting tables or cleaning hotel rooms if they had some sort of guarantee?

    58. Re:Good for them by rozz · · Score: 1

      If you'd have a girlfriend, you know that you have to pay.
      Bullshit. I've spent more on boyfriends than they have me. whether you like it or not, that only means you are an exception.
      and as a slashdot-girl, you are a big exception from the very start ... one cannot go into generalized conclusions based on your experience.

      Sex shouldn't be about money, and the faster society gets over that concept the better things will be. all nice, right and beautiful .. but how exactly do you propose to do that?
      and btw, in order to do that, you'll have to figure a way to convince your gender-colleagues not to sell their bodies anymore ... good luck with that!

      Anyways, your wife's family sucks. such a hurried conclusion ... a hateful and very insulting one too... with this kind of attitude, are you still expecting respect from the ppl around you?
      btw, if you wanna change the world, there is only one way to do it .. a while ago some indian guy put in in very nice words :
      "Be the change that you want to see in the world." Mohandas Gandhi
      and of course, apart from that, one also needs *a lot* of patience.

      seems to me that you dont fit the profile of a "world changer" at all .. and a basic common-sense rule says that as long as you are not capable to provide any help, you should keep your mouth shut .. especially when it comes to criticizing others.

      --
      "There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
    59. Re:Good for them by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1
      They had than brought old, dirty, obvious sex tourists home to see their families.


      OMG, old ones!? Yuuuuuuccckk that's terrible! Don't they know that it's the young, dirty, obvious sex tourists that are the ones to bring home to meet the families???

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    60. Re:Good for them by maxume · · Score: 1

      If there isn't any stigma, how come there was some question about where you kept your salami?

      And even if the girls (and whatnot) choose to do it for good reason, it is still dangerous and comes with lots of extra nifty (potential) health issues.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    61. Re:Good for them by rozz · · Score: 1

      Rather than relying on your idealistic model of how humans should behave, try observing how humans actually behave. I suggest you investigate human psychology and economics, which is simply human psychology applied to money.

      logically, your post seems correct .. but who told you that money are the best solution and should exist forever? and who says that the actual society is the best of all and cannot be changed into a better one? and who says that the way humans behave cannot/should not be changed?
      btw .. do you know *any* sample of a civilization that succeeded by trying to preserve the status-quo?

      your *nothing should/can change* attitude belongs to a totalitarian ideology .. and it's 100% counter-progressive .. and 100% pessimistic too.
      i'll definitely choose a 10 years old if the alternative is a smart guy like you.
      --
      "There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
    62. Re:Good for them by dave_boo · · Score: 1

      No, those are known in the West as the backpackers, or to Thais derogatorily as "farangs kee nhok". Literally bird shit foreigners. Interesting, since the French were the first Westerners that Thais were exposed to, the mispronunciation of their ethnicity is what term has stuck with all Westerners to this day.

    63. Re:Good for them by maxume · · Score: 1

      The book doesn't herald sweat shops as any great new savior; it simply points out that if you ask many of the people working there, their lives are better than before they got the job.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    64. Re:Good for them by rozz · · Score: 1

      capitalism.. is the natural state of society in the absence of any aggressive use of force. fully agree with the first part of your post, economics is surely more than psichology.
      but the above quote is just *wow* .. my bullshit meter instantly turned red and started to cry out loud.

      first of all ... i seriously doubt there is any conclusive evidence to sustain that capitalism is a natural state of society ... and i am sure there is absolutely no evidence to say that capitalism is the best or most natural state of a human society.

      second ... your affirmation that capitalist societies are free of any "aggressive force" is quite mind-boggling.
      the legal system is a pretty aggressive force, the police is another one, governments are too, etc... how did you manage to "forget" all those?
      if those societies are so nice & natural, why do they need aggressive force to protect themselves from both internal and external "factors"? how do you explain wars? or the very aggressive witch-hunts that most of them conducted against anyone that opposed them or simply tried to be different?

      anyway ... in this world there is no such thing as an "aggression-free environment" ... nowhere! .. and it may never exist.
      --
      "There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
    65. Re:Good for them by ElleyKitten · · Score: 1

      whether you like it or not, that only means you are an exception. and as a slashdot-girl, you are a big exception from the very start ... one cannot go into generalized conclusions based on your experience.
      And it's the old "you're the exception, shut up" argument.

      Sex shouldn't be about money, and the faster society gets over that concept the better things will be.
      all nice, right and beautiful .. but how exactly do you propose to do that?
      I don't need to propose anything, it's been a trend over the past decades in developed countries as women are earning more and more in comparison to men, so they are more independent and have less need for a boyfriend or husband to buy things for them.

      and btw, in order to do that, you'll have to figure a way to convince your gender-colleagues not to sell their bodies anymore ... good luck with that!
      The problem isn't with women selling their bodies, it's with men buying them. That's why countries like Sweden, where the buying of sexual services is illegal, there is a lower rate of prostitution than in countries where the selling of the services is illegal. Prostitution is, for the most part, about disadvantaged and vulnerable women taken advantage of by men who buy and sell them (pimps and johns). Sometimes the gender roles are different (men can be prostitutes, women can be madams) but the prostitute always has the short stick.

      such a hurried conclusion ... a hateful and very insulting one too... with this kind of attitude, are you still expecting respect from the ppl around you?
      I jumped to conclusions, and if you read the further posts you'd realize that I apologized for assuming. I had thought the educational differences were due to gender differences, but turned out to be due to a large age gap and circumstances that had the daughters already moved out as independent adults before the family had enough money to put children through school. I do, however, retain the right to criticize any family for valuing their daughters and their daughters' education less than their sons and their sons' education. I just don't see how that kinda thing is justifiable.

      and of course, apart from that, one also needs *a lot* of patience.
      I have more patience than most people on the internet.

      seems to me that you dont fit the profile of a "world changer" at all .. and a basic common-sense rule says that as long as you are not capable to provide any help, you should keep your mouth shut .. especially when it comes to criticizing others.
      So I should keep my mouth shut when I see sexist idiocy because I shouldn't criticize others? That's not a very effective method of world changing.
      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    66. Re:Good for them by tehdaemon · · Score: 1

      You and the post you replied to seem to be using differend definitions of 'capitalism'

      His definition seems to be closer to Laissez-faire, and your definition seems closer to 'He who has the gold makes the rules' Your phrase 'governments forcibly taking away' is about as far from laissez-faire economic policy as one can get. It does however, fit the other golden rule definition rather well.

      Most /. discussions about capitalism make this mistake, as both definitions are common - and in their own way each are very real.

      T

      --
      Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
    67. Re:Good for them by tunafish_smoothie · · Score: 1

      Realizing that China is *already* a "Communist Country", a hopeless situation for the general populations of other countries has led to problems for the U.S. over and over again. Look at the rise of Nazism after the crushing reparations of WWI and the great depression. Or the Communist Revolution in Russia. Everything and everyone is connected more closely than they may seem, and Isolationism isn't really a viable foreign policy for the US.

    68. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Manufacturing industry in the West can't hope to compete with third-world countries where they get away with things like not paying workers a decent wage, having them work in dangerous or unsanitary conditions, or polluting the environment. Manufacturing industry in the East can't hope to compete with Western robotics. Imagine a worker that never complains, doesn't need to rest, works tirelessly, and only requires electricity and a modicum of maintenance. If push came to shove, I'm sure Western manufacturing could be improved far beyond its current capacity.
    69. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it was pretty smart of some Chinese politician to realize that letting those landfills deposit themselves in China would yield a vein with a higher concentration of gold than Witwatersrand ore.

      But somebody should also point out that all those hazardous chemicals leaching into the ground are ALSO chemicals that somebody paid good money for the first time around. Re-processing those chemicals would probably be even more profitable than the gold.

      But even that isnt the whole picture in Chinese politics. A couple years ago there were mumblings in the Chinese press about how Western countries had deliberately dumped their toxic trash there, to harm the Chinese people. Thats politics, unfortunately. If those dumps do degenerate into an engine for demagoguery, their economic value may be forgotten.

    70. Re:Good for them by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Exploitation of poorly paid labor is the price of jumpstarting the economy.

      "Why is it OK to treat Chinese workers like that but not British, European or American workers?"

      Okayness is irrelevant. If working conditions for Chinese workers were magically mandated to be equivalent to those in the EUSian countries, they would not have any advantage. Their employers would lay them off, and they would not benefit. A shitty job beats no job when there is no safety net.

      British, European, and American workers inherited societies built by poor, non-union, expendable labor. That labor sustained the rapid growth we needed. It was the cost of doing business.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    71. Re:Good for them by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      first of all ... i seriously doubt there is any conclusive evidence to sustain that capitalism is a natural state of society ... and i am sure there is absolutely no evidence to say that capitalism is the best or most natural state of a human society.

      second ... your affirmation that capitalist societies are free of any "aggressive force" is quite mind-boggling. the legal system is a pretty aggressive force, the police is another one, governments are too, etc... how did you manage to "forget" all those?

      To address these points together, "aggression" (the initiation of violent force) specifically does not include defensive force or proportional retribution. Ergo, the legal system and police (in general) are not examples of aggression. Capitalism, or more precisely a system of private property, is any system in which aggression is not tolerated. Ergo, by definition, any society which lacks aggression is capitalistic.

      anyway ... in this world there is no such thing as an "aggression-free environment" ... nowhere! .. and it may never exist.

      You won't get any argument from me. While we always hope evil will be vanquished eventually (to use a more generic term), we can never be certain of reaching that goal. That doesn't mean we can't try, though. Anyway, capitalism doesn't depend on a lack of aggression, just a lack of general tolerance for aggression.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    72. Re:Good for them by rozz · · Score: 1

      whether you like it or not, that only means you are an exception. and as a slashdot-girl, you are a big exception from the very start ... one cannot go into generalized conclusions based on your experience.

      And it's the old "you're the exception, shut up" argument.

      i guess you can put it like that if you wanna pose as a victim .. in fact it is pure and simple statistics theory ... if you wanna obtain a meaningful median, you have to eliminate the most exceptional cases .. and yours is exactly one of those ... i am not saying it is ok to be so .. i am not saying that you should like/accept it ... and even i dont like it .. but that is the current state of affairs.

      Sex shouldn't be about money, and the faster society gets over that concept the better things will be.

      all nice, right and beautiful .. but how exactly do you propose to do that?

      I don't need to propose anything, it's been a trend over the past decades in developed countries as women are earning more and more in comparison to men, so they are more independent and have less need for a boyfriend or husband to buy things for them.

      there are some traces of that trend .. at the same time, most of those "developed countries" also have the most developed sex industries

      and btw, in order to do that, you'll have to figure a way to convince your gender-colleagues not to sell their bodies anymore ... good luck with that!

      The problem isn't with women selling their bodies, it's with men buying them. That's why countries like Sweden, where the buying of sexual services is illegal, there is a lower rate of prostitution than in countries where the selling of the services is illegal. Prostitution is, for the most part, about disadvantaged and vulnerable women taken advantage of by men who buy and sell them (pimps and johns). Sometimes the gender roles are different (men can be prostitutes, women can be madams) but the prostitute always has the short stick.

      plain WRONG ...
      first of all forced prohibition does not work for anything.
      second ... consider this ... you and me are adults and i tell you i'll pay 1 million if you jump off the bridge .. well, if you jump it's 100% Your fault .. same for the women that agree to sell their bodies .. same for the men that do the same ..
      and the "they are weak and so exploited" argument does not work either .. not even for the cases when they do it under threat .. it is still a choice .. their choice.

      and even if you somehow eliminate all cases of forced prostitution, prolly more than half of the prostitutes will still remain .. the ones that do it because they like it, because they want money to buy a better bla, because they are not capable of anything else, because they prefer "the easy way", etc....

      such a hurried conclusion ... a hateful and very insulting one too... with this kind of attitude, are you still expecting respect from the ppl around you?

      I jumped to conclusions, and if you read the further posts you'd realize that I apologized for assuming. I had thought the educational differences were due to gender differences, but turned out to be due to a large age gap and circumstances that had the daughters already moved out as independent adults before the family had enough money to put children through school. I do, however, retain the right to criticize any fa

      --
      "There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
    73. Re:Good for them by rozz · · Score: 1

      first of all ... i seriously doubt there is any conclusive evidence to sustain that capitalism is a natural state of society ... and i am sure there is absolutely no evidence to say that capitalism is the best or most natural state of a human society.

      second ... your affirmation that capitalist societies are free of any "aggressive force" is quite mind-boggling. the legal system is a pretty aggressive force, the police is another one, governments are too, etc... how did you manage to "forget" all those?

      To address these points together, "aggression" (the initiation of violent force) specifically does not include defensive force or proportional retribution. Ergo, the legal system and police (in general) are not examples of aggression. Capitalism, or more precisely a system of private property, is any system in which aggression is not tolerated. Ergo, by definition, any society which lacks aggression is capitalistic.

      not a bad argument .. but sorry, i dont buy it.
      according to you, where is the "aggression" in a communist system? .. in the end, they also use the same "defensive force" and "proportional retribution" against the ones that do not agree with them.. they also use the same legal system, police, etc ..

      and who says that private property means "no aggression"? or less aggression than common property? as a matter of fact, i see *more* aggression in a private property system, because ppl continuously fight to get more property .. and that fight is 100% aggressive, no "defensive force" or "proportional retribution" there.

      dont get me wrong, i am not a fan of communism and i dont wanna say it's better than capitalism ... but your arguments hold no water whatsoever .. as a matter of fact, the opposite seems to be true .. capitalism is based on competition, which is a pure form of aggression.

      You won't get any argument from me. While we always hope evil will be vanquished eventually (to use a more generic term), we can never be certain of reaching that goal. That doesn't mean we can't try, though. Anyway, capitalism doesn't depend on a lack of aggression, just a lack of general tolerance for aggression.

      always a big fan of "trying" .. and i find it quite disturbing when people preach capitalism as a sort of perfect religion that cannot be changed or improved... same for *anything* else that reaches that dangerous status.
      but then, maybe i got your point wrong ... anyway, gotta go to sleep .. thx for the reply, good luck and see u around
      --
      "There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
    74. Re:Good for them by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "one of the world's biggest humanitary problems"

      I agree that in many countries brothels are a problem for those who work/slave in them.

      "Want proof?"

      Ever been to Amsterdam? Even here in Australia where brothels are also legal there are plenty of people who WANT to work there.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    75. Re:Good for them by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      Ah, but that's just the point. The First Industrial Revolution made slave labour uncompetitive. Rising energy prices caused by a combination of lousy management and rampant greed have reversed the situation. Robots are expensive and complicated to build. People are just a by-product of fucking. And it's amazing what a hungry person will do to get a bowl of rice .....

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    76. Re:Good for them by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Typical female logic [ducks for cover].

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    77. Re:Good for them by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1

      Mankind has survived and progressed fine before captalism emerged
      Feudalism was fine? Never knowing if you'd get enough to eat or if a bear was going to eat you was fine? Having a life expectancy of 40 years was fine?
      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    78. Re:Good for them by demon+driver · · Score: 1

      No, it wasn't "fine", but capitalism quickly became worse. Only technological and medical progress, along with social progress which had to be fiercely fought for, helped, at times. Now, leaving the golden days of the 20th century behind, technological progress has become the motor for deterioration, since it produces more and more unemployment and thereby poverty.

    79. Re:Good for them by demon+driver · · Score: 1

      Your're wrong. Before early capitalism started off, e.g. for people working on farms, working time was overall significantly lower, and the salary, measured in quality and quantity of food they got, was significantly better. I don't know whether you might read German or whether the book was translated to English (I believe it wasn't yet), but "Schwarzbuch Kapitalismus" by Robert Kurz, a detailed history of capitalism since the beginnings, gives those facts and supports them with links to scientific sources. Even bond-slaves routinely had better living conditions than the working class in capitalism, until western, mid-20th century social standards were reached.

  6. The shipbreaking essay is pretty sweet too by tcd004 · · Score: 5, Informative

    anyone who can dismantle supertankers with their bare hands deserves some respect.

    1. Re:The shipbreaking essay is pretty sweet too by Darth+Turbogeek · · Score: 1

      Sounds like some weird superpower or mutant ability.

      But poor joke aside, that's amazing - I had no idea they broke apart ships like that

      --
      "Old Rallydrivers never die - they just fail to book in on time"
    2. Re:The shipbreaking essay is pretty sweet too by value_added · · Score: 3, Informative

      anyone who can dismantle supertankers with their bare hands deserves some respect.

      Not a Chinese story, but an Indian one. ;-) IIRC, there was PBS/Frontline type of special not too long on the subject. The supertanker dismantling was featured, but so was a program run by an Indian scientist of some sort that involved the disassembly and salvage of computers and computer parts. It was interesting to note how large and well run the operation was. The owner, keenly aware of both the monetary value and the environmental hazards of the work, was sympathetic to the workers but made it clear that despite the nature of the work and the few dollars per day they earned, his employees would have no work whatsoever. I guess happiness is where you find it.

    3. Re:The shipbreaking essay is pretty sweet too by Nexx · · Score: 1

      Actually, the link GP posted was from Bangladesh ;)

    4. Re:The shipbreaking essay is pretty sweet too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The owner, keenly aware of both the monetary value and the environmental hazards of the work, was sympathetic to the workers but made it clear that despite the nature of the work and the few dollars per day they earned, his employees would have no work whatsoever [if this job was not available]

        Yeah, that's the usual platitude in defense of sweatshops. That it's the "best alternative of a bad lot."

        Thing is, the people who use this line usually don't mention why the other choices are so few and so bad. It's due to economic policy and the pressure of foreign multinationals to "modernize" the economy of third world nations, and it's nothing new.
        Back in England there was a thing called 'The Enclosure of the Commons.' This was a period when the people of England had their self-subsistence systematically taken away from them by force of law. New rules took away rights to previously public land and put restrictions on personal gardening on small plots, so people who previously grew their own food or traded with their neighbors were suddenly forced to buy at the markets, which required money, which meant getting a job, probably at a factory. It was frequently justified at the time by letters written by wealthy industrialists (who, in a completely unrelated fact, were having a hard time getting a self-sufficient people of artisans, craftsmen, and farmers to come in and apply for jobs in factories for pennies a week) claiming that leisure-time was bad for people and would lead the commoners to crime and wickedness and perhaps even revolutionary politics. (Gasp!)
        Similar things have happened and are happening all over the world. People have their traditional way of life destroyed, their self-sufficiency ripped away from them, and in the end, are given the 'free choice' of hard labor in a sweatshop or dying of starvation. ...and we're supposed to applaud that?

        There's a good post on Kevin Carson's Mutualist blog on the whole 'Sweatshops Ain't So Bad!' argument over here. No, I'm not affiliated, actually I'm more of a red anarchist sort than a mutualist, but damned if he isn't one of the smartest people writing on the internet.

    5. Re:The shipbreaking essay is pretty sweet too by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > anyone who can dismantle supertankers with their bare hands

      Looks like even they have their standards, though.

      I remember seeing these container ships cruise by - our Coast Guard ship would be going north at 12-13 kts and they'd be going south at 40 kts... lots of mass and lots of relative velocity there. Even with a CPA of a mile they were pretty impressive.

    6. Re:The shipbreaking essay is pretty sweet too by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Not a Chinese story, but an Indian one. ;-) IIRC, there was PBS/Frontline type of special not too long on the subject.

      You probably mean 60 Minutes... "The Shipbreakers" by Michael Gavshon aired on 2006/Nov/05.

      The supertanker dismantling was featured, but so was a program run by an Indian scientist of some sort that involved the disassembly and salvage of computers and computer parts.

      That, however, was not in the program, and I don't remember it anything quite like it, so it's unlikely whatever you're remembering aired on 60 Minutes, Frontline, or NOVA in the past 4 years.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    7. Re:The shipbreaking essay is pretty sweet too by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 2, Informative

      To present the other side:

      1) Foreign multinationals typically have nothing to do with living standards in developing countries, which were like that long before they ever got involved. Trying to manipulate an entire government, just so you can move your factories there is just not proftiable because it creates an immense free rider problem: all of your competitors can then get the cheap labor without paying your costs. I would agree with your hypothesis in places where one company is given a sort of monopoly on setting up factories, but there aren't many of them.

      2) The open field system was not sustainable. Population growth alone would have increased the load on public lands to the point of worthlessness. Property rights in that land had to become well-defined at some point or another. To the extent that it was an injustice, it was an injustice because those dispossessed of their traditional rights were not compensated. However, this would put them in the same position of the parasites you decry.

      3) Even if landed farmers wouldn't want to work for pennies, that doens't explain artisans, who wouldn't be affected by enclosures. Now, I can understand why wealthy factory owners would want to drive down wages *before investing in factories*, but it strains credibility to claim that they FIRST built the factories, knowing they couldn't staff them, and THEN demanded (slow-enacting) legal changes that would finally make them profitable. The reason the factories rendered home-based artisanship unprofitable was because operating a power loom is (literally) child's play. And let's not forget the role of Carson's beloved guilds in preventing people from selling cheaper cloth.

    8. Re:The shipbreaking essay is pretty sweet too by blank+axolotl · · Score: 1

      If anyone is interested, I saw an excellent documentary, "Manufactured Landscapes", which showed footage of the supertanker dismantling in India, people working in/on the huge piles of broken chips in china (and the pollution it causes in the towns it is done), the preparations to flood the three gorges area (people breaking down their homes with sledgehammers), and more. It's surreal. Pleasantly, this documentary doesn't push politics in you face, though it might sound like it would.

    9. Re:The shipbreaking essay is pretty sweet too by highonlife · · Score: 2, Informative

      Uhhhh....Bangladesh is not India.
      it is a seperate country.

    10. Re:The shipbreaking essay is pretty sweet too by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      Back in my day we didn't use our hands to scrap ships, we used our teeth while using our hands to sew counterfit handbags for the Hong Kong market AND WE LIKED IT!

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    11. Re:The shipbreaking essay is pretty sweet too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      1) Foreign multinationals typically have nothing to do with living standards in developing countries, which were like that long before they ever got involved. Trying to manipulate an entire government, just so you can move your factories there is just not proftiable because it creates an immense free rider problem: all of your competitors can then get the cheap labor without paying your costs. I would agree with your hypothesis in places where one company is given a sort of monopoly on setting up factories, but there aren't many of them.

      In the modern era (long after such entities as The East India Company) the pressures to "modernize" an economy are frequently exerted through external bodies such as the WTO. This garners the benefits of a captive labor market for various multinationals without the whole 'free-rider' problem bothering anyone much. It's quite nice for the world economy from a numbers standpoint, it just sucks ass if you're the one who gets to be 'modernized.'

      2) The open field system was not sustainable. Population growth alone would have increased the load on public lands to the point of worthlessness.

      You're assuming things not in evidence. Population growth and industrialization happened concurrently, and since the 'population bomb' scares of the 70's, we've gained a lot of evidence that overpopulation tends to correct itself unless the overarching socio-economic structures are broken at a fundamental level.

      Property rights in that land had to become well-defined at some point or another. To the extent that it was an injustice, it was an injustice because those dispossessed of their traditional rights were not compensated. However, this would put them in the same position of the parasites you decry.

      How so? Having land is not evil in itself -- it's arrogating a monopoly on land to yourself and/or your social class. Remember I'm a red anarchist. I decry property, not possession.

      3) Even if landed farmers wouldn't want to work for pennies, that doens't explain artisans, who wouldn't be affected by enclosures.

      Artisans were driven into the modern economy mostly by secondary effects, though there were economic restructuring acts which had a direct impact. Prior to this era, barter was the most common means of informal trade on the free market, but with the loss of private lands and such, the barter economy vanishes. The artisan who might have bartered with his neighbour for the wood of a couple trees that were on his neighbour's land may now instead have to seek materials from the new owners of the forests and fields -- and be charged exorbitant prices due to a small purchase lot, lack of a pre-existing contract, being Jewish on a Wednesday, etc.
      Then there's the whole matter of new rules and legislation "for the public good" which may require expensive licensing or specific manufacturing procedures before you're allowed to sell goods. ("To protect the customer from inferior mechandise!" or in plain english: "to guarantee the market for the wealthiest and most politically powerful makers!")

      Now, I can understand why wealthy factory owners would want to drive down wages *before investing in factories*, but it strains credibility to claim that they FIRST built the factories, knowing they couldn't staff them, and THEN demanded (slow-enacting) legal changes that would finally make them profitable.

      What, you've never heard of anyone rushing to market without considering the difficulties of scaling a business model indefinitely? MSNBC, seeing the success of Fox News, has been trying and failing to cash in on the market for Fox News channels for a few years now. (You'd think they'd wise up.)
      Early factory owners, in letters to newspapers and journals of the day, openly decried the laziness of the general populace. Seems many of them built factories only to find them understaffed after a few months. The available labor (at that price) was quickly

    12. Re:The shipbreaking essay is pretty sweet too by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      In the modern era (long after such entities as The East India Company) the pressures to "modernize" an economy are frequently exerted through external bodies such as the WTO.

      Even if true (and even if that modernization is objectionable) you're conceding the broader point I was making: that those benefiting from the cheap labor are not the same ones causing the labor to have to sell for cheap. And you haven't shown how the WTO caused the poverty in the developing country, which is generally targeted because it *already* sucks.

      it just sucks ass if you're the one who gets to be 'modernized.'

      You mean like Singapore, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea? Yeah, sure sucks to be in those places.

      You're assuming things not in evidence. Population growth and industrialization happened concurrently, and since the 'population bomb' scares of the 70's, we've gained a lot of evidence that overpopulation tends to correct itself unless the overarching socio-economic structures are broken at a fundamental level.

      Yes, it does correct itself -- when markets can give price signals for the over-demanded goods and reward those who make them more plentiful! My point was that as the open-field system stood, use of land was a free-for-all with ill-defined rights. It was impossible to try new varieties of seed, hybrids, animal breeding, mechanization, etc., when you couldn't be sure if you'd even get the plot next year, or if someone else wouldn't overuse it. Thus, it was a world of ever-more-intense competition for a smaller slice of the pie, instead of an increasing pie. The "correcting itself" I think you're referring to is higher death rates due to lower food availability.

      How so? Having land is not evil in itself -- it's arrogating a monopoly on land to yourself and/or your social class. Remember I'm a red anarchist. I decry property, not possession

      I strongly suspect you can't articulate the difference.

      Artisans were driven into the modern economy mostly by secondary effects, though there were economic restructuring acts which had a direct impact.

      Handwave.

      Prior to this era, barter was the most common means of informal trade on the free market, but with the loss of private lands and such, the barter economy vanishes. The artisan who might have bartered with his neighbour for the wood of a couple trees that were on his neighbour's land may now instead have to seek materials from the new owners of the forests and fields -- and be charged exorbitant prices due to a small purchase lot, lack of a pre-existing contract,

      Yes, it's all feel-good to dream about these days, but what you left out was that there was still a cost to these barter transactions. The reason the wood sold for so much after, was because it was actually being placed on a market where anyone could bid, and those actually applying it to higher-valued ends were having their bids considered. When you look only at that altruistic neighbor bartering wood to his neighbor, you ignore all the people who didn't get a chance to buy that wood at all, even though they'd pay more and make better use of it.

      being Jewish on a Wednesday, etc.

      oh ... my ... god. Did you really just characterize the liberalization of laws against the capitalist class as anti-Semitic? In case you haven't noticed, anti-capitalism has long been closely tied to anti-Semitism.

      Then there's the whole matter of new rules and legislation "for the public good" which may require expensive licensing or specific manufacturing procedures before you're allowed to sell goods. ("To protect the customer from inferior mechandise!" or in plain english: "to guarantee the market for the wealthiest and most politically powerful makers!")

      Oh, I absolutely agree those laws suck ... I just wish you lefties would get your story straight. Whenever someone tries to abo

    13. Re:The shipbreaking essay is pretty sweet too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems many of them built factories only to find them understaffed after a few months. The available labor (at that price) was quickly swallowed up by the first few factories, and those that built later found themselves stuck with colossal factories and a snooty labor force that demanded higher wages before they'd consider it. Natural market forces are a bitch when you're a wealthy scion expecting a guaranteed profit.

      I've never seen this story (about labor "drying up" quickly) even in the most left-slanted historical accounts. I strongly suspect you're just making it up. Again, considering that completely unskilled children could do most of the work, it's extremely unlikely that (highly risky) political lobbying is the path of least resistance.


      I'm generally unfamiliar with the early years of industrialization and factories, but John Gatto does say in his Underground History of American Education that modern factory schools were established to provide workers for industry, and to train free people to become obedient 'consumers'. (The entire book is online for free - I read about half before I bought a copy.)

      Mod point for the grandparent post. :)

      p.s. Noam Chomsky's Class War (also available via torrent) talk covers this same topic from a slightly different angle. Third-world peasant farmers can't compete with western subsidized industrial agriculture (where a single farmer can plant and harvest hundreds of acres of corn while relaxing in his climate-controlled GPS-piloted tractor) American manufacturers can't compete with displaced peasant farmers, whose governments were tricked into eliminating tariffs on agriculture imports by free-trade agreements. Every loses (peasant farmers, American middle class, etc), except those who are already wealthy...
    14. Re:The shipbreaking essay is pretty sweet too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      being Jewish on a Wednesday, etc.

      oh ... my ... god. Did you really just characterize the liberalization of laws against the capitalist class as anti-Semitic? In case you haven't noticed, anti-capitalism has long been closely tied to anti-Semitism.

      Oh I'm sorry. That wasn't meant to be taken seriously; I just didn't realize you were stupid.
        Nevermind, then.

    15. Re:The shipbreaking essay is pretty sweet too by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      I'm generally unfamiliar with the early years of industrialization and factories, but John Gatto does say in his Underground History of American Education that modern factory schools were established to provide workers for industry, and to train free people to become obedient 'consumers'.

      I don't want to defend public schools but ... it's kind of hard to maintain that claim -- that corporations together solved the public goods problem and enacted far-reaching legislation that would hurt their own members' children and not yield fruits for at least 15 years -- *and* the claim that profit-seeking corporations only care about their shareholders and the next quarter's bottom line.

      Noam Chomsky's Class War (also available via torrent) talk covers this same topic from a slightly different angle. Third-world peasant farmers can't compete with western subsidized industrial agriculture (where a single farmer can plant and harvest hundreds of acres of corn while relaxing in his climate-controlled GPS-piloted tractor) American manufacturers can't compete with displaced peasant farmers, whose governments were tricked into eliminating tariffs on agriculture imports by free-trade agreements. Every loses (peasant farmers, American middle class, etc), except those who are already wealthy...

      Giving people cheap food hurts them? Whatever, dude. Look, I'm against agriculture subsidies ... but I can't buy the claim that "receiving underpriced food" constitutes "losing". Unless you want to claim we can help foreign countries by blockading them (and thereby creating LOTS of jobs for EVERYONE). What does Chomsky say about that?

    16. Re:The shipbreaking essay is pretty sweet too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest you read the linked book yourself, consider the proposition, and decide for yourself whether the claim has any merit. Be sure to also consider the modern-day concentration of capital in the hands of the few - Executive pay vs. Worker-drone pay rising from 42x in 1982 to 350x today, for example.

      but I can't buy the claim that "receiving underpriced food" constitutes "losing".

      Listen to Chomsky's talk yourself. How are hundreds of Mexican corn farmers (using labor-intensive farming methods) supposed to make a living off their farm if they have to compete with my grandfather's two tenant farmers, who plant and harvest hundreds of acres by themselves with their advanced tractors & harvesters? The real-world says they can't, and millions of displaced farmers and farm laborers become economic refugees. They're desperate for any kind of work in teh cities, no matter how boring & hazardous it might be.

      There was something in Mark Ames' Going Postal Rage, Murder and Rebellion about how the middle class has come to advocate their own economic destruction. I hope you read a link or two (and find a torrent), and reconsider your position. :)

    17. Re:The shipbreaking essay is pretty sweet too by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      suggest you read the linked book yourself, consider the proposition, and decide for yourself whether the claim has any merit

      Sure, once you read this library of books I'm going to suggest in order to support a self-evidently absurd claim.

      Be sure to also consider the modern-day concentration of capital in the hands of the few - Executive pay vs. Worker-drone pay rising from 42x in 1982 to 350x today, for example.

      What does that have to do with this topic, other than your attempt to draw in a tangential issue that upsets you? "Free, dynamic, equal, pick two"

      How are hundreds of Mexican corn farmers (using labor-intensive farming methods) supposed to make a living off their farm if they have to compete with my grandfather's two tenant farmers, who plant and harvest hundreds of acres by themselves with their advanced tractors & harvesters? The real-world says they can't, and millions of displaced farmers and farm laborers become economic refugees. They're desperate for any kind of work in teh cities, no matter how boring & hazardous it might be.

      Yeah, heaven forbid someone have to adapt to their skills falling in value.

      Do I really have to explain this to you? You just argued that all labor-saving technology is bad.

    18. Re:The shipbreaking essay is pretty sweet too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, once you read this library of books I'm going to suggest in order to support a self-evidently absurd claim.

      I'm waiting for a list. In the mean time, John Holt's life work also supports the charge that government schools are specifically designed to prevent children from achieving their full potential.

      What does that [growing gap in worker/executive pay] have to do with this topic, other than your attempt to draw in a tangential issue that upsets you?

      It is further evidence supportive of the charge that an undeclared state of class warfare is being perpetrated against the American middle class.

      "Free, dynamic, equal, pick two"

      I'm sorry - I don't get how the three qualities are mutually exclusive. Please link or explain.

      You just argued that all labor-saving technology is bad.

      Try again - click on the 'parent' link in your comment above, and re-read what I actually wrote. Or download Chomsky's talk, and listen to what he said. The bit about subsidized agriculture is in the first 1/2 hour.

      Like the other guy said, sorry, I didn't realize you were an idiot. Either get back to me with some links, or HAND. :)

    19. Re:The shipbreaking essay is pretty sweet too by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      I'm waiting for a list.

      Sure, google it. That's just as reasonable as your request that I go prove your claim, something you can't justify in your own words.

      It is further evidence supportive of the charge that an undeclared state of class warfare is being perpetrated against the American middle class.

      No, "evidence" would mean "eliminates all hypotheses but mine". That condition would just as well arise from people more highly valuing the labor of those specific CEOs. And when was the discussion about whether there is an undeclared state of class warfare? Show me the *specific things* causing that negative effect, not just the existence of the negative effect.

      I'm sorry - I don't get how the three qualities are mutually exclusive. Please link or explain.

      Simple: any time people are free to succeed or fail, and society permitted to change and adapt, not everyone will become equally rich. All but the most bone-headed egalitarians accept this. That's why I mentioned that it's no suprise there will be inequality. Big deal. I didn't understand why you want me to care about it if I don't already hate the rich.

      Try again - click on the 'parent' link in your comment above, and re-read what I actually wrote. Or download Chomsky's talk, and listen to what he said. The bit about subsidized agriculture is in the first 1/2 hour.

      Why don't you try again, to read what I actually posted (and see my sig while you're at it)? You clearly don't understand what I'm objecting to. I agree that agriculture subsidies are bad. Do you "get" that? What I disagree is *where* the bad effects manifest. And I claim that receiving underpriced food is *not* pad for those receiving the underpriced food. The subsidies are bad because of the general allocative inefficiencies they induce. But no, I'm not going to cry for the dumb foreigner who claims there is ABSOLUTELY ONLY ONE JOB he is ever capable of doing.

    20. Re:The shipbreaking essay is pretty sweet too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm waiting for a list.

      Sure, google it. That's just as reasonable as your request that I go prove your claim, something you can't justify in your own words.

      *ahem*, you said, "Sure, once you read this library of books I'm going to suggest in order to support a self-evidently absurd claim." I'm calling you out. :) You could at least provide some key terms to search on - teh google has lots of different words in its database.

      The claim has been proved to my satisfaction. I offer resources for people who are willing to consider the claim, and substantiate it for themselves.

      Simple: any time people are free to succeed or fail, and society permitted to change and adapt, not everyone will become equally rich.

      Class warfare is not about disparities in individuals' level of "richness" - it is about making a few people fantastically wealthy, and making everyone else dirt poor. Not because they're lazy or unable to change and adapt, but because the entire system is rigged for the benefit of the wealthy.

      I agree that agriculture subsidies are bad. Do you "get" that? What I disagree is *where* the bad effects manifest. And I claim that receiving underpriced food is *not* [b]ad for those receiving the underpriced food.

      I caught that we agree that agriculture subsidies have undesirable side effects.

      Who Will Feed China? covers the peril China faces as it covers its most productive farmland with factories.

      1. Mechanized agriculuture drives Chinese peasant farmers out of business
      2. Chinese peasant farmer moves to the city to work in a factory
      3. Chinese factories employing economic refugees undercut American Factories. American industry relocates to China.
      4. American factory workers retrain for lower-paying service sector jobs
      5. Drought/crop failure in America causes mass starvation in China.

      Who will feed china was written in the mid-90's, and I haven't looked for any updates yet.

      1. Mechanized agriculture drives Mexican peasant farmers out of business
      2. Mexican peasant farmer moves to the northern borders to work in a factory, or across the border to undercut an American laborer.
      3. America reallocates its grain surplus to the production of Ethanol.
      4. Price of corn skyrockets...
      5. Drought/crop failure in America causes mass starvation in Mexico.

      Agriculture should be a local endeavor. Surplus grains can be used for meat production, beer/booze, or as a reserve for years when harvests are a little leaner. Globalized agriculture disrupts local production of food, and the lives of middle-class people everywhere.

      I've referenced three books directly, one CD, one man's life work (I have three of Holt's books, including How Children Fail and How Children Learn). My position is well supported - what's backing you up?
    21. Re:The shipbreaking essay is pretty sweet too by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      *ahem*, you said, "Sure, once you read this library of books I'm going to suggest in order to support a self-evidently absurd claim." I'm calling you out. :)

      Wow, you're really slow at this, aren't you? I didn't actually have a library (though I could list one if you did something that justified it). The point was that we can throw citations at each other all day; if you don't say why the citation is relevant, or explain what it's trying to prove, or admit it claims something patently absurd, there's no point in even going to the source -- it's basically just asking me to prove your arguments. Can you see the problem now?

      Class warfare is not about disparities in individuals' level of "richness" - it is about making a few people fantastically wealthy, and making everyone else dirt poor. Not because they're lazy or unable to change and adapt, but because the entire system is rigged for the benefit of the wealthy

      I understand you feel that way. But how do *raw statistics* about the disparity in wealth prove that the system is rigged, rather than rewarding those believed capable of providing superior returns?

      I caught that we agree that agriculture subsidies have undesirable side effects.

      That's not going to cut it, I'm afraid. I pointed out that one of the *beneficiaries* of these policies is people who get underpriced food, and that your argument that they are not really beneficiaries reduces to the claim that "labor saving improvements are really bad". Telling me to go read Chomsky isn't impressive. If all he's going to do is "prove" that, it doesn't help your case. Only now are you revealing any understanding of the claims you wanted me to go read.

      Who Will Feed China? covers the peril China faces

      Okay, a scare story about how someone knows -- but all the investors in agircultural commodities don't know -- that there's really going to be a supermassive crop failure soon and will kill off China. Do I really have to respond?

      Agriculture should be a local endeavor. Surplus grains can be used for meat production, beer/booze, or as a reserve for years when harvests are a little leaner. Globalized agriculture disrupts local production of food, and the lives of middle-class people everywhere.

      No, this is your uninformed bias speaking. Billions of people have gladly ditched agriculture for better, less grueling work once it was mechanized. Your claim that it leaves people vulerable to supply shocks just shows your ignorance of modern commodity futures markets.

      I've referenced three books directly, one CD, one man's life work (I have three of Holt's books, including How Children Fail and How Children Learn). My position is well supported - what's backing you up?

      No, it's not well-supported. That would assume you have a coherent position and know where the work of others integrates with and supports your beliefs, which you haven't revealed. Now, what's backing me up? Go read the Julian Simon Wikipedia article and the futures contract article.

      I don't like, have to put any of that in my own words, do I? That would be soooooooooooo much work.

    22. Re:The shipbreaking essay is pretty sweet too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you don't say why the citation is relevant, or explain what it's trying to prove,

      My original citation was to John Gatto's work. You'd said that you thought "the other coward" was fabricating a statement "about [factory] labor 'drying up' quickly". My original post was to provide a resource that confirms "the other coward's" statement. Gatto is much more eloquent than I can be at this point in time. The Seven Lesson Schoolteacher is a nice concise introduction to Gatto's work.

      This bit about school being created to provide a labor force for early industrialists is crucial to the whole debate. Because, if it's true, then there is no such thing as a "free market" in America, as most of the market's participants have been mind-fucked without their even realizing it. Without their indoctrination in the government's schools, individuals would make substantially different choices in their lives, and the economy would be totally different...

      I don't like, have to put any of that in my own words, do I? That would be soooooooooooo much work.

      I'd much rather read original sources for your position - as it is, we're all just random idiots on Slashdot. :) Simon's wikipedia article is interesting - there's some truth to what he [apparently] said, but there's also some big-picture influences and trends of which he was ignorant, or didn't incorporate into his philosophy. I wonder what he'd think about today's record gas prices... (It's obvious to me that said prices are a result of a longstanding conspiracy to fleece 'teh masses' [us]. No new refineries in 30 years, no oil wells off the California coast, no drilling around Gull Island & elsewhere on Alaska's North Slope, etc). Or the observed effects of climate change (drought in the South East & South West, and too wet in the middle of the country, for example. This according to tonight's piece on fires on NBC Nightly News. I don't watch it, but someone else had the TV on). I understand that the climate change is being driven by underwater volcanos, but IANAClimateExpert, so I'll be watching for a better theory.

      You are correct, in that my position is less than totally coherent. I've been putting this puzzle together for years now, and while I've got a pretty good idea what it looks like, I'm still missing a couple pieces. Even so, my model is working pretty well for me as it is.

    23. Re:The shipbreaking essay is pretty sweet too by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      My original citation was to John Gatto's work. You'd said that you thought "the other coward" was fabricating a statement "about [factory] labor 'drying up' quickly". My original post was to provide a resource that confirms "the other coward's" statement.

      No. Your source was not even trying to support that statement (about competing capitalists inadvertently drying up the labor pool and being unable to staff their factories profitably):

      "I'm generally unfamiliar with the early years of industrialization and factories, but John Gatto does say in his Underground History of American Education [johntaylorgatto.com] that modern factory schools were established to provide workers for industry, and to train free people to become obedient 'consumers'."

      It tried to support a subtly different statement, that modern schools "were started" for all kinds of heinous purposes, but NOT as a result of a general conspiracy of corporations. As I pointed out before, the original claim -- that corporations organized through some kind of gentlemen's agreement to pacify generations of otherwise independent-minded youth -- would force us to reject the bulk of anti-corporatist ideology by holding that corporations look 15+ years ahead, and that they use their own children as sacrificial lambs.

      Remember, it's not enough to cite reams of sources -- they have to actually support a relevant claim you made.

      The sobering truth is that the public school system, in each state, exists because it has phenomenal voter support predicated on all kinds of FUD about homeschooling, declining property values (for those who bought a house JUST to be in a good school district), and discrimination by privately-run schools. It's comforting, but wrong, to believe that it's just the evil rich behind this.

      This bit about school being created to provide a labor force for early industrialists is crucial to the whole debate. Because, if it's true, then there is no such thing as a "free market" in America, as most of the market's participants have been mind-fucked without their even realizing it. Without their indoctrination in the government's schools, individuals would make substantially different choices in their lives, and the economy would be totally different...

      Extreme overstatement. It merely means that the actors *within the market however free it may be* have different values. Perhaps they would have a higher preference for self-employment. But no proponent of capitalist considers emergent, common self-employment within an unregulated market to be "not capitalism" or "not a free market".

      I'd much rather read original sources for your position

      I wasn't providing a position; I was providing a reality-check for some extreme statements made by some ACs. As for the claims made here (and confining it to free internet stuff):

      Regarding the claims from Carson's work, check out this issue of the JLS, specifically this one, which makes a lot of the same arguments I made here with citations.

      For a summary of the environment-related points, Reisman again provides a good summary, starting on page 76 of this. (Huge file, but free.)

    24. Re:The shipbreaking essay is pretty sweet too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fyi, I'd not encountered Carson's work before reading the comments in this /. story. I'm partial to the libertarian philosophy myself, with ... well, as soon as I finish my 'remedial education' (what I should have learned in skool), I'll be able to better articulate myself.

      I see your confusion, but I'm incapable of doing anything to help you clear it from my side of the internet. My sincerest apologies - HAND. :)

  7. Where have I heard this before? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2, Funny
    ... the world's biggest digital dump ...

    Bender, is that you?

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Where have I heard this before? by revengebomber · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey! Melting down those broken robots is just wrong! Especially when they're sucking up to me like that!

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  8. Now I Ain't Saying She a Golddigger by SpeedyDX · · Score: 1

    This is literally taking gold digging to a whole other level.

  9. Breaking news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We just isolated the source of the pet food contamination. The chinks were poisoning our animals with discarded computer waste!

  10. Nooooo! by shakestheclown · · Score: 1

    Set those old machines to fold you insensitive bastards!

    1. Re:Nooooo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My father was a bastard, you insensitive clod!

    2. Re:Nooooo! by QuickFox · · Score: 1

      My father was a clod, you insensitive oaf!

      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    3. Re:Nooooo! by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      I, for one, salute our new insensitive clod bastard oaf overlords!

    4. Re:Nooooo! by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      My father was an oaf, you insensitive Republican!

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  11. Who cares about the gold and copper? by BooleanLobster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As far as I know, the value of the metals inside electronic waste is only a couple dollars per ton of waste. Some electronic waste recycling companies have found that it is much more profitable to resell things that still work (at roughly 90% discounts), and extract the working components from things that don't.

    --
    In hell, you will find a mountain of broken, feces-covered typewriters and a stack of copies of the First Folio.
    1. Re:Who cares about the gold and copper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then, pray tell, what do you think they should do with the non-working components?

      I don't think you truly appreciate a) the real worth of gold and copper b) the amount of material that can be extracted & c) the amount of material & cheap labour they have to extract the material. It's easy money.

    2. Re:Who cares about the gold and copper? by dreddnott · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I used to work for an electronics recycling company, trueCycle.

      Not the most scrupulous incorporation in the high desert, but we processed a LOT.

      A good day would have us processing 10 tons (20,000 pounds) of various electronics, most of it selling to final-stage processors for $0.10 to somewhere $1.00 per pound, depending on which gaylord (motherboards, transformers, glass, CPUs, HDDs, etc) and of course the fluctuations in the volatile commodities market.

      The biggest cash cow, of course, was leaded CRT glass - thanks to SB20 and SB50, our processing of CRT glass was subsidised and we received a flat rate of $0.48 per pound on just that, smashed or not smashed. This was lucrative due to the commonality of monitors and the density of the glass, as well as the fact that at any given time we had 10 guys with clawhammers and pneumatic screwdrivers absolutely tearing everything up that I let them get their hands on.

      I worked as Quality Assurance, assessing pallets as they came in and rescuing the good stuff, as well as miscellaneous server and network administration work. You know, the usual stuff when your department knows more about computers than the entire rest of the company, which happened to be too cheap for a dedicated IT staff and commensurate payroll. While I did indeed fix up more than a few computers for eBay and local buyers, the 90% discount and the general poor condition of incoming electronics as well as poor working conditions, chronic understaffing, and a tragic lack of space made resurrecting computers a very small portion of the revenue stream.

      Selling components was a lot more successful, and I always argued for doing this with my coworkers and supervisors. We would sell hundreds of thoroughly-tested HDDs, video cards, RAM sticks, and CPUs of all types at a time. It amazed me at the time (2005-2006) to see how many people were still interested in 10GB drives, 64MB PC100 sticks, and GeForce2 MX cards.

      My favourite part of the job, however, was finding and rescuing antique/vintage computing equipment. The contract with Dreamworks was also pretty exciting, although 99% of it ended up as unrecognisable scrap. I found myself face to face with an SGI Iris 4D and an even larger system in bad shape that I could not identify, as well as several battered workstations (one labeled "FOONLY" in obvious homage).

      --
      I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
    3. Re:Who cares about the gold and copper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      depending on which gaylord (motherboards
      Umm, lol what?
    4. Re:Who cares about the gold and copper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A good day would have us processing 10 tons (20,000 pounds) of various electronics
      20 000 pounds is actually 8 tons, 18 cwt, 4 stone, 8 lbs. That's quite a way shy of ten tons. So which was it?
    5. Re:Who cares about the gold and copper? by HappyEngineer · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are several definitions of "ton". One of those definitions is that a ton is exactly 2000 lbs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton

    6. Re:Who cares about the gold and copper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    7. Re:Who cares about the gold and copper? by antonone_ · · Score: 1

      It amazed me at the time (2005-2006) to see how many people were still interested in 10GB drives, 64MB PC100 sticks, and GeForce2 MX cards. The people were interested back then and will be interested in the future. In fact, I recently bought GF2MX for a few cents. For example, it's just better to build up your own router from an old AMD K6-2 + 10GB HDD with some Unix installed than to buy a new shiny plastic router box. Of course it all depends on the requirements, but if you have a small problem, why to spend the money on a big solution? This stuff just needs to be reused.
      --
      Per aspera ad astra.
    8. Re:Who cares about the gold and copper? by dreddnott · · Score: 3, Informative

      How do I searched web? Come on, this isn't 4chan, is it?

      I went to bed right after posting my previous post so you were tragically left in the care of another Anonymous Coward, but that doesn't really bother me.

      A gaylord is, yes, a large cardboard box designed to take up one pallet. The cardboard sides are about an inch thick which makes them very tough and quite reusable even when minimum-wage demanufacturing crews throw hundreds of hard drives or power supplies into them all day long. Infrastructure would sometimes cut out part of the side to make unloading the incoming material onto pallets for logging and sorting easier. A little bit more civilised, anyways, than what I saw in the photo essay.

      --
      I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
    9. Re:Who cares about the gold and copper? by dreddnott · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dear, dear pedantic clownboat:

      I was referring to a short ton, or what we here in the primitive Thirteen Colonies deign to refer to as simply "ton". I assumed that you would be exposed to at least one more of the many types of tons than your very own long ton, and I even included the lbs conversion to clarify. It might interest you to know than both the long ton and the short ton are 20cwt, and that the cwt's weight in pounds is dependent on which ton you're referring to.

      Although I'm not the biggest supporter of the metric system I at least recognise the logic in a hundredweight that actually weighs one hundred pounds.

      --
      I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
  12. Dang... by EraseEraseMe · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...computer waste contains 17 times more gold than gold ore, 40 times more copper than copper ore...

    I'm lucky if I get 4 Thorium ore from one mine :( I think I'm going to have to level up recycling.

    --
    "Anybody who tells me I can't use a program because it's not open source, go suck on rms. I'm not interested." (LT 2004)
  13. Quick solution : out of sight, out of mind by 2Bits · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is a sad situation where rich countries just dump their toxic wastes to the poor countries. It's a quick solution, and does not cause much (if any?) local political discussion. Out of sight, out of mind.

    Unfortunately, this is a very irresponsible way to dispose off the toxic waste. Sure, the rich can claim that it is actually beneficial to the local economy in the poor countries. As the article mentioned, some dump site employs as many as 100,000 people. And sure, it's a global economy, meaning that anything can be "exported".

    But, have we ever considered the consequences to the planet as a whole? After all, this planet belongs to everyone, and we should take up the responsibility to protect it better. The rich countries have the proper means and resources to handle the wastes better than the poor countries. But instead, we all chose the easy way out: we just let the poor poison the planet. It's currently poisoning China's, India's and Nigeria's backyard, so that America, Europe, Japan etc, can have their own little clean and green lawn.

    Guess what happens when they run out of dumping ground? I visited a site a couple of years ago. I happened to ask what they would do in this case. The foreman said:"Easy, there are plenty of fishermen out of job, as the fish stock is running out. They would be happy to help us dump into the ocean." Ha, same attitude as to how the rich get rid off their wastes.

    Good to know that we are all alike, rich or poor. Eventually, it will come to bite us all back from behind. Happy dumping, everyone.

    1. Re:Quick solution : out of sight, out of mind by will_die · · Score: 3, Interesting

      People are not dumping this stuff on theses countries, thoses countries are paying for all this scrap.
      The larger of the recycling places actually have people going all around the world tring to purchase large quantities.
      The question is do the richer country act as big brother and say they will not sell the items to theses poorer countries?

    2. Re:Quick solution : out of sight, out of mind by mythar · · Score: 1

      i don't think you quite understood what was going on in the pictures. those people weren't just wallowing in e-waste; they were trying to recycle the stuff.

      what about the big picture, you might ask? while it's nice to raise awareness about this particular issue, it's pretty naive to think that if only there was some legislation passed in the US, then your chinese foreman wouldn't be dumping waste into the ocean. we rich countries can pass all the environmental laws we want, but if we want developing countries to follow the same standards, we either have to march troops in, or persuade them to enact their own environmental laws. if you want to consider consequences to the planet, remember that the US is only 4.53% of the world's population. imagine if say.. 37.29% of the world's population decided that they too wanted to experience strong economic growth with little or no environmental regulation. awareness will only take you so far.

    3. Re:Quick solution : out of sight, out of mind by wathiant · · Score: 1

      TIP: Penn&Teller: Bullshit! episode 2-5: recycling. That should get rid of some of the false preconceptions that you have. Also, in our past we (the western countries) have dumped lots of toxic materials in our own countries and we have managed to either contain most of the problems or even clean up the affected ground. Current dumps are pretty safe and bound by strong regulations. The 'poor' countries are simply a few decades behind, but they're catching up quickly and will take care of their own backyard soon.

    4. Re:Quick solution : out of sight, out of mind by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      "After all, this planet belongs to everyone,"

      Speak for yourself. In NO WAY does the planet "belong to everyone", if we really believed that our social structure would not put profits over people, we would have much less homelessness and poverty and the Walton's daughter could never afford to spend 68,000,000 on a painting.

    5. Re:Quick solution : out of sight, out of mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a sad situation where rich countries just dump their toxic wastes to the poor countries.

      Raw ores are also "toxic waste". For whatever reason, we don't see a need to "dump" those.

  14. Uh-oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They better watch out.... I think Microsoft has some prior art on that whole "digital dump" concept...

  15. dupe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't we already have like a million stories about Chinese goldfarmers? Oh wait...

  16. So where are computers made? by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

    In China.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  17. Digital waste by Bromskloss · · Score: 1

    ...are the files I delete. This is just electronics.

    --
    Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
  18. "Shipbreakers" the documentary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    neither did I, until I saw a decent documentary on it, that focuses on shipbreaking in the Gujurat region of India. Unfortunately I can't find any pieces of the documentary online, but there is a CBS 60 minutes segment on shipbreaking on http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-620230815 8044631485&q=shipbreakers">google video.

    1. Re:"Shipbreakers" the documentary by packeteer · · Score: 1

      Link broken, try this one.

      It's an interesting video BTW.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
  19. Excellent PDF on the subject by wwmedia · · Score: 3, Informative
  20. Get rich and generate endless energy... by mrThorne · · Score: 1

    If you read the article, it says "One ton of computer scrap contains more gold than 17 tons of gold ore." This is the solution to the world's power needs...

    1. Re:Get rich and generate endless energy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you had understood his gaming reference maybe the comment would not have gone straight over your head.

    2. Re:Get rich and generate endless energy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might have spoken too soon - You'll notice that his comment made NO FSCKING SENSE WHATSOEVER. So either his joke went over all our heads, or he's just insane.

  21. Pure Evil by fan+of+lem · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    But the detritus also leaches chemicals and metals into local water supplies.

    They actually do that on purpose to achieve the ultimate Evil Villain rep. Plus they rape your cats on the side.

  22. Robbing the Grave by Smight · · Score: 1

    Is melting down dead computers for their trace gold content more or less ethical than melting down dead humans for their gold fillings?

    On the one hand, computers are full of heavy metals and chlorine. On the other hand, Humans are 65% water, which is apparently the most greenhousy of the greenhouse gases.

    --
    IOU one (1) signature
  23. Old story by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1, Troll

    Isn't this story from several years back?

    Or is this just the annual repeat of a "look how evil the Unites States is" story?

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    1. Re:Old story by gnud · · Score: 1

      Well, if it's from some years back, it's a 'have you done anything about it yet you slob'-story =)

  24. corporate greed by peas_n_carrots · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This is what happens when corporations are allowed to circumvent the moral and ethical fabric of our country. It's what happens when Bush & cronies overturn environmental laws for the sake of special interest profits. Ironically, those same clowns try to claim that they're the beacons of morality in this country. They will burn, karma will be served.

    Thankfully, the ROHS initiative has significantly reduced or eliminated heavy metals and toxic chemicals in electronics. The 3rd world population should be grateful for that industry initiative. There's still a long line of non-ROHS equipment that's heading to the scrapheap, but at least after a few years it will have been processed through.

    1. Re:corporate greed by MassiveForces · · Score: 1

      They're not bypassing the moral and ethical fabric of any country, they're bypassing the right of workers to complain and have power to enforce their rights

    2. Re:corporate greed by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      You mean like the right to have a job where they make twice the average?

      When you are making that much money in a country like China, you keep your fucking mouth shut. They don't want you or any other liberal busybody fucking up their sweet deal either, I'm sure.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    3. Re:corporate greed by MassiveForces · · Score: 1

      You haven't got a point to counter what I'm saying, I bet you were just itching to say 'liberal busybody', wherever the hell that poncy comment came from. Let me rephrase in a way you can understand: [ME] People in China get suckered into jobs by multinationals that workers in other countries would know better than to put up with and have the rights to get better working conditions [YOU] But they earn a lot so don't take it from them. You're a liberal cos I said so. [ME] Does that have anything to do with the fact that if China's workers had proper protections, earning twice the average would actually be a meaningful amount of dosh (because the average would be raised far above what it is now) and they wouldn't have to risk their health? Think... in a developed country there would be state of the art protections to stop the workers getting contaminated and dying from poisoning (because the companies would get their pants sued off

  25. For sale by Mr2cents · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ok, if anyone is interested, I have tons of used 1's and 0's in my basement. They're pre-sorted. I'm willing to sell them for 2 cents/kilobit.

    The bits will be sent to you as a self-extracting executable.

    --
    "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    1. Re:For sale by N3Z · · Score: 1

      Don't settle for used 1's and 0's!

      I am selling brand new 1's and 0's (still in the shrink wrap) for just $.01/kb!

      --
      .signature not found
    2. Re:For sale by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      This is why I always recycle all of my old code. Cut, paste, done!

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    3. Re:For sale by Poltras · · Score: 1

      Bubblewrapped or paperwrapped? Cause I wanna play with the bubbles... mmmh... getting naughty

  26. ROHS? by phalse+phace · · Score: 1

    For those who don't know what ROHS is....

    1. Re:ROHS? by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      Rodents of Homicidal Size?

  27. This is amusing by Invalid+Character · · Score: 1
    We pay the Chinese to make all our electronics.
    We use them.
    We pay them to recycle it and they get to keep all the goodies from the process.


    Something seems wrong here...

    --

    --

    Registered .sig quotient : 1337

    1. Re:This is amusing by gigne · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They actually pay to buy our scrap. They own it. It is up to them if they want to harvest it for the goodies. We have no right to complain here.

      --
      Signature v3.0, now with 42% less memory usage.
  28. Stupidity by Eivind · · Score: 2, Insightful
    This article makes no sense whatsoever.

    Even if it is true that computer-trash contains 17 times the gold, compared to gold-ore, it does not follow that it is "worth more", that would be true only if getting the raw-material, handling it and extracting the valuable metals cost precisely the same. Which ain't likely.

    You also don't find all that many million-ton piles of computer-scrap just sitting around.

    1. Re:Stupidity by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      1. it's much cheaper then ore since you don't need to dig it out of the ground. 2. there ARE million ton piles of the stuff. 3. please hit alt+F4 now.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    2. Re:Stupidity by Eivind · · Score: 1
      You don't need to dig it out of the ground. Instead you need to collect it from all over the country/planet, because originally it comes in small, widely dispersed packages. You then need to deal with the mix of chemicals in there observing safety-standards and health-regulations.

      If you think that collecting 100 tons of computer-waste (aproximately 10.000 - 30.000 computers!) in one spot is cheaper than digging out 20 cubic meter of rock, well, then that's your problem.

      The metal-parts in a typical computer weighs something around 5 kg, so you'll need on the order of 200.000 of them for a single metric ton. To get a "million ton pile" you would thus need to collect 200000000000, which is aproximately 1000 times the total count of computers in the world today. Somehow I doubt there's all that many such piles....

      OK, so computers ain't by a long shot everything there is to electric waste, if you count everything electric, it gets more realistic, a million tons is only about 3kg/american afterall, people in the western world certainly toss away 10 times that amount yearly. (30kg, sounds in the ballpark, if you include all electric waste), but most of that ain't circuit-boards. Copper, ok. Gold ? Less so.

      Fact is, if electrical-waste-ore was so valuable, people would be willing to *pay* quite a bit to buy it, which fails to match the real world. In the real world you're lucky to get it taken off your hands for free, even in quite large quantities. Smaller quantities have negative value (because the transport etc costs more than the stuff is worth)

    3. Re:Stupidity by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Ok. Screw that. Messed up the number of zeroes. As a consequence, all the numbers in here are crap. My bad.

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

      " so you'll need on the order of 200.000 of them for a single metric ton. To get a "million ton pile" you would thus need to collect 200000000000, which is aproximately 1000 times the total count of computers in the world today. Somehow I doubt there's all that many such piles...."

      is your maths really that bad? people who can't do basic sums really should not be trying to use figures to dispute someone. heres a hint. 200 x 1 million is not 200 billion.

    5. Re:Stupidity by Random832 · · Score: 1

      " so you'll need on the order of 200.000 of them for a single metric ton. To get a "million ton pile" you would thus need to collect 200000000000, which is aproximately 1000 times the total count of computers in the world today. Somehow I doubt there's all that many such piles...."

      is your maths really that bad? people who can't do basic sums really should not be trying to use figures to dispute someone. heres a hint. 200 x 1 million is not 200 billion.


      No, but 200.000 x 1.000.000 = 200.000.000.000

      What, did you think that was a decimal point?

      --
      We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
  29. Another Communist Post by Proto23 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Another communist post. The article says they earn $2-$4 per day that means $730-$1460 per year. With the average Chinese salary being between $300 (rural) - $700 (city), I say it's a pretty decent job which you can see by the clothes they wear on the pictures. Sure it is toxic but so are many of China's jobs. As were ours 100 years ago.

    1. Re:Another Communist Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the difference in salaries? Isn't everyone supposed to be equal in a commune? How can you have a classless society when some people make twice as much as others? And does everyone (e.g. high ranking CPC members) have to take a turn working in toxic conditions? If not that seems like exploitation of the working class.

    2. Re:Another Communist Post by gwoodrow · · Score: 1

      Are you (and all of your other fellow apologists in this thread) really THAT callous? Even if those workers made that maximum of $4 per day, I still make more in one month than they do in a year. And I'm a 26 year old who graduated with a BA in ENGLISH. Grades were so-so. You honestly don't think there's something wrong with the world when inequities like that exist solely based on situations we have no say in? Birth place, ethnicity, et cetera? Inequities that are further exascerbated by utterly soulless and unfeeling self-righteous tools who can't seem to see past the tips of their own noses?

      Okay, we get it, someone being paid to do horrible and potentially life-shortening work makes more than the average worker in their region. But that does not make it right. In fact, it's one of the weakest (and sadly one of the most common) arguments I've ever seen. I don't think I've ever seen someone make an excusatory argument like that that was in the slightest bit convincing. It always sounds, to me at least, like those people that shrug off the rape of a young woman because the way she dressed meant she "was asking for it."

      If you honestly do not care about the plight of your fellow human beings, that's fine - but at least be honest with yourself that that's what you believe. Don't try to rationalize it, because the fact that the richest nations in the world can't wipe their own asses is not something that I think can ever be truly rationalized except by the most cold and materialistic of people.

      And I know, I know, call me a communist or a socialist or whatever little ditty makes your heart dance at any given moment, but if giving a crap about other people is considered to be such , then I can live with it. So thanks for the compliment. I do hate, however, that any indication of caring about other people in modern America and wanting to help them has become a "bad" thing in the eyes of so many of my peers. Screw community, screw equality, let's all look out for number one.

      All that being said, I do not have a ready-made solution for those regions that are so poor that jobs like these are the only ones available. I don't, however, think that means the apologists automatically "win" this debate. I think it means that people need to hunker down and FIND a better solution, instead of just shrugging it off.

      Why is all of this a bad way to think? If you don't care about others, please keep in mind that nobody is trying to force you to participate. Worst case scenario in this particular situation, you just have to drop off your computer waste at point A instead of point B for it to be shipped/processed to some OTHER place that you'll also never lay eyes on or personally deal with in any way - so what's the problem?

    3. Re:Another Communist Post by Stiletto · · Score: 1

      Are you (and all of your other fellow apologists in this thread) really THAT callous? Even if those workers made that maximum of $4 per day, I still make more in one month than they do in a year.

      Please do some googling for the terms "real exchange rate" "big mac index" and "cost of living" and get back to us. I don't care that I make 15x what a Chinese worker makes because my home and food cost 15x as much as well.

      It's like those late-night "charity" commercials: OMFG!! So-and-so only makes A DOLLAR A DAY!!!! Yea, well that dollar goes a really long way in Bumblefuckistan.

    4. Re:Another Communist Post by gwoodrow · · Score: 1

      I just google all of those terms and found absolutely nothing to indicate that anything I said was in the slightest bit wrong. Call me crazy for not digging beyond the first 5 pages of results. Maybe I missed something. How about you give me some specific links to indicate such and I will quite gladly read them.

      The most interesting thing I found while searching those terms is that Americans spend only 10% of their income on food while the Chinese spend around 30%. So that means even LESS money in their pocket. How exactly do these google searches help your argument?

      And we're not talking about Bumblefuckistan (damn if this place isn't a favorite straw-man location for people to use in limp arguments) - we're talking about China. A real country. You can make up imaginary places where $1000 a year is enough to feed a family of four in a less-than-squallid house with at least halfway decent medical care, but until you show me something adequate your argument kind of falls flat, wouldn't you say? Heck, let's just assume for food. Let's be generous and say these diggers make $5000 a year. Take out the 30% they spend on food. That leaves around $3,300. Take a look-see through the searches you suggested to me and let me know if $3,300 is adequate for a human being to live in any sort of condition that goes beyond simply surviving.

      I'm actually not arguing and don't consider this to be a debate of any substance because nobody has yet provided me with any sort of refutation that has any weight. It's just the same reactionary, defensive stuff we always hear. I love to learn, so I'm curious about any and all data you may have access to that I'm overlooking. The only thing I was able to find on repeated pages was the international cities comparison: http://www.finfacts.ie/costofliving.htm - which seems to have major US and Chinese cities sprinkled throughout fairly evenly.

      Do you have any information on the cost of living of rural areas of China? Something that indicates that their overall cost of living is at least 12x cheaper than the comparable cost of living here in the states? It doesn't have to be an online link (though I know people prefer that as a way to "win" an argument fairly quickly) - I have some great libraries in my area in NC. Honestly, I'm not being confrontational on this - someone point me to a source that shows that I shouldn't be concerned about third world countries where people make $4 a day digging through my garbage because they actually have it so much better than I realize. I'll read whatever you recommend to me and I'll apologize if any of you are right.

    5. Re:Another Communist Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point, but why are you talking about toxic jobs being in the past?

      Two years ago I remember working in a New Zealand sheet metal factory, getting a permanent injury and being expected to handle carcinogenic yellow chromate solution with my bare hands... all for what?

      Besides putting food on the table, I did it so that I could immigrate to that country with its relatively advanced environmental and labor laws!

      Is something wrong with this picture??

  30. Thoughts on recycling by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Since 1965, I have been a recyler (cub scouts and boy scouts). Generally, it is paper, glass, and metal. It always struck me as the right thing to do. But the other day it dawned on me that it might be a mistake to do some of this. In particular for the metals. Paper, plastics, and glass will decay if they are not recycled, so it makes good sense to do them right away. But metals are a different issue. It struck me that we might wish to consider simply putting them in a dump for future use. The reason is that somewhere down the road, a number of metals will be very expensive. One example is copper. A number of mines will be used up (much sooner rather than later). While China is about to have 1-2 major copper mines come on-line (in Tibet, they have found a number of resources which is why they actually built the Tibetan railroad), in general, copper has been massively extracted. Within my lifetime, copper is going to head towards being VERY valuable. It seems that it would benefit the countries to garbage dump any waste and then work on creating GOOD extraction approaches. The idea of paying to ship our electronic "waste" to other countries has to be one of the most ludicrous actions that the west takes.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Thoughts on recycling by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

      You are aware that you're talking about people who think the "future" is what they write in their quarter-year report or how they get reelected in up to 4 years, yes?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Thoughts on recycling by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Paper, plastics, and glass will decay if they are not recycled, so it makes good sense to do them right away. But metals are a different issue.

      Plastic won't decay for the next millennium. Glass, to my knowledge, doesn't really decay either, and if it does, it just gets ground up to sand again. Paper certainly decays, but it may be less resource-intensive to plant and cut down trees than to recycle used paper...

      Metals, however, certainly do decay. Rust, oxidization, etc., etc.

      It struck me that we might wish to consider simply putting them in a dump for future use. The reason is that somewhere down the road, a number of metals will be very expensive. One example is copper. A number of mines will be used up (much sooner rather than later).

      The more copper is recycled now, the longer into the future it will be before it becomes scarce. Locking it all up, unused, will only serve to hasten the problem of scarcity. Sure, maybe 50 years from now we'll have better extraction techniques, that can get 10% more of the copper out of the used material, but getting the other 90% recycled immediately is much more important, and the last 10% isn't going anywhere, should it be needed that badly...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    3. Re:Thoughts on recycling by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      The problem with electronics waste has always been one of mixed materials. There is no clean and easy way to seperate the components without a lot of manual labor which is expensive in the US, cheap in China. No one wants recyclers trying to burn off the plastics (dioxins, mercury) or using chemicals either. We really need some research into improving the clean extraction and seperation of materials from assembled goods.

      Your glass bottles and paper bags are pretty much free of the mixed materials issue (though recyclers like keeping the clear glass seperate from the colored glass) so they are more likely to get recycled here.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    4. Re:Thoughts on recycling by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2, Informative

      >Within my lifetime, copper is going to head towards being VERY valuable.

      In my neighborhood, in suburban Denver, if a house looks abandoned for more than about two weeks, people break in to strip out the copper. Abandoned buildings that are due to be demolished always have big "NO COPPER" or "COPPER ALREADY GONE" spraypainted across the front. And for a Darwin Award, a guy here got electrocuted a couple months back because he tried to strip the copper out of a running powerline transformer. When the police responded to the call, he was dead... and the copper was gone.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    5. Re:Thoughts on recycling by dosquatch · · Score: 1

      Plastic won't decay for the next millennium. Glass, to my knowledge, doesn't really decay either, and if it does, it just gets ground up to sand again. Paper certainly decays, but it may be less resource-intensive to plant and cut down trees than to recycle used paper...

      Ahh, yes, it's time for another wonderful installment of "I Vaguely Remember..."

      I remember reading an article a few years back, for which I cannot supply a source, that discussed decay rates in landfills. The gist is that paper doesn't decay nearly as fast as they expected due to lack of oxygen, and plastic decays remarkably faster than they expected because microbes apparently adapt to the foodsource available. I don't remember the article saying anything about glass.

      --
      "Hey, the third matrix movie would have been good except for the plot,story, and acting." --AC
    6. Re:Thoughts on recycling by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Thank god that is not happening Highlands ranch. Yet. But yeah, I remember reading the transformer story. What surprised me was the other day, I returned some copper wiring back to HomeDepot. The clerk told me that ppl older than me were buying 250'-1000' wire, cutting out 50-500', adding some rocks tucked in the remaining wire and returning the box looking like it was unopened. These ppl were able to get it in there because they were older than 50. I was disappointed to say the least. It seems like morals have been going to the by-side.

      Are you in no-do/five points area? Lots oc razing and reconstruction still going on there from what I hear (as opposed to the this area which is quickly dieing in terms of real estate).

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    7. Re:Thoughts on recycling by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      I'm up in Arvada. There is an old church at 84th and Sheridan that has "COPPER GONE" spraypainted no less than four times on its sides, along with another that says "YOU WILL BE THE THIRD PERSON ARRESTED FOR TRESPASSING". There's another house at about 58th that's been sitting empty for about four months, with "COPPER GONE" on the plywood over all the windows.
      One of my coworkers sometimes has his daughter in with him to work. She's in her teens and spends her time, while she's in his office, stripping old CRT's of their x/y electromagnet coils.
      I've read that people are ripping the grounding wires off telephone and electrical poles, but haven't seen anyone actually doing it. However, in my neighborhood, none of the old wooden poles have ground wires running down lower than about 12 feet from the ground.

      The wire-return thing is just appalling. However, it might manage to come in handy, in a way: a while back I rewired my house with nice 6 gauge wire running from the replaced electrical box to my oven. I went over to Greybar and ordered 75' of 6-3 wire, and when I got it home, realized they'd given me three-wire, not three-conductor-plus-ground, which is what everyone else in the world knows to deliver when someone orders 6-3. And of course they wouldn't take a cut wire return, so now I have an $85 spool of 6-2 wire sitting in my garage. But since that was four years ago, I might be able to recoup that loss. That'd be awfully nice.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    8. Re:Thoughts on recycling by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

      Actually, other than aluminum (and perhaps copper), recycling is not cost effective. Add to that that most community recycling programs have extra trucks just for the program, I would say that it causes extra unneeded pollution too.

      As far as trees, all paper we use come from tree farms. So if you want less trees, you less paper and they wont grow as many trees.

      PS - I'm an Eagle Scout

      --
      Libertas in infinitum
    9. Re:Thoughts on recycling by johnpipe · · Score: 1

      by WindBourne (631190) Alter Relationship on Monday May 21, @04:10AM (#19205905)

      "Within my lifetime, copper is going to head towards being VERY valuable. It seems that it would benefit the countries to garbage dump any waste and then work on creating GOOD extraction approaches. The idea of paying to ship our electronic "waste" to other countries has to be one of the most ludicrous actions that the west takes.
      "


      I have to agree; there seems to be some small scale progress in that direction in the U.S. I found this report, from the Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering at the University of Minnesota, on "Removal of Lead from Printed Circuit Board Scrap by Electrolysis-Chemical Precipitation Method"

      A brief quote from the article:

      "Printed circuit board scrap with external solder coating is classified as a hazardous waste by the EP Toxicity test because of lead ion release, and is shipped out of state to landfill sites at high cost." ...

      "In their manufacture, substantial amounts of the laminated boards become scrap which, according to one estimate, amounts to half a million to a million lbs per year in the Twin Cities area. Because of the lead content in the solder layer, printed circuit board scrap is classified as a hazardous waste. Therefore, the removal of lead would allow the scrap to be reclassified as non-hazardous waste."

      This was a pilot project for metals recovery; if projects like this were to become more widespread, a lot more valuable metals could be recylced here in the U.S.

    10. Re:Thoughts on recycling by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Actually, I just wonder if we can recycle the mercury and lead as well? It would be nice if we can get to the point where mining is used to grow our mineral quantity, rather than replacing most of it. It would seem to me, that either gas chromatography or even microbial extraction.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    11. Re:Thoughts on recycling by evilviper · · Score: 1

      The gist is that paper doesn't decay nearly as fast as they expected due to lack of oxygen,

      Every landfill needs pipes installed to vent methane gas. Those pipes also have the side-effect of allowing oxygen in, so I'm already skeptical.

      I'm skeptical of (naturally-occurring) plastic-eating microbes as well. Plastic products that have been dumped 50+ years ago can be found, 100% in-tact, and looking like new, in numerous and varied uninhabited areas across the world.

      I've heard of microbes being employed to convert styrofoam into plastics, but none that decompose normal plastics in a reasonable amount of time.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    12. Re:Thoughts on recycling by dosquatch · · Score: 1

      so I'm already skeptical.

      That's fine. In fact, I'm feeling the same way. I spent some time trying to Google that article and came up with nothing but air. Well, some artificially created bacteria that eat styrofoam into a biodegradable plastic, as you said, but nothing relevant to my original post.

      I can find several sources talking about 40 year old newspapers with "easily readable print"... this seems to be a common citing, probably most of these references are stemming from a single source back in the murky past. Interesting, and relevant, but again it fails to lead to the article I remember reading.

      That I cannot find it, or someone's cribbed copy on a blog or some such, probably means that there wasn't merit to the article. Forgive me :-)

      --
      "Hey, the third matrix movie would have been good except for the plot,story, and acting." --AC
  31. The world's biggest digital dump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I told you not to look in my garage!

  32. Clods. by sid0 · · Score: 1

    Clods. Insensitive clods.

  33. As I said before, wait til the digital TV switch by NeuroManson · · Score: 2, Informative

    With all the people who'll be dumping their old analog sets, this is where it'll all go (the wire wraps alone would be highly desirable).

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  34. what's the alternative? by nanosquid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I suspect that gold mining itself does a lot more damage than this kind of recycling. And what are the alternatives? Dump it into a dump and not recycle it? That will leach even more toxic metals into the ground. Or stop producing electronics altogether?

    I think it's good that this stuff is being recycled at all. We should now focus on:

    -- reducing the amount of heavy metals we put into electronics

    -- improving the safety and working conditions of the people doing the recycling

    -- redesigning electronics to reduce overall waste and make parts easier to recycle

    -- making sure that more electronics reach those countries in working order (open hardware standards and increasing compatibility can help with that)

    1. Re:what's the alternative? by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      They are a hell of a lot safer doing this than the alternatives, like prostitution. So yeah, I doubt walking around in circuit boards all day much bothers them. Why do you assume other countries are like yours?

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:what's the alternative? by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      I think that today's big garbage dumps will become the mines of the future. They must be full of scrap Al, Fe, plastics for hydrocarbons, etc. It'll require advances in materials seperation though.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    3. Re:what's the alternative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Old men are hooking in China? Actually it does bother them but they feel they have no choice. They recognize that they are destroying the environment and their own health but have no alternatives. Why do you assume that people in countries like China are content to live in misery? Read the stories coming out of places like China, they know it stinks.

    4. Re:what's the alternative? by khallow · · Score: 1

      China needs to make real environmental and workplace safety laws and enforce them. There's no reason that a dump should cause harm outside of a limited area.

    5. Re:what's the alternative? by Alioth · · Score: 1

      That's what RoHS is for. There are still some unintended consequences of RoHS - such as lead-free solders tend to form tin whiskers that may cause the premature failure of electronics, and therefore, more electronics to be thrown away - but RoHS is generally to reduce the amount of hazardous chemicals in electronics.

    6. Re:what's the alternative? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, and I'll note that I've read about several methodologies for performing seperation automatically.

      One was based on some sort of pressure system and produced water, oil, and purified minerals.

      The process was so extreme that it'd easily render chemical weapons safe. I think that I read about it in discover magazine.

      Another used a plasma jet to reduce the stuff to molten glass and produce power.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    7. Re:what's the alternative? by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and I've seen motherboards from both Asus and VIA that supported this RoHS. VIA in particular seems to be right on the edge with environmental friendly (or, at least friendlier) PC components, see e.g. here.

    8. Re:what's the alternative? by Johnny5000 · · Score: 1

      China needs to make real environmental and workplace safety laws and enforce them.

      But then, where will we buy cheap consumer goods from?

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
  35. I'm such an addict by vell0cet · · Score: 2, Funny

    Did anyone else read the title and think it was about World of Warcraft?

    1. Re:I'm such an addict by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      WoW is not worth more than copper ore or gold. So what gave you the idea?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  36. American Grammar by sqldr · · Score: 0

    The spelling happened at a troubled time, but was it REALLY such a pain to use the word "or" instead of a comma?

    The title sounds like "copper ore" is a celebratory slogan. Basically, the author of the article sounds like an idiot.

    --
    I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
  37. The true irony of this situation by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Is that you can help people and make a bundle of money at the same time.

    Instead of "investing" your money in a bank account at 1% below the rate of inflation, buy some unit trusts (funds in the US I think) which invest in the developing world. (It's good practice to diversify anyway) You'll get a 10-20% return and you'll be pushing money into these developing economies, increasing employment and ultimately improving working conditions.

    --
    Deleted
  38. I recycle by maroberts · · Score: 1

    I buy my ore from the AH, and resell it at a suitably extortionate price.

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  39. No by maroberts · · Score: 1

    Because from experience I've found that Gold doesn't really shift in the markets.

    Copper, Bronze and Silver (if you can get your hands on it) are great. Also being green and recycling End of Life magical items through disenchanting.

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  40. Re:As I said before, wait til the digital TV switc by ajs318 · · Score: 1

    Only the sets with no SCART sockets. If your set has a SCART socket (and most have two or more nowadays), you can just plug a digital decoder straight into it. The socket labelled AV1 usually accepts RGB, which will give the absolute best picture.

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  41. The payoff? by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Interesting
    According to the submitter "The payoff is huge: computer waste contains 17 times more gold than gold ore ..."

    What a load of bullshit. If the payoff was "huge", why would companies pay to have it taken away to China? Gold ore is much easier to process in bulk from fairly homogeneous rock than trying to extract it from a pile of metal, plastic and glass components. Gold ore is anything from 0.5 ppm up, so this "17 times" is a meaningless figure. At best, it means a few grammes of gold per tonne of hardware. How many hundreds of manhours would it take to break it down and separate out the tiny scrapings of gold from electrical contacts? Copper is more easily scavenged from wiring and power supplies.

    1. Re:The payoff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the payoff was "huge", why would companies pay to have it taken away to China?

      Because the US government generally frowns on killing your employees, who you have to pay more than $2 a day to begin with.

      It also frowns on throwing the things in the trash, leading to people and companies who don't know any better to buy "recycling services" from companies who turn around and sell them in bulk to Chinese companies.

    2. Re:The payoff? by eck011219 · · Score: 1

      The payoff is huge on a Chinese scale -- elsewhere in these posts, someone states that the average yearly salary in China is between $300 and $700. I don't know if that's accurate or not, but even if it's half what it should be, they're still doing pretty well considering the number of people vying for work.

      And yes, these materials are more easily scavenged from other items -- but I bet that's already being done. This is a relatively new option for Chinese workers, and they're willing to take the health risks that others won't. So to go from NO money to at least the average wage (if not higher) is a huge payoff. Work and money where there was none before.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    3. Re:The payoff? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      The payoff is huge on a Chinese scale

      No it's not. $2/day is nothing.

      I live in Hong Kong, so I have an idea of salaries in the mainland. That's way below what a factory worker would earn. Not to mention the cancer and other health risks from the lead, burning plastic and other toxic wastes.

      The bosses are making a profit, but the gold is the least of it.

    4. Re:The payoff? by eck011219 · · Score: 1

      Point taken -- thanks. I made the mistake of taking as fact something I read in the Slashdot comments. I guess what I was saying was that many of the people doing this were making zero dollars per day before. This excuses neither the conditions under which they're now working nor the pay, though I wonder if the national average differs from what you're seeing on the mainland around Hong Kong -- I know very little about this, though, so I certainly defer to you. I can find several sources for the Chinese per capita GDP, but I don't know how that corresponds to take-home pay for citizens (nor do I know where to look).

      I hope you come back and read this -- I have a question that I've been wondering about for a while, and maybe you or someone else in your neck of the woods can help answer it. Here in the U.S., we have an immigration debate going right now. The common anti-immigration belief (generalized for brevity) seems to be that Indian and Chinese immigrants are coming to take white-collar jobs, and that Latin-Americans are taking more blue-collar jobs. I don't know how the numbers break down, and there are arguments to be made that in many cases, the most eager and/or qualified people are being given the jobs. Our situation, though, is muddied by the legal/illegal immigration issue -- in China, the people doing the same kind of work are already Chinese (politically, at the very least). Do you think that makes it harder to stop the inequity (in a relatively homogenous society, is it harder to discern where the inequity lies), or do you think it allows for more upward mobility possibilities? In other words, as there is not as wide a cultural or racial gap between the haves and have-nots (I know there are a blue million cultural, ethnic, and anthropological distinctions within China, but perhaps still not as random and diverse as here), do you think people have a better chance of working themselves up and out of a job like smelting the gold from circuit boards?

      I'm guessing that in China, as is the case anywhere else that humans occupy, people rank themselves using whatever criteria they can find (however small) and then stick to it. But China has always interested me in this regard, because of the 40 years of attempted (and forced) equality. Do you think there are more opportunities to change your life there because there are fewer distinctions?

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    5. Re:The payoff? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      It may be less than what factory workers make, but it's still better than what they had previously, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.

      It's kinda like how years ago I read a story about the true results of a sneaker factory in some third world nation; After five years of operation elementary school graduations had shot up to above 50%(from something like 10%), there were five times the stores and businesses in the local area. Many of the factory workers were riding bikes or even scooters.

      While the workers were paid relativly nothing in comparison with US jobs, it was still enough to substantially raise their quality of life, part of which they promptly put into the next generation. Elementary level education might not seem like much here, but there? Increased education would also allow the next generation to get even better jobs, allowing them to keep their kids in school longer. It's a positive cycle.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    6. Re:The payoff? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      This excuses neither the conditions under which they're now working nor the pay, though I wonder if the national average differs from what you're seeing on the mainland around Hong Kong

      Yes, the further from the coast, the lower the wages. There's a continuous flow of immigrants to the coastal areas, looking for work. The wages paid to these computer scavengers is very low. You can quibble about if it's just above or below the poverty line, but it's certainly not "huge". It's a job people take from desperation.

      do you think people have a better chance of working themselves up and out of a job like smelting the gold from circuit boards?

      Some may be able to save some money and get out. But from reports I've read, many have suffered permanent damge to their health by then and go home to live the remainder of their lives in poverty and sickness.

      Those who get relatively clean and better paid jobs, as in the garment trade, can save up a nest egg and go back home afer a few years. Others may stay on permanently. Large cities have grown across the border from villages in the last 20 years.

      China has always interested me in this regard, because of the 40 years of attempted (and forced) equality.

      Ideas of equality have been abandoned. Since Deng Xiaoping said "Let some people get rich first" it's been devil take the hindmost.

      Do you think there are more opportunities to change your life there because there are fewer distinctions?

      China's growth is based on the enormous cheap labour force, former peasants who will do almost anything to get out of the poverty of subsistence farming. Similar to the "satanic mills" period of the Industrial Revolution in the West. Some robber barons get very rich, factory fodder are worked like donkeys, while at the same time a middle class is growing that may eventually moderate the worst excesses of unrestrained capitalism.

    7. Re:The payoff? by rollingcalf · · Score: 1

      "I'm guessing that in China, as is the case anywhere else that humans occupy, people rank themselves using whatever criteria they can find (however small) and then stick to it. But China has always interested me in this regard, because of the 40 years of attempted (and forced) equality. Do you think there are more opportunities to change your life there because there are fewer distinctions?"

      If you are born into a family that is poor, but isn't so poor that they have to worry about their next meal and can't send you to school, then maybe you'll have decent opportunities to move up. But when people make just enough for bare survival, and have to work 70-100 hours a week at it, they have no time or money or energy to dedicate to improving skills or starting a business or doing something else to move up. When they do get the occasional bit of extra cash, they are afraid to invest it in something that would help them move up, because investing it in something risky or long-term could mean starvation (or death or disability from a simple illness because they can't afford medical care) in the short- to medium term.

      --
      ---------
      There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
    8. Re:The payoff? by eck011219 · · Score: 1

      Yeesh -- sounds quite unpleasant. We get some of the horror stories here, but it sounds like it's far more the norm than the exception I had thought. Thanks very much for the information and response!

      The feeling among some here is that we shouldn't buy products from China because of the working conditions. But it sounds to me like China desperately needs the work, warts and all. It's too bad that the revenues go to such a small few -- as you say, though, that's how it was here to begin with, so maybe there's a chance that it will evolve to a better situation over time. Dunno, though -- China has a lot more people to feed to the work machine than we did here. And again, we had a huge immigrant population at the time -- just like it may be in China now, there was always someone waiting in line behind you to take your job if you stood up to the bosses at all. I suspect the lines in China, thanks to the sheer numbers involved, might sustain a much longer period of inequity than we had here in the States.

      Thanks again for a fascinating (if sobering) response.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    9. Re:The payoff? by eck011219 · · Score: 1

      Good points. Three billion people living check to check sounds to me like a very tenuous situation, even if the few at the top who DO make scads of money keep things stable (in their own way).

      Something's got to happen, though, right? I mean, it seems like eventually China's workforce will begin to collapse under its own weight if some moderation isn't implemented. Particularly if the population controls begin to really take hold.

      This is pure speculation on my part, but I can only imagine that when there are that many people waiting for that many jobs that are that difficult and thankless, the way to move up is not to improve your skills but to kiss your superiors' butts. Which, over a few generations, will create quite a subset of buttkissers within the population at large. Which, one could argue, is what happened here in the States and is the source of the middle management culture. Seems a shame for such a proud, ancient culture to slowly bleed out through a glut of middle managers.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  42. Mirror? by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 1

    The images seem to be 404ing, with Mirrordot only giving the image on the first page. Mirror for the rest if them, anyone?

    --
    All rites reversed 2010
  43. Dumping stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The BBC aired a report about this a few months ago.

    It was shocking to see the amount of rubbish, and the pollution generated.

    Without going into the maths, it always amazes me that it's cheaper to ship this stuff halfway around the world, rather than build a reprosessing plant or too and deal with it at home.

    The report also showed another City where general waste was ending up. Washing powder packets, crisp/chip packets etc.

    Such a shame that us developed countries have to shift our environmental responsibilities elsewhere, then criticize them for being less green than us. (My personal view from the UK...others may not agree)

  44. Our future "mining" will all be like this by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've said this for years now, that we will be mining old dumps of all sorts for refined materials which will have become too rare or too costly to extract conventionally.

    --
    Some days it's just not worth
    chewing through my restraints.
  45. Discarded PIII's? by overlook77 · · Score: 1

    What are people thinking?! Install Slackware on them and they're good as new ;)

  46. Off-topic - 8088-2 board by Skater · · Score: 1

    That doesn't look like a PCjr board to me, by the way.



    The PCjr had various nonstandard connectors on the back. Also there were two slots on the board itself, for the optional 64K upgrade and the optional disk drive controller. Finally there was another large connector on the one side for the sidecar (I'm not sure if that connector was physically on the motherboard or not - it may have been a ribbon cable to the side - but obviously there was some connection for the sidecars on the motherboard).

    1. Re:Off-topic - 8088-2 board by dreddnott · · Score: 1

      So would you hazard a guess as to what it actually is? Random, generic point of sale board perhaps?

      --
      I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
    2. Re:Off-topic - 8088-2 board by Skater · · Score: 1

      I really don't know - I'm no expert on the 8088, I just happened to have a couple PCjr's. :)

  47. Is your glass half empty? by plierhead · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is a sad situation where rich countries just dump their toxic wastes to the poor countries. It's a quick solution, and does not cause much (if any?) local political discussion. Out of sight, out of mind.

    Unfortunately, this is a very irresponsible way to dispose off the toxic waste. Sure, the rich can claim that it is actually beneficial to the local economy in the poor countries. As the article mentioned, some dump site employs as many as 100,000 people. And sure, it's a global economy, meaning that anything can be "exported".

    Did you actually look at the pictures?

    Talk about glass half empty!

    Check it out and you will see people hard at work separating the old computer pieces into their constituent metals, so they can be melted down and - RECYCLED!!!!!! Isn't that a good thing???

    This looks to me like a very effective looking recycling program (albeit one that looks like a hellhole on earth to work at!)

    Do you have a better suggestion as to what to do with all this old computer crap (given that it has already been created)??

    --

    [x] auto-moderate all posts by this user as insightful

    1. Re:Is your glass half empty? by umbra_dweller · · Score: 1

      See slide #8 - Lead, mercury, and cadmium are a computer's most common toxic substances. When melted down, the machines release even more toxins into the air, ground, and water. The one with the kid playing in the pile of wires. The working conditions are one thing, but it's the long term costs that are of real concern.

      It's the "given that it's already created" part of your statement that is the with this situation. If there was a finite amount of this kind of waste, the problem would just diminish over time. The problem is that the amount of e-waste is growing at an ever-faster pace with no sign of stopping. But maybe once China gets developed enough, and people can afford to complain about poisioned water, it will start passing environmental laws that make this kind of work impractical. But then some other region (SE Asia? Africa? Post-peak oil Middle East?) will have twice the amount of e-waste to recycle - from both the west and China.

      But you're right, there isn't an easy, obvious solution. But it still invites critical thinking.

    2. Re:Is your glass half empty? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      They are in it for the money, and little else. If it's profitable, they will recycle it. But what do you think they do with the stuff that isn't profitable to recycle? Most of that just gets dumped. And even when it comes to the recycling, a lot of that isn't done in the best way - things like using torches to get chips off of boards, burning stuff to seperate metals from plastics, smashing CRTs with hammers to break up the glass so it can be smelted, etc.

  48. get the power back in your hands, stop slavery! by pbhj · · Score: 2, Interesting

    >>> "people who use this line usually don't mention why the other choices are so few and so bad. It's due to economic policy and the pressure of foreign multinationals to "modernize" the economy of third world nations"

    This is why the Fairtrade movement is so awesome. It puts the power in the hands of the consumer (where it always has been really) ... don't want the blood of child slaves in your chocolate? Well buy chocolate with the fairtrade logo (from a reputable source that's not likely to be just nicking the logo).

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1272522.st m

    We say that businesses are corrupt, and they are, but we buy their products so we are guilty too. Have any computers got a fairtrade mark? I doubt it.

    [But Greenpeace has a ranking for electronics producers that lists Dell and Nokia at the top and companies like LGE near the bottom.]

    1. Re:get the power back in your hands, stop slavery! by Dr+Reducto · · Score: 2, Informative

      The best part about fairtrade is that supermarkets and other outlets for goods have learned that fairtrade and organic products are good at procuring price-insensitive consumers from whom they can extract awesome profits. For example, Safeway may be able to buy a pound of fairtrade coffee for 5% more, but theyll charge a way higher premium, and the average consumer justifies the premium in their mind, whereas the profit goes straight to the supermarket

    2. Re:get the power back in your hands, stop slavery! by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Um yes...so? The value of a thing is not equal to its cost to produce.

      The premium is what induces new players to get into the market.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    3. Re:get the power back in your hands, stop slavery! by pbhj · · Score: 1

      You're right the moral corruption of capitalism is extreme.

  49. And so is the Iraqi munitions essay by Traf-O-Data-Hater · · Score: 1

    ...and the most interesting thing about it is that they show all manner of munitions made by Russia, South Africa and China, but not a mention about having to clean up any from another large and powerful western democracy who no doubt has dropped quite a lot of ordnance on that country in the name of WMD ...or was it er... nasty dictators?... ummm.... yeah. Nasty dictators, that's got to be it.

  50. Asshat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, didn't take long for someone to make a moronic political joke.

    That wasn't funny.

    1. Re:Asshat by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      This is the exact reason why Fox's attempt to create a humorous show fell flat on its back...

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  51. WAHHH! I'm so SENSITIVE!!! WAHHHH!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HEY MORON, THEY PAY US TO TAKE THIS. WE'RE NOT FORCING ANYTHING ON THEM.

    Did you get that? Do you understand the difference between what you're claiming is happening and what is REALLY happening?

    You're an imbecile, a crybaby who thinks he knows better about the lives of others than they know themselves? So I'd like to ask, WHAT THE FUCK MAKES YOU THINK YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO TELL ANYONE HOW TO LIVE?

    Because that's what you're doing. You're telling these people that they shouldn't be allowed to do this job, as you deem it too dangerous. But the point you soft headed retards always miss is these people have a RIGHT to do this work if they choose.

    So save your liberal guilt, douchie, they aren't interested in listening to it and neither are we.

  52. Make sure... by yakumo.unr · · Score: 1

    you actually read the green screen FBI warning, it's not your ordinary copyright notice :)

    1. Re:Make sure... by yakumo.unr · · Score: 1

      how on earth did I managed to get this attached to this story, not the right one :o/
      oh for even a short window of opportunity delete function.

  53. Fool's gold by djfake · · Score: 1

    Slide 7 states: "One ton of computer scrap contains more gold than 17 tons of gold ore." Now how does that work?

    --
    www.itjerk.com
    1. Re:Fool's gold by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 1

      I read that too. I'd love to ask the editor how much a ton of feathers weigh.

    2. Re:Fool's gold by HiddenL · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because there is only a small percentage of gold in gold ore. Most of gold ore is just useless rock.

  54. delicious! by vengeful_ferengi · · Score: 1

    Apparently the kid on the left side of picture 9 has developed some sort of delicious new pcb sandwich! The line starts here, I want one!

  55. Re:As I said before, wait til the digital TV switc by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

    Okay, that's still a LOT of sets (we don't use SCART in the US, nor does the rest of N. America, or Asia, as far as I know)

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  56. mp3s by scottennis · · Score: 1

    People used to throw their computers out in the dumpster at my apartment in Minneapolis. On a weekly basis, I could count on retrieving the hard drive from at least one computer. From those hard drives I retrieved thousands of mp3s.

    That is what I think of when I hear about digital recycling.

    1. Re:mp3s by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I've found the same thing, though not as frequent as you have found them. I'll usually take a look at any discarded PC I see to if I can make any use out of it. Even if I conclude it's purely junk I'll still pop the harddrive out to see what's on it (and usually take the CPU too because of the gold content). It's unbelievable the stuff I've found on the drives, including old emails, photos, old homework, resumes, tax returns, warez, porn, mp3s, viruses, etc. If I was into identify theft, or even blackmail I would be set.

      So the lesson to be learned is if you are going to toss an old computer, you should wipe and/or destroy the harddrive - otherwise people will find it, and will go through it.

    2. Re:mp3s by scottennis · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I found one computer a woman was using to run her small catering business and she had all her complete credit cards numbers in a budget spreadsheet.

      Another one I found had two users on it, man and wife. The internet accounts were hilarious. Hers was all home and garden sites, his was all porn!

      I don't throw hard drives away anymore, I just pop 'em and toss 'em into a box that gathers dust in the back corner of a desk cabinet. When I die, someone will have a field day rifling through them all, but at least I won't be too worried about identity theft at that point!

  57. Maybe... by Mahjub+Sa'aden · · Score: 2, Funny

    Because there's so damn many of them?

    --
    What is is all that is. Isn't that obvious?
  58. Not related but interesting by Rac3r5 · · Score: 1

    I looked at some other albums and saw the one about diamonds. I'm not a big fan of precious stones, but am surprised to see that all these diamonds are procured and processed for peanuts and then sold for hefty sums. Kind of sad that ppl still pay so much for diamonds.

  59. A missed opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "But the detritus also leaches chemicals and metals into local water supplies."

    And there is no entrepreneur collecting the detritus, grinding it up and marketing as a pet food additive?

    1. Re:A missed opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a fucking dog. If you're not blind, get over it already.

  60. Payoff by markedmann · · Score: 1

    The payoff is huge: computer waste contains 17 times more gold than gold ore, 40 times more copper than copper ore. But the detritus also leaches chemicals and metals into local water supplies.
    The yogurt is also cursed...
  61. please don't throw them away by iampiti · · Score: 1

    My main computer is a pentium iii you insensitive clod!

  62. Manufactured Landscapes by RayHs · · Score: 1

    The documentary Manufactured Landscapes contains some surreal footage of the piles of sorted materials that get piled up from the recycling process. It also has footage of the shipyard recycling process which appeared to be all done by hand. The opening scene scrolling down the length of a manufacturing plant in China rivals the opening Star Destroyer scene in Star Wars IV in sheer scale.

  63. RoHS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't believe they exist.

  64. Re:WAHHH! I'm so SENSITIVE!!! WAHHHH!!! by gwoodrow · · Score: 1

    I love AC's - you guys always put a smile on my face. Show me in my original post where I was telling anyone how they must live, where I said that someone shouldn't be allowed to do a job, and where I said we're forcing anything on anybody.

    Your anger and hair-trigger temperment are delicious to me. I always know that I'm on to something when people get so mad; clearly it's a manifestation of their guilt and lack of understanding on a topic. Helps remind me that I'm on the right track whenever people are this defensive. And when they hide, of course. Yummy.

  65. Also see the work of Edward Burtynsky by toby · · Score: 1
    Burtynsky, a Canadian photographer, has been documenting China's industrialisation for more than a decade.

    This has led him to photograph e-waste processing, assembly line and process work, shipbreaking, large scale extraction, urbanisation, and the Three Gorges dam project.

    The Goethe Institute of Toronto recently screened the documentary Manufactured Landscapes, (also here) which followed Burtynsky in his Chinese travels, and reveals more of the backstory behind his photographs (which are published in the book Manufactured Landscapes).

    An arresting portrait of the effects of globalization as seen through the eyes of highly acclaimed Canadian photographer Edward Burtynsky on his travels through China. In his photography Burtynsky not only captures the astonishing transformations in the landscape through industrial production but also shows us the social repercussions of these changes. Both the photographs and the film present us with the large-scale complexity of a global situation, without trying to reach simplistic judgements or reductive resolutions.

    --
    you had me at #!
  66. Detroit, too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  67. Melting nickels and pennies (was Re:The payoff?) by An+dochasac · · Score: 1

    Or you could just ask for change for that paper dollar and ship it to India where it can be meilted down for more than 10% profit. Of course the government made that illegal back in December: From Mish Shedlock's globaleconomicanalysis blog: People who melt pennies or nickels to profit from the jump in metals prices could face jail time and pay thousands of dollars in fines, according to new rules out Thursday. Soaring metals prices mean that the value of the metal in pennies and nickels exceeds the face value of the coins. Based on current metals prices, the value of the metal in a nickel is now 6.99 cents, while the penny's metal is worth 1.12 cents, according to the U.S. Mint. "The nation needs its coinage for commerce," U.S. Mint director Ed Moy said in a statement. "We don't want to see our pennies and nickels melted down so a few individuals can take advantage of the American taxpayer. Replacing these coins would be an enormous cost to taxpayers." Under the new rules, it is illegal to melt pennies and nickels. It is also illegal to export the coins for melting. Travelers may legally carry up to $5 in 1- and 5-cent coins out of the USA or ship $100 of the coins abroad "for legitimate coinage and numismatic purposes."

    Ah the joy of fiat money! Wasn't it only a few years ago when nearly 100% of the copper in pennies was replaced with cheaper zinc so its face value wouldn't drop below its scrap value? Now zinc is worth 12% more than the penny. Is anyone here old enough to remember when dimes were nearly pure silver (1964) and Nickels had Nickel as a primary ingredient? What will be next? Will the value of ink and paper in paper money exceed the face value? I know, let's mint money out of that nuclear waste everyone has been trying to figure out how to get rid of. That way, those economy-wrecking money savers will have every incentive to spend it, and spend it now!

    Uncle Ben Benranke, fire up those currency printing presses! Wouldn't you like to have a Beowulf cluster of those?

  68. Humanitarian Tarriff by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    How about a law demanding that goods may not be imported, if they were manufactured under conditions that would not be acceptable in the destination country?

    Better to impose a tarriff, as though China had OSHA, EPA, building codes, welfare, etc., such that the true cost of competition were leveled. I, know, that would make goods made by our funny-looking overseas slaves less expensive, can't do it.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  69. Digital waste is quite valuable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just vendering digital waste can be quite profitable as mining copper and gold and selling it on the AH is quite time consuming.

  70. Who owns the planet? by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

    Uhh... I hate to tell you, but the planet doesn't belong 'to everyone'. Property rights, at least in the US, are individual. If someone from China, Japan, Mexico, or even a neighbor trespasses onto MY property, they'll find out very quickly that they don't own this specific piece of the Earth.

    I dont know how you came to this communistic/socialistic conclusion that "this planet belongs to everyone" because it doesn't. And if you don't believe me, try to travel to North Korea sometime, some other God-forsaken wasteland of a country.

    --
    Libertas in infinitum
  71. frugal ee student by urban_warrior · · Score: 1

    those pics look like they could easily have come from my bedroom, piles of circuit boards bins full of components, piles of electronics awaiting destruction, piles of copper wire for recycling, it brings me joy to see there are others like me out there. Actually i'm somewhat envious of the amounts of scrap these fellows can get there hands on, the amounts i can aquire through dumpster diving, curb shopping and freecycle aren't nearly as great., if only I could get corporations to dump their scraped equipment in my backyard instead of china's.

  72. Old Story ... by tmjva · · Score: 1

    This is an old but always interesting story every time it crops up.

    --
    Tracy Johnson
    Old fashioned text games hosted below:
    http://empire.openmpe.com/
    BT
  73. re: isolationism by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    I'm not advocating total isolationism.... (That would entail refraining from importing or exporting ANY goods, in the strict sense of the word.)

    You have to draw the line someplace, though - because ultimately, yes. Everything is indirectly related to everything else in some manner. That doesn't always give a country a good excuse to interfere with another country's affairs though. (Well, maybe it does, if you're an advocate of the "New World Order" concept .. with all of us ending up under some sort of "world government". But I'm FAR from accepting THAT as a good idea.)

  74. Re:Melting nickels and pennies (was Re:The payoff? by Copid · · Score: 1

    We could go the alternate route and use massive amounts of a natural resource that has tremendous intrinsic value (meaning we can do actual useful stuff with it) as a token for exchange of goods--a task that could just as easily be performed by a material that doesn't have anything better to do. I don't think that's a particularly practical way to go, personally.

    --
    An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"