Slashdot Mirror


Inside Factory China

blackbearnh writes "While China is attempting to pull its industry up out of mere manufacturing mode, for now the country is the production workhorse of the consumer electronics industry. Almost anything you pick up at a Best Buy first breathed life across the Pacific Ocean. But what is it like to shepherd a product through the design and production process? Andrew 'bunnie' Huang has done just that with the Chumby, a new Internet appliance. In an interview with O'Reilly Radar, he talks about the logistical and moral issues involved with manufacturing in China, as well as his take on the consumer's right to hack the hardware they purchase."

135 comments

  1. China's economy is going to retool itself.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Put yourself in the Chinese situation. If you had to work months and months and months to save up to buy something for yourself, would you buy the frivolous electronic gadgets you are manufacturing now, or would you work your tail off for something more rewarding like health care, better housing, national defense, or better quality food?

    The Chinese economy is undergoing changes to serve its own people now. Factories will be modified to produce goods the Chinese people want, rather than what we want. It won't happen over night, but it's a process that will continue as they shift away from being an export economy.

    1. Re:China's economy is going to retool itself.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fail economics 101.

      The factory owners will manufacture whatever sells, domestically or for export depending on the demand.

      You make it sound like the economy is planned, but of course nobody is stupid or foolhardy enough to try that.

    2. Re:China's economy is going to retool itself.. by Canazza · · Score: 1

      China's economy may well shift away from Export and more towards domestic goods, however, every country keeps atleast one major export that it's famous for. Scotland has Whiskey and Beef, Japan has Electronics and Cartoon porn, and I see consumer electronics continuing to be one of the major ones (if not the biggest) in China's future.

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    3. Re:China's economy is going to retool itself.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make it sound like the economy is planned, but of course nobody is stupid or foolhardy enough to try that.

      Except the Americans, apparently.

    4. Re:China's economy is going to retool itself.. by tritonman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you forgot that Japan also is famous for exporting smut videos of hot girls eating bugs and other disgusting things.

    5. Re:China's economy is going to retool itself.. by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      you forgot that Japan also is famous for exporting smut videos of hot girls eating bugs and other disgusting things.

      It's true!!

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    6. Re:China's economy is going to retool itself.. by Jurily · · Score: 2, Insightful

      would you buy the frivolous electronic gadgets you are manufacturing now

      Hands up anyone who wants to buy something from any of their former workplaces. I sure as hell know I don't.

    7. Re:China's economy is going to retool itself.. by number17 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What China will keep is the ability to disallow full foreign ownership of its companies. The neocons want China to open up so that they can buy up all the companies and funnel the money out of the country. So far the leadership has not allowed that to happen and based on history (Opium Wars) they will not allow that to happen again.

    8. Re:China's economy is going to retool itself.. by Tybalt_Capulet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Have you ever seen WalMart: High Cost or another movie about Chinese factories? They would never be able to afford anything they make. They make nothing, and I say that almost literally. Half of what they make gets taken out of their pay for room and board at the factory. Whether they live in them or not. You can't negotiate work time. You have 12 hour days without breaks. The factories make US prisons look like they're a five star hotel. Not to mention the fact that they constantly recruit children in them. If you talk back not only will you get fired, you may also get killed with no repercussion to the company.

      --
      Has the old saint in his forest not yet heard of it? That God is dead?
    9. Re:China's economy is going to retool itself.. by BoogeyOfTheMan · · Score: 1

      You forgot about the kitten torturing rooms and how they are required to give at least 5 old people the finger everyday.

    10. Re:China's economy is going to retool itself.. by steelfood · · Score: 1

      That's 'cause most of us produce software. And most of the software we produce is free anyway.

      Now, if we worked as a Lego bruckmaster or even at the Lego manufacturing plant...

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    11. Re:China's economy is going to retool itself.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not for long....

      http://www.theonion.com/content/news/japan_pledges_to_halt_production

    12. Re:China's economy is going to retool itself.. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      China's factories run the gamut from "not that bad" to "government-instituted slave labor camps". The more skills you have the better you are treated. Is it fair? Nope. But that's how it works in the USA as well. The quality of life is just much much higher here. As far as getting killed I think it's actually worse than you describe. The Chinese government has taken to killing people in a van and trucking their body off for disposal. The family is never allowed to see it from the time they take it. Meanwhile lots of donor organs start coming out of China... So not only is it "no repercussion" but hell, whoever hands over a troublemaker might even get a bonus at this point. Especially if the guy's not a heavy drinker or a smoker, his parts are worth more.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:China's economy is going to retool itself.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I LOVE the baconator!

    14. Re:China's economy is going to retool itself.. by gerddie · · Score: 1

      America used to be famous for exporting freedom, but now, even that is Made in China; so what will be, this mystical major export thingy?

    15. Re:China's economy is going to retool itself.. by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Why would you think that the would not be proud of the places they work. There are of course egregious human rights abuses but the same could of been said of American plants before the unions stepped in and a nascent labor movement is arising in mainland China to speak up for the working class and if it is like every other movement we have seen worldwide it will be unstoppable. China deserves the reward of their hard work and the rest of the world needs to realize that exporting virtual slavery for imports might have reached an end. Each nation will be expected to produce more and more of its own goods and services as globalization is not imperialism, although some countries esp the western ones have been treating it as such. Globalization has produced economies, industries and new classes of industrial workers, capitalist entrepreneurs and liberal middle class folk in countries like China which had 90% of its population farming the land 50 years ago. These new class dynamics will lend themselves to the gradual liberalization of the countries they are arising till they may reach the tipping point where the reigning kleptocracies, dictatorships and theocracies will be threatened with revolution if they ignore the rising cause and practice of liberty these classes are growing accustomed to.

    16. Re:China's economy is going to retool itself.. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I've recently bought 3 boxes of software from a place I've worked at a year ago. Your point is?

  2. Chumby homepage stinks, article OK by Bearhouse · · Score: 3, Informative

    Link to Chumby page Flash-infested, but interview with creator quite refreshing, for example:

    JT: There seems to be a running battle between the users of equipment and the manufacturers, be it jail-broken iPhones or hacked Xboxes. How much control do you think a manufacturer legitimately should be allowed to have over the use of their hardware?

    AH: Well, I think that a manufacturer, basically once the hardware leaves the factory, and someone's paid whatever the market price is for it, then the user owns it, right? So I mean you could take that piece of hardware, melt it down and use it for the component metals if you want, use it for a doorstop. You could use it for something completely other than the computer, that you had not imagined it to be used for. So the hardware itself is pretty much -- I kind of believe you buy it, you own it.

    1. Re:Chumby homepage stinks, article OK by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Pff, he must be one of those communists. How can the free market and private property possibly survive if people are allowed to own what they buy?

    2. Re:Chumby homepage stinks, article OK by Lord+Ender · · Score: 2, Interesting

      He has it wrong. Unlocked communication devices are different, because they can cause additional costs/damage on the network they are connected to. This is the reason smartphone makers cripple their devices.

      If the cell phone network eventually becomes as robust *cough* as the Internet, then the need for unlocked devices will go away. But right now, there is a lot of "trust the client" built in to the way the cellular network operates.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    3. Re:Chumby homepage stinks, article OK by ForrestFire439 · · Score: 1

      Amen brother!

      --
      "Bread and Circuses is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure." --Robert Heinlien
    4. Re:Chumby homepage stinks, article OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What would you expect from the author of "Hacking the Xbox"? Next you'll be surprised that RMS is in favour of open-source software...

    5. Re:Chumby homepage stinks, article OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Link to Chumby page Flash-infested"

      Not a big surprise. The chumby pretty much only runs flash apps.

    6. Re:Chumby homepage stinks, article OK by citizenr · · Score: 1

      AH: I think that a manufacturer, basically once the hardware leaves the factory, and someone's paid whatever the market price is for it, then the user owns it, right?

      yeah right, so WHY does Chumby come with "crypto CPU" with sanded off markings and no source code to the firmware?

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    7. Re:Chumby homepage stinks, article OK by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      The correct solution to this problem is to harden the networks and stop trusting the client. To do that you need open standards, open APIs and open protocols.

      The reason why the carriers hate jailbroken devices is primarily their interest in maintaining walled gardens, tying phones to carriers and make the users on a constant replacement treadmill. In my recent trip to India I find my friends and relatives nonchalantly switching SIM cards to get the best price/service on the same phone. "Vodofone sucks in $town, let me use Aircell. I am out of $metro so let me switch to this statewide provider with better rates". Here I am stuck with two year lock in contracts.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    8. Re:Chumby homepage stinks, article OK by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He has it wrong. Unlocked communication devices are different, because they can cause additional costs/damage on the network they are connected to. This is the reason smartphone makers cripple their devices.

      How does that work? An unlocked communications device can simply be used on a different provider. That provider still has to provide you (see what I did there?) with the services in order for you to use them. A malfunctioning, locked device can cause communications problems - if the network is poorly designed. The same is true of a rogue device. You don't mean to tell me that the cellphone companies are trusting phones they have sold simply because they once held them, do you? Because somehow, I doubt that.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Chumby homepage stinks, article OK by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think so. He specifically mentions(in the bit just after what is quoted above) the case of interaction with services. He never says that carriers are under any obligation to allow malicious activity on the network.

      Also, in many cases, particularly among the smarter smartphones and more complex devices(which are generally the ones people are most interested in modding), there is a substantial degree of separation between the cellular modem bit, and the processor running the OS(Hayes AT ain't dead yet). Lockdown of the communication side is often about FCC regulations or legitimate network concerns. Lockdown of the application side is all about squeezing more money for worse service.

    10. Re:Chumby homepage stinks, article OK by lobsterturd · · Score: 1

      Mobile networks are actually pretty robust, and the standards and protocols are indeed open (GSM/UMTS, OMA).

      Nevertheless, mobile phones are usually sold as locked black boxes because:
      1. Government regulations require that equipment must not be able to use frequencies other than those they are licensed to;
      2. The same regulations require that transmit power be limited to a safe level; and
      3. Mobile carriers want to be able to enact anti-competitive measures (SIM locking) and/or screw consumers (disabling software features).

    11. Re:Chumby homepage stinks, article OK by itschy · · Score: 1

      Why is this moderated insightful?
      Is there really anybody out there who does *not* get this is irony??

    12. Re:Chumby homepage stinks, article OK by N1AK · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pff, he must be one of those communists. How can the free market and private property possibly survive if people are allowed to own what they buy?

      No one is stopping people from buying things that conform to there required interpretation of 'freedom'. How would it be a free market if the government legislated to control how a company is allowed to build physical devices? Sadly, sometimes it is exactly because a market is free that people choose to make choices that we as individuals may wish they wouldn't.

    13. Re:Chumby homepage stinks, article OK by Jurily · · Score: 1

      Pff, he must be one of those communists. How can the free market and private property possibly survive if people are allowed to own what they buy?

      The weird thing is, you hear these things from The Land Of The Free(tm). Meanwhile in communist China...

    14. Re:Chumby homepage stinks, article OK by Jurily · · Score: 1

      3. Mobile carriers want to be able to enact anti-competitive measures (SIM locking) and/or screw consumers (disabling software features).

      Fuck them. Don't you guys have govt regulations that say something about this?

    15. Re:Chumby homepage stinks, article OK by Bearhouse · · Score: 3, Informative

      He has it wrong. Unlocked communication devices are different, because they can cause additional costs/damage on the network they are connected to. This is the reason smartphone makers cripple their devices.

      If the cell phone network eventually becomes as robust *cough* as the Internet, then the need for unlocked devices will go away. But right now, there is a lot of "trust the client" built in to the way the cellular network operates.

      Me confused. Depends what you're meaning by 'communication device' and 'unlocked', definitions of which seem to vary during your post.

      IMHO existing GSM cell phone networks are *very* robust, (at least in Europe), and either nuke or tolerate 'unlocked' devices pretty well. Working upwards:

      1. You/service provider can (optionally) link your account/SIM to the device IMEI. Service providers can block devices at IMEI level, regardless of the SIM inserted. They don't like what your device is doing? It dies. See:

      http://www.babt.com/gsm-imei-number-allocation.asp

      2. If you clone a sim card, the network will block the account linked to the SIM as soon as you fire up two simultaneously, or just fry the 'defective' first one.

      3. Assuming you get your 'open' device working, then access to the network and its associated services is fairly tightly controlled, and is in any case linked to your ID and - more importantly - method of payment.

      4. Most devices are 'sold' @ less than list/cost price as part of a package deal. It's understandable that you can then only use them on the SP's net - they're 'locked'. Of course, options exist to 'unlock' them for use on any network, but again, your priviledges on that network will depend on your SIM, not the device.

      5. Finally, some devices - most notoriously the iPhone - are 'locked' as to what apps you can install on them. The ingenuous excuse offered by Apple is that 'this is to prevent damage to the device/network', which is, of course, complete bollocks. I own one of the most 'secure' GSMs around - a Blackberry - and it's quite happy to let me install 'unauthorised' apps...

      Locked clients are all to do with business models, not (unfortunately) robustness.

    16. Re:Chumby homepage stinks, article OK by One+Louder · · Score: 2, Informative

      The "crypto processor" is simply an ARM7 CPU, and the source code for the firmware running on it is available here

    17. Re:Chumby homepage stinks, article OK by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There has been a shift in corporate thinking over the last 20 years. They have slowly been moving from selling products, to licensing products. Companies worldwide have taken their cue from the software industry.

      DRM laden musics. Not for rental DVDs and videos. EULAs on video games. Proprietary printer cartridges. Cars that can only be fixed at licensed dealers. Homeowners associations. The list goes on.

      The sad reality is that many companies now think, or behave as if they do think, that once you buy their product they still have control and veto power over how, when, when and who can use it. This has been a huge shift in western industry, thirty years in the making. Its genesis can essentially be traced back to this letter. Once the idea of selling numbers to people, and retaining indefinite control over their use of that number, became firmly entrenched in the law, culture and mindset of our industry, it was much smaller step to apply that same principle to books, cars, nintendos and houses.

      I'm not sure where this will end, but I can guarantee you one thing. The myriad of artificial restrictions being placed on property in the western world are most certainly not being applied or enforced in developing countries.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    18. Re:Chumby homepage stinks, article OK by Chabil+Ha' · · Score: 1

      This is the reason smartphone makers cripple their devices.

      This may be a reason, but not the only. Service providers monetize additional services, features on their phones to make money. I remember getting a phone a few years ago where the manufacturer clearly enabled it to have pc to phone communication, but the provider disabled that feature in software as a 'carrot' to get me to upgrade to a different phone.

      --
      We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
    19. Re:Chumby homepage stinks, article OK by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Well, I think that a manufacturer, basically once the hardware leaves the factory, and someone's paid whatever the market price is for it, then the user owns it, right? So I mean you could take that piece of hardware, melt it down and use it for the component metals if you want, use it for a doorstop.[...]

      Hmmm, for some reason "Zune" popped into my head as I read this.

    20. Re:Chumby homepage stinks, article OK by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Your point is not without its validity; but it should be noted that there are many cases where a series of ostensibly free choices adds up to an effectively unfree result. Take a look, for example, at the infiltration of mandatory binding arbitration clauses into virtually all areas of consumer banking and finance. In principle, those are all free voluntary contractual relationships; but in practice, they all pretty much say the same thing, and it isn't good.

      I suspect that the various flavors of high-tech consumer feudalism are heading in the same direction. Not actually impossible to avoid, and ostensibly "voluntary" in most cases; but you'd have to be a professional contrarian with nontrivial time and money on your hands in order to have any real chance.

    21. Re:Chumby homepage stinks, article OK by noidentity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not sure where this will end, but I can guarantee you one thing. The myriad of artificial restrictions being placed on property in the western world are most certainly not being applied or enforced in developing countries.

      It's just plain inefficient. Before, companies made products that were governed mainly by the "laws" of nature; they tried to offer as much as nature allowed. Now, companies are actively creating new laws and restrictions, which ultimately means the products aren't doing as much as they could do. Any country which avoids this idiotic situation will have an advantage.

    22. Re:Chumby homepage stinks, article OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Unlocked communication devices are different, because they can cause additional costs/damage on the network they are connected to.

      BS. This is the same augment AT&T used decades ago when they tried to stop you from connecting a non-AT&T phone to the wall socket in your house. They eventually lost that battle and now you can buy all manner of phones to connect to the wall socket (for those of you that still use a wired phone).

    23. Re:Chumby homepage stinks, article OK by sjames · · Score: 1

      There is an important distinction between the right to modify and the right to usethat modification.

      The owner of a device SHOULD have an absolute right to modify it in any way they want. For example, let's say I hack a transmitter to operate on another frequency. Should I do so, the manufacturer has no cause for complaint whatsoever. If I actually turn it on, and it interferes with a legitimate licensed user of that frequency, then they and the FCC have reason to complain.

      In the case of cellphones, the network operater has a legitimate gripe if I cause a problem on their network, but they have no legitimate right to prevent me from modifying the phone.

      Of course, my observation is that many of the network operators lock up features provided by the manufacturer primarily so they can nickle and dime the customer to death to turn the feature back on, or so they can force the user to use their network services rather than a perfectly legitimate free alternative that is in no way a theft of services.

      Likewise, the manufacturer has no legitimate gripe if I modify a game console to run anything I tell it to. They have no legitimate gripe if I tell everyone else how to do it. If someone uses that to allow copyright violation, the copyright holder has a legitimate gripe over the violation itself, but nothing more.

      If manufacturers want to retain control of their hardware, then they need to be honest about the transaction and call it a rental.

    24. Re:Chumby homepage stinks, article OK by sjames · · Score: 1

      I would say that in item 4, since you're getting a special deal in consideration of contracting the service for a set time, it's understandable that you have to keep up your end and pay the monthly minimum for the duration of the contract. There remains no legitimate reason to lock the phone. If I want to never use a service I have contracted for and pay for it anyway, that's my problem, not theirs. They generally charge a "cancellation fee" for early termination, I presume that covers the real cost of the phone.

    25. Re:Chumby homepage stinks, article OK by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Yes, they are trusting the phones in some ways. This allows them to sell "unlimited" Internet access.

      I must say I find your assertion that the network is not "poorly designed" to be a little funny.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    26. Re:Chumby homepage stinks, article OK by SB9876 · · Score: 1

      The concept of licensing goes back much further than that. Early wax cylinder recordings from 100 years ago came with the equivalent of EULAs that stated you were merely buying the rights to play the music contained thereon. While I haven't read up on it myself, a friend of mine once told me that this can be traced another hundred years to the sheet music industry.

      Basically, any medium where the final product is easily copied or mass disseminated has tended towards EULA style business models for a while. It's just recently that we've seen a greater move towards physical gadgets being EULA'd up.

  3. next iPhone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    designed in China
    made in China

    1. Re:next iPhone by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Funny

      made out of lead and mercury

      Idiot. The iPhone is made out of elves and pixie dust.

      Get with the program, dude.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  4. I mean... by need4mospd · · Score: 1
    Mr Andrew Huang said "I mean...." over twenty times in that interview. I mean it got real tiring seeing it over and over again. I mean that kind of talk is confusing. It leads me to think he might mean something else entirely and is just throwing us of.

    I know, I actually read the article, but I mean sometimes I just feel an urge you know what I mean?

    1. Re:I mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you noticed how often people from India say "Actually"?

    2. Re:I mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I haven't... actually.

    3. Re:I mean... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We tend to forget about such things here on slashdot, but actual publications have people called editors whose job it is to fix things like that. They omit all the redundant bullshit and provide you with something intended for people to read. Even in conversation such things are annoying, but not completely useless as only a small percentage of communication is actually verbal. Let's say that 50% of it was verbal, that would still give you an opportunity to hang an awful lot of meaning on those two words (how much mileage can you get out of two words in the English language? examine a short fiction contest to find out) in a conversation through posture, inflection, facial expression, and all the other cues that we have access to in such a situation. None of them apply here, so what we need here is some editing. The best thing about the internet is that anyone can share their opinion. The worst thing about the internet is that anyone can share their opinion.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:I mean... by jalefkowit · · Score: 3, Funny

      IRONY: A long, dense, unbroken paragraph about the importance of editing for readability.

    5. Re:I mean... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Right, and getting defensive proves I have no sense of humor, probably. But I will say that when I write an actual article I follow an essay structure and I do tend to go back and reread articles (especially the most-read ones!) and edit them later on down the road, not to mention at the time I'm writing them. Unlike this comment, as my previous sentence shows. When I find a graceful way to display the diffs I will probably show them. I must resurrect the site first anyway. If I have written a brilliant comment it is probably very short or I have probably written it, deleted half to all of it, rewritten it, and edited it once or twice before submitting it. I might even use preview.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  5. Right? by oodaloop · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    So it's like he's talking about, like, China, right? And , you know, the Chumby, right? Pretty long article. Right?

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    1. Re:Right? by owlnation · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      So it's like he's talking about, like, China, right? And , you know, the Chumby, right? Pretty long article. Right?

      Yeah it reads like: "China, China, China, boring stuff about China. CHUMBY CHUMBY CHUMBY. China, China China."

      Would it perhaps be a leap to suggest that this is nothing more than poorly-crafted, viral-marketing for some lame-named new product?

    2. Re:Right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually did you miss the part about how he popped a chumby at a party and all the girls (and some of the guys!) asked him to pull it out, and then let them touch it so they could see what it could do?

      Seriously, what a name.

    3. Re:Right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoever modded this offtopic is a fuckass faggot, a slopeyed gook, or both.

  6. Computers...Made in China? by MasaMuneCyrus · · Score: 0

    "Almost anything you pick up at a Best Buy first breathed life across the Pacific Ocean."

    Most computer parts I've seen are made in Malaysia, Indonesia, or Taiwan, not China.

    1. Re:Computers...Made in China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Almost anything you pick up at a Best Buy first breathed life across the Pacific Ocean."

      Most computer parts I've seen are made in Malaysia, Indonesia, or Taiwan, not China.

      Q: And those countries are in and near where?

      A: Southeast Asia

      Q: Which is where?

      A: Across the Pacific Ocean.

    2. Re:Computers...Made in China? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      A: Across the Pacific Ocean.

      Well they are technically across the Atlantic Ocean and Eurasian Continent as well ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Computers...Made in China? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Most computer parts I've seen are made in Malaysia, Indonesia, or Taiwan, not China.

      Don't let the Chinese nationalists hear you refer to Taiwan as not being part of China. They get a little touchy about that and tend to start whining ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:Computers...Made in China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While Chinese nationalists get touchy about it, Taiwanese nationals do not need Visa to enter UK as opposed to strict Visa requirements for Chinese nationals.

    5. Re:Computers...Made in China? by daniorerio · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, I have a feeling those nationalists are being protected from reading slander like that ;-)

    6. Re:Computers...Made in China? by Ixitar · · Score: 1

      I was able to read slashdot while working in China.

    7. Re:Computers...Made in China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A: Across the Pacific Ocean.

      Well they are technically across the Atlantic Ocean and Eurasian Continent as well ;)

      Well, yes. And of course you could always dig a hole to China and then catch a boat or a plane I suppose.

    8. Re:Computers...Made in China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ni Hao!

    9. Re:Computers...Made in China? by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

      I don't own any parts from Indonesia, but the ones from Malaysia and Taiwan tend to be things that are more high-value (high-grade DVD-Rs, BD-ROMs). Everything else was made in China.

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    10. Re:Computers...Made in China? by Cigarra · · Score: 1

      I was able to read slashdot while working in China.

      But... will you be able, the next time?

      Taiwan != China
      Taiwan != China
      Taiwan != China

      :-)

      --
      I don't have a sig.
    11. Re:Computers...Made in China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot works fine for me. ...but for how long? I mean, they are pointing missiles at us right now!

      they could press the button at anytime.

    12. Re:Computers...Made in China? by jimmydevice · · Score: 1

      Heh, When I was in Pingtung Taiwan, I saw an old woman assembling a basket of CD spindle motors. In front of her shop, On the sidewalk.

  7. Bunny by LS · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I met this guy at a Foo camp party in Beijing, and he gave a presentation on how he reverse engineers Nintendo Wiis. He uses some kind of custom chassis that connects to both sides of the Wii's motherboard and burns off the tops of chips to look at their structure through a microscope. Pretty impressive...

    --
    There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    1. Re:Bunny by ForrestFire439 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I highly recommend "Hacking the Xbox" to the aspiring hardware hacker. It's a great book and the guy knows his stuff.

      --
      "Bread and Circuses is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure." --Robert Heinlien
    2. Re:Bunny by HungWeiLo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's pretty amazing.

      A friend of mine works in the MS DRM team. Their algorithm gets cracked within a couple days of release by some Eastern European (actually, they have no idea where) hacker. It's a pretty complex security algorithm that involves randomizing pointer locations and such. Nevertheless, it will take the team over a month to figure out how they broke it and to release a patch. Only then, the patch will be compromised within a few days.

      It just takes one person...

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
  8. This is just a stupid arrangement by tjstork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let's have China be a giant slave labor pool but then borrow trillions of dollars of them to cover our own increased social welfare costs. Let's face it, the whole concept of trade coming into balance with them is just impossible, will never happen, and the more we trade with them, the more bankrupt we will get. Anyone who seems to think otherwise, please let me know what year it will be that US and China trade will be in balance. What year is that going to be?

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:This is just a stupid arrangement by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Say the USA borrows trillions of dollars from China and after a while goes bankrupt and can't repay them.

      That seems more like a bigger problem for China than the USA.

      To paraphrase the saying, if I borrow 100K from the bank, it's my worry. If I borrow 1 trillion from the bank, it's the bank's worry.

      Worse for China - it's not like China can throw the USA into prison, or seize and liquidate the USA's assets.

      Anyway if the USA wants to, it can ask the Federal Reserve to wave its magic wand and create USD out of nowhere to pay China. After all the loans are in US Dollars ;).

      If "creating out of nowhere" lacks style, they could do it by "borrowing" from the Federal Reserve or whatever scheme they want to come up with. Not much difference.

      So why care if the trade is in balance or not?

      What you should care about is whether you get your cut of the dollars the US Government is going to print.

      And what the US Gov should care about is ensuring that trade and financing continues to be mainly done in US Dollars.

      --
    2. Re:This is just a stupid arrangement by tritonman · · Score: 0, Troll

      but if we stopped trading with them, where would we get our american flags to wave around and show our patriotism?

    3. Re:This is just a stupid arrangement by MiniMike · · Score: 3, Funny

      Say the USA borrows trillions of dollars from China and after a while goes bankrupt and can't repay them.

      They would probably come and take all of our factories away. We'll really be screwed then...

    4. Re:This is just a stupid arrangement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worse for China - it's not like China can throw the USA into prison, or seize and liquidate the USA's assets.

      But China can use (and is using) its USDs to buy American assets. Then what?

    5. Re:This is just a stupid arrangement by relguj9 · · Score: 1

      I laughed heh.

    6. Re:This is just a stupid arrangement by relguj9 · · Score: 1

      What you are saying, hypothetically then I guess, is that they are really getting the short end of the deal. I mean, they are making our stuff and in reality giving it to us because we are borrowing money from them to buy it. Kinda like slave labor, huh.

      I guess another question is, if we can't pay them back, what are they really going to do about it?

    7. Re:This is just a stupid arrangement by Jaqenn · · Score: 1

      Say the USA borrows trillions of dollars from China and after a while goes bankrupt and can't repay them. That seems more like a bigger problem for China than the USA.

      China is in the process of becoming a world superpower, including an effective military. You may recall that in Nov 2007 a previously undetected chinese submarine surfaced within striking range of a US Naval exercise. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html). No hostile actions taken, but it appears that they could have done so if they wished.

      I'm not saying that the US is about to go to war with china, and I'm not saying that it would lose if it did.

      But I am saying that you should still be worried about the US placing itself in a position where it may later be forced to piss off a fellow world superpower.

      --
      You are awash in a sea of fiercely stated opinions. Obvious exits are: 'File->Quit', 'Reply', and 'Page Down'.
    8. Re:This is just a stupid arrangement by Deosyne · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Stop making all of our crap for us while retaining all of that massive production capability filled with experienced manufacturing personnel for servicing internal production and other countries of their choosing, I would guess. But in the meantime, they'll continue to increase our reliance on them while ensuring that they can completely obliterate our credit at any time that they choose simply by calling in their markers. Being suddenly cut off from the rest of the world probably sounds like a wonderful fantasy to many insular Americans, but we'll see how well that works out for a country that has relied on deficit spending and operated in a trade deficit for decades.

      The Chinese think long-term better than any other people on the planet. Last I heard, the general plan was to be the most powerful nation on Earth in 50 years. At the rate that we westerners are undermining our future for the sake of short-term bolstering, I'd say that the 50 year estimate is highly conservative.

    9. Re:This is just a stupid arrangement by emarks · · Score: 1

      The year of the boar plus or minus 12 years.

    10. Re:This is just a stupid arrangement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess another question is, if we can't pay them back, what are they really going to do about it?

      Well, they could stop trading with us. Then we'd be bankrupt AND have a massive shortage of new cheap goods. Chaos, as they say, would ensue.

    11. Re:This is just a stupid arrangement by phosphorylate+this · · Score: 1

      "But in the meantime, they'll continue to increase our reliance on them "

      Ummm, don't you think that perhaps you have a bit of a say in this part? Your the bigger country here fella's. Maybe, just maybe, China is offering a service that you are buying. No gun at your head or anything, this is free-trade capatalism pure and simple. If it is not really in US long-term interest is a second point we could debate, but even if this trade is detrimental to the US why is that China's problem to worry about and not yours?

    12. Re:This is just a stupid arrangement by relguj9 · · Score: 1

      Slashdot hint... you'll only be modded up in the majority of non scientific topics if it's a conspiracy theory or a "the world as you know it ending" pessimistic outlook. Also, bashing Americans as an American is usually a home run.

      Things working out just isn't as entertaining a viewpoint as you don't have anyone to be pissed off at... anyways.

      I agree, it really is our problem and our solution to make. The US economy receding is probably related to it as well. Nobody actually knows why it's receding, but plenty of economists (arm chair and degreed) will be happy to give you some BS post fact thesis about it.

      Labor in China is cheap enough that transportation costs don't increase the cost of goods to the point where it's efficient to produce in the US. That's pretty much the deal with China. Until it becomes more efficient to produce in the US or until the citizens of the US start only buying US or until China starts increasing their quality of living it's not going to change.

      I personally think a middle ground will be met between becoming more efficient to produce in the US, with jobs lost and people becoming willing to work for less and automation, and the Chinese people demanding a higher standard of living.

      If China becomes "the most powerful country" by whatever measure they use to determine that, their citizens are probably going to start demanding higher standards.

      I'm also of the opinion that China's economy is going to implode before they have a chance to crown themselves as the most powerful country in the world. Just too much corruption and lack of human rights.

    13. Re:This is just a stupid arrangement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Call them terrorists and freeze their assets?

    14. Re:This is just a stupid arrangement by maxume · · Score: 1

      That's reportedly undetected.

      The question is, how good is the U.S. military at managing information?

      The answer is a tough one, but it seems that some parts of it are extremely good at managing information.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    15. Re:This is just a stupid arrangement by icejai · · Score: 1

      Worse for China - it's not like China can throw the USA into prison, or seize and liquidate the USA's assets.

      Anyway if the USA wants to, it can ask the Federal Reserve to wave its magic wand and create USD out of nowhere to pay China. After all the loans are in US Dollars ;).

      You're missing something here.
      BOTH China and the Treasury have the capability of selling $700B in U.S. Treasury securities.

      Right now, BOTH entities have gigantic red buttons labeled "SELL", and don't for a second think that China won't push their button when the Treasury pushes theirs.

      With interest rates as low as they are now, the fair market value of the bonds China's holding onto now are at their maximum. Their market values can only go down from here, especially if you realize that once the Treasury starts selling those bonds to the Fed, currently-held bonds will depreciate with the USD.

      So to complete your analogy,
      If I borrow $100K, the bank controls you.
      If you borrow $1 trillion, you control the bank.
      If the bank sells your debt to a hundred thousand people, you are fucked.

    16. Re:This is just a stupid arrangement by In+hydraulis · · Score: 1

      Do you really believe US naval intelligence wasn't aware of their presence?

      I recall reading about how the US military would secure funding for ICBM R&D during the Cold War. It was as simple as grossly overstating both the number of nuclear warheads the Soviets supposedly possessed and the range of the Soviets' own ICBMs. They would then leak their "concerns" to the public and-

      Profit!

    17. Re:This is just a stupid arrangement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember hearing very similar dire predictions about the Japanese during the 80's. They plan out for seven generations, they buy too much US debt, they take our manufacturing jobs, trade deficit, bla, bla, bla.

      Then their economy tanked in the 90's and it still hasn't recovered.

    18. Re:This is just a stupid arrangement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contract manufacturing with cheap labor won't make them a powerhouse. Ever. If they get too uppity, everyone will just move their manufacturing orders to their neighbors. Building a factory isn't hard. Building a sustainable business in a entrepreneurial economy is. That isn't China.

    19. Re:This is just a stupid arrangement by Deosyne · · Score: 1

      Ummm, don't you think that perhaps you have a bit of a say in this part?

      My stack of generic form letters from various politicians over the years has been trying to convince me otherwise, but I like to keep telling myself that I do. ;)

      Your the bigger country here fella's. Maybe, just maybe, China is offering a service that you are buying. No gun at your head or anything, this is free-trade capatalism pure and simple.

      Not sure what your point is here relative to what I said, so I don't really know what to tell you.

      If it is not really in US long-term interest is a second point we could debate, but even if this trade is detrimental to the US why is that China's problem to worry about and not yours?

      I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was implying that this is a problem for China or that the United States should not be worrying about it. As far as I can tell, for China it is more of an opportunity. They gain financial leverage over the United States while maintaining the production capacity that we ourselves have forsaken to outsourcing in exchange for a service-based economy. As you mentioned in the previous point, this arrangement suits the aims of both parties. The citizens of the United States should be worrying about this potential problem but we think in far too short timeframes to adequately address the matter.

    20. Re:This is just a stupid arrangement by Deosyne · · Score: 1

      The drive of the Japanese was, and still is, admirable, but no amount of dedication can change some simple economic realities. Far more than most other nations, Japan is extremely reliant on economic relations. Its core food and energy supplies are mostly imported while its exports are primarily convenience goods. They are fairly well diversified which helps but still walk a high-wire act by supporting a high-tech, incredibly dense, and almost entirely urban population in a country which simply does not have the resources to sustain it. Therefore, Japan is prone to being incredibly vulnerable to major market events.

      China, on the other hand, has a population that is still mostly rural with a fairly low density considering the sheer quantity of people that live there. Food production is a non-issue as they are a net exporter. While they don't produce as much energy as they would like to sustain their targeted growth and therefore import oil stocks, they do produce plenty enough that they can get by just fine without imports. They have a strong central government that is far less susceptible to the will of the people than Japan and are much less reliant on international relations for basic survival. Yeah, China can and is getting slapped by the economic downturn as well, but they are a hell of a lot better prepared for extended pain then most other industrialized countries, especially Japan.

      Besides, I couldn't understand why Japan was regarded as being such a threat back then and still don't. Despite their strengths, they have become far too vulnerable to go it alone anymore, which means that they became the little guy on the prison block. Regardless of the talents that he can provide in manufacturing hooch and tattoo needles, if the big boys decide they don't like him anymore then he's going to get fucked. China, on the other hand, is that vato street gang that a quarter of the inmates belong to. You can refuse to deal with them and even take out a member on occasion, but they're going to continue to hold it down and bide their time even after the big guys are lying in the showers in a pool of blood.

    21. Re:This is just a stupid arrangement by El_Oscuro · · Score: 1

      We still have factories?

      --
      "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
    22. Re:This is just a stupid arrangement by TheLink · · Score: 1

      If the USA had a habit of punishing the people in charge when they screw up, instead of throwing more money at them, then I'd be more likely to believe that the military didn't detect the Chinese submarine.

      As it is, how sure are you it's not another of those "throw more money at us!" ploys?

      The US already has had a habit of overplaying the China bogeyman card. Anyone remember the "Oh No! The Chinese are attacking US military internet sites" propaganda? Seriously if the Chinese attacking US military sites is such a big deal, all the USA has to do is call in the Chinese ambassador and say - "stop this or else". I bet both Governments don't really care. And it's all a show just to keep their citizens attention elsewhere.

      --
    23. Re:This is just a stupid arrangement by TheLink · · Score: 1

      What am I missing?

      If the buttons are pressed, the bonds become worth a lot less. So it hurts those holding the bonds. And who is holding all those bonds?

      All the people/entities with savings (or are owed) in USD or in currencies linked to the USD will be negatively affected. Like China for example.

      All those who have borrowed in USD or in currencies linked to the USD will be positively affected. The US Government for example.

      "If the bank sells your debt to a hundred thousand people, you are fucked"

      Sorry I don't get this part either.

      If the bank sells my trillion dollar debt to a hundred thousand people, it's called a global financial crisis later when someone actually bothers to figure out that I'm never ever going to pay it back.

      How am I (the debtor) fucked?

      The thousands of people owning worthless stuff with fancy names like "High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Enhanced Leverage Fund" are fucked.

      Maybe in China it'll be called stuff like "Golden Prosperity Dragon and Phoenix Fortune Fund", but whatever it is, they're fucked not me.

      I guess I'm too stupid, so it would be nice if you can explain things a bit better.

      --
    24. Re:This is just a stupid arrangement by icejai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would say "you are fucked" because you (or rather, the U.S. government) depends on not only a) entities buying your treasury securities now, but also b) entities buying your treasury in the future. The first wave of baby boomers will be eligible for social security and medicare benefits in the next 16 to 24 months, there is no way in hell the U.S. will be able to fund these obligations in the state the U.S. economy is currently in. This means they'll have to borrow more money in the future.

      If the U.S. behaves like they're still top dog and enact policies that devalues all the money they owe to everybody else in the world, guess what, nobody's going to be in line to buy those treasuries when the U.S. needs to sell them the most.

      They'd be fucked even more because the U.S. simply has no manufacturing industry. Nobody in the U.S. would even be able to buy a single computer, television set, fax machine, cellphone, or even dog food because companies need to borrow money to buy from suppliers overseas. With savings rates in negative territory, there is no way in hell anybody would lend the U.S. any money whatsoever if they adopt this "it's my currency and I'll inflate it if I want to... you'll get screwed but not me" attitude.

      Right now, the U.S. has to convince the world to buy $800B of U.S. government debt. They can't even do *that*, which is why they're selling 30-year bonds to the Fed, because the Fed is the only entity willing to buy them. This action by the Fed *will* inflate the USD, because they simply create the money out of thin air. If China doesn't want to be made an ass by the people who owe them billions, they simply have to sell. The U.S. government will then have to convince the world to buy... not $800B of government debt... but $1.5 trillion. This action alone will *flood* the market with USD and push it down to unbelievable levels. Sure, the value of government debt will decrease because of the massive inflation, but *everything* in America will increase in price.

      Why? Because America doesn't make anything anymore. Everything needs to be imported, and importing means paying foreign suppliers in their own currency. So good luck convincing foreign suppliers to accept worthless USD as payment. Commodity prices will go through the roof because they're all price in USD and consumed everywhere else in the world.

      In summary, decreasing the purchasing power of the USD is *not* the solution to any of the U.S.'s current problems. Pissing off the largest debtor by inflating the currency may save you a couple hundred billion at first, but you'll pay it all back later (and then some) when you're forced import everything you need... at now-higher prices.

      And it's not just China. Do you think if a massive sell-off starts, central banks and investment institutions around the world will sit idly by and wait to be the last one holding depreciating bonds that nobody wants? No way. If you thought the price of oil dropped quickly, it'll be nothing compared to how quick and how far the USD will fall once the selling starts and traders begin short-selling treasuries and USD.

      I don't believe for a second that you're stupid, because you fully understand all the immediate implications.

      You just need to think ahead a couple steps more.

    25. Re:This is just a stupid arrangement by TheLink · · Score: 1

      But devaluation of the US dollars is fine as long as most oil (and grain, wheat, orange juice, CPUs, DRAM, etc) is still sold in US dollars.

      Analogy:
      The world is Zimbabwe.
      The US Gov is Mugabe.
      The US citizens (or some of them at least) are Mugabe's cronies.
      The non US citizens are "rest of Zimbabwe".
      The US dollar = Zimbabwean dollar.

      As long as all that stuff is traded in US dollars, the rest of the world will be hurt more when "Mugabe" prints more dollars.

      Because it takes time before the rest of the world catches on and updates their prices. The US dollar has been devaluing for decades. When it inflates - everyone else inflates.

      If you are a US citizen as long as "Mugabe" hands you your cut of the printed money, you are sitting pretty while the rest of the world has to buy their bread with wheelbarrows of cash.

      Now the trouble is if the rest of the world catches on and switches to trading in Euro or something else (aka leaves "Zimbabwe").

      Imagine the advantage of being able to buy oil from Saudi Arabia with money you print and handover to them.

      Other countries can't do that. When they inflate, the rest of the world _outside_ laughs at them.

      Possibly unrelated notes:
      Iraq switched to selling oil in Euros before they got invaded (then after that they switched back to selling it in USD :) ).
      Iran started a nonUSD oil bourse in 2008:

      Quote wikipedia:
      The three current oil markets are all US dollar denominated: North America's West Texas Intermediate crude (WTI), North Sea Brent Crude, and the UAE Dubai Crude. The two major oil bourses are the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) in New York City and the IntercontinentalExchange (ICE) in London & Atlanta. As the Oil Bourse in Kish is developed through successive stages, the plan is to establish a Petrobourse as a fourth oil market, denominated by the Iranian rial, the euro and other major currencies.

      Will Iran be "regime changed"? Who knows.

      --
    26. Re:This is just a stupid arrangement by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      Besides, I couldn't understand why Japan was regarded as being such a threat back then and still don't.

      When Japan started booming economically the world was still largely run by those who remember Japan practicing history's biggest genocide in China, humiliating the once mighty British Empire in Singapore, blowing apart the United States Pacific fleet in Hawaii and fighting the United States and British Commonwealth for half a decade until they finally succumbed to two nuclear blasts. Sixty four years of peace has changed the way Japanese people are seen and rightly so, but anyone who scoffs at the idea of the Japanese ever being a threat in the next century has no memory.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    27. Re:This is just a stupid arrangement by icejai · · Score: 1

      Although commodities are *priced* in USD, their trade does not *only* involve USD. What you're saying would be true if USD were the *only* currency in the world.

      The world is *not* Zimbabwe, because all the central banks in the world are NOT inflating their currencies at the printing press.

      For you analogy to be comparable:

      the *U.S.* is Zimbabwe,
      the Fed is Mugabe,
      U.S. citizens are "the rest of Zimbabwe",
      the rest of the world is the rest of the world.

      You're rational, but it's clear that there is some kind of misunderstanding of how international trade and finance operate.

      - Devaluation of USD is *not* fine because although they are *priced* in USD they are produced and sold by foreigners who want to be paid in their *own currency*. This means the Japanese take the USD they received on the sale of their cars and Nintendo Wii's and sell them to take home Yen. The Koreans take the USD they received on the sale of their cell phones and LCD tv's and sell them to take home Won. The Vietnamese sell the USD they receive from the sale of their rice to take home Dong.

      Although commodities are *priced* in USD, the trade ends with somebody selling their USD for their own native currency.

      - World currencies do not inflate when USD inflates. Inflation of a currency is *directly* caused by the over-supply of that *particular* currency. If the USD inflates by the printing press, Thailand's Baht will rise in relation to USD, because the supply of Baht will be lower than USD on a relative scale.

      - The world is not like Zimbabwe, because supply of world currencies are not being inflated by the printing press, as is being planned in the U.S. at the moment.

      For a comprehensive peek at what China is actually thinking and saying *right now*:

      http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=a_dsDz145J_A&refer=asia

      Pay special attention to the second half of the article.

      Also, google "fiscal policy", "monetary policy", and "bond pricing"... and learn how a bond's fair market value changes with interest rate increases and decreases.

      For an even better source, one that clearly outlines and explains the links between currencies, government debt, international trade, government bonds, the Fed, interest rates, and commodity prices... buy a used copy of the Economics portion of the CFA Level 1 series of texts (no older than 2007) off ebay or craigslist. I think a guy like you will absorb the material in no time flat and gain a new level of understanding of how international trade and finance operates.

    28. Re:This is just a stupid arrangement by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Sure, Japan can try to sell the USD to buy back yen, but not that many countries hold that much yen. Tell me, who is going to sell yen back to Japan?

      So they use a lot of that USD "as is" to buy stuff. Loads of international suppliers sell oil, toys, nails, ceiling tiles, etc in US dollars, far fewer sell them in yen.

      They can't buy oil from Saudi Arabia in yen. So Saudi Arabia has very little yen to sell back to them.

      Another example, if Japan wants to buy widgets from China, they buy it in US Dollars. If the US dollar appreciates in value against the ringgit, the seller in China gets richer in local currency terms, if the US dollar depreciates, the seller suffers. The seller in China could try to raise prices, but if the suppliers in other countries don't raise prices it doesn't work as well, so there will be a significant time, before everyone manages to raise the US prices.

      USD inflation will hurt other countries more.

      Countries around the world hold billions of USD in reserve.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar#The_dollar_as_international_reserve_currency

      The USA is currently in a position where it can tax the rest of the world (and not just its own citizens) just by "printing" more US dollars.

      Whereas if Country X printed more local Currency P, the rest of the world would hardly care (and laugh at Country X).

      --
    29. Re:This is just a stupid arrangement by TheLink · · Score: 1

      OK I've read the article and it backs up what I've been saying.

      China has $1.95 trillion in foreign reserves.

      They couldn't convert all that USD to RMB/Yuan ("sell the USD to take home Yuan/Yen/Won/Dong" is not as easy as you seem to imply). Most countries selling lots of stuff to the USA end up sitting on a huge pile of US dollars called "USD denominated foreign reserves".

      China lent the USA money using some the excess USD they got from selling the USA stuff.

      So clearly devaluation of the USD to help the USA would hurt China (and they know it), and other countries holding trillions/billions of USD.

      In short, a significant part of China is living within the USA's Zimbabwe. That's why they're making noises.

      In contrast, the massive devaluation of the Zimbabwean Dollar hardly hurt China (or most other countries) at all. They never bothered to make grumbling noises to Mugabe about devaluation.

      Also all of them seem to think that the devaluation of the USD could help the USA (and they are right - the USA taxes the rest of the world). In comparison the devaluation of the Zimbawean Dollar cannot help Zimbabwe, it just helps Mugabe and friends (Mugabe taxes the rest of Zimbabwe).

      AFAIK it's all as I've said.

      Maybe you can point out the exact bits in the article that show that I'm wrong.

      --
    30. Re:This is just a stupid arrangement by icejai · · Score: 1

      Sure, Japan can try to sell the USD to buy back yen, but not that many countries hold that much yen. Tell me, who is going to sell yen back to Japan?

      More than $4 trillion dollars worth of currency is traded every single business day. There is absolutely no problem finding someone to sell Yen, especially since Yen is the Carry Trade currency of choice, the only question is at what price. The fact that you made such a statement tells me that you really don't know how money, or foreign exchange markets operate.

      They can't buy oil from Saudi Arabia in yen. So Saudi Arabia has very little yen to sell back to them.

      Again, you're making the gross misunderstanding that the trade of commodities *settles* in the currency they're *priced* in, when most do not. They are almost always settled in the traders' native currency (on both sides of the deal).

      I can't even respond to anything else you've written because it's painfully obvious that what you know of finance comes from news articles, not from studying it in depth, nor does it come from any real or meaningful experience. You think the article (about China) still upholds your position because you've simply picked and chosen what you've wanted to see in it, and simply ignored everything else in it and and everything else I've written because you simply repeat your *very* incorrect understanding of how financial markets work.

      You keep asking me to point out where you're wrong, and when I do you simply ignore it and repeat yourself.

      Reading your arguments is like... reading an alchemists reasoning how adding fire to earth and a dash of water should produce another elemental form.

      Instead of picking and choosing what to see, ignoring everything else, and repeating yourself, (which works very well with religion but falls flat with science) you really need to pick up a book (the one I suggested is *very* good) and gain a level of understanding that's beyond what you've currently pieced together from what bits you've read online. Again, this is painfully obvious from the 3 or 4 posts that you've made (actually, fewer... because you simply repeated yourself).

      I would go so far as to say that you're simply sticking to what you currently believe because you *really* don't like to be wrong. Scientists on the other hand, *LOVE* to be wrong. Why? Because scientists love to be right!

      So seriously, buy that used text and study it. Ditch this financial alchemy and gain financial science.

  9. As for chumby by squoozer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Flying spaghetti monster and all his noodley appendages, just go and read a bloody book or talk to someone or do something other than sit there watching a non-stop stream of the same five websites.

    --
    I used to have a better sig but it broke.
    1. Re:As for chumby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh!

      Do you think the point of a clock is to sit around watching it count time?

  10. Moral issues? by Bieeanda · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Like the ones he just kind of hand-waves, by repeating 'Oh! It's so much better in the factories than it is outside, you know? And they've tried to fool me by bringing in good food on the days I'm there, you know. And the workers aren't going to tell me how shitty it really might be, because I don't really speak the language and they really don't want to lose their jobs... or get in shit with the mob like this rebuttal suggests might happen. You know.'

    1. Re:Moral issues? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The truth is that the more workers you have, the more power the workers have. Having the peasants out in the fields keeps them distributed. I think the environmental cost to China (and to the world, but just think about China for a moment) is a bigger deal.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. Not according to the Goblin code by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    All Goblin made objects are technically leased to the buyer and at the end of life (of the buyer or the product) it should be returned to the goblins.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Not according to the Goblin code by jesset77 · · Score: 1

      Entirely. Goblins, Wizards, Pirates (like me) and even wands all seem to have very different ideas of property ownership. I was very pleased to read about JK touching upon this subject; thank you also for drawing attention to it here. :3

      --
      People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.
  12. Read the article... right? by fprintf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I read the article, and the guy uses right, like and whatever an awful lot. I realize it was supposed to read like a conversation, but it was awfully annoying.

    It was also quite rambling. I would have loved more detail on the kinds of things he took apart as a kid, or some of the neat things he built with his 200 in 1 radio shack kit. These are the kinds of comments that inspire future hackers & product designers. But they spent very little time on what he had actually done.

    All in all not a bad article, and certainly fodder for additional reading into this guy. I will say that the Chumby is getting some interest in my office. Folks have latched onto it in a "Web 2.0" kind of way, using it as an emblem of what the future of commerce, not just ecommerce, will be in the future.

    --
    This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
  13. Nifty article by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Gem from the article: "...it's a little bit different in terms of its industrial design. It has a soft leather case and has electronics on the inside. So trying to explain something that the Chinese guys hadn't seen before..." where was teddy ruxpin manufactured again? (I don't honestly know, but it's still a hilarious sentence.)

    Now what is interesting about this guy (which applies to manufacturing jobs anywhere) is that he goes and sleeps in the dorm and eats the food. And he even talks about how sometimes they will try to fool him, et cetera. So what he's talking about is personal responsibility for corporate actions. It's not forced on you, although sometimes in China they will execute you for fraud if it's politically expedient...

    Here's a painful bit from the article:

    I can't actually walk through the toy section anymore because toy factories are awful. They're really -- that's where you get the worst labor conditions these days. And when I walk through a toy section, I can hear the machines cranking away in my head, driving out Tickle Me Elmos or whatever there is on the shelf. And it is kind of a little bit nerve-wracking to see all of that stuff on the shelf and see people just picking them up for $5.00 a piece and not knowing all the effort that went into building it. But that's sort of the consumer mentality in Americans as well.

    I would add that I can't walk through the toy section any more because the smell of offgassing plastic makes me want to puke. I'm not one of the super-sensitive types, or at least I'm not sensitive to everything. And I like toys, I'm not ashamed to admit that I still have a collection of 'em sprinkled around here and there collecting dust. When I start to reenact scenes from Spaceball with them, I'll start accepting snarky comments. Crap, I'll make a webapp for the purpose. I even just got a new LCD TV that my lady chased out of the living room until it stops stinking so badly. I don't think that has to do with inherent disgustingness of electronics so much as Sharp's failure to actually wash them after production to remove residues. I pick on them because I'm staring at their logo under my windows taskbar, but I've been noticing more and more of this as time has gone by, both from name-brands and crap-brands. (As in, when you get one as a present, you say crap. e.g. "Oh crap, it's a Coby." Maybe not out loud, depending on how polite you are.)

    Finally, NERD FACTOR NINE:

    Oh, yeah. The name. It comes from Monty Python and the Holy Grail where there's that rabbit with sharp, pointy teeth that everyone runs away from. It was given to me back in middle school because I used to play a lot of roll-playing fantasy-type games. My friends thought it was a hilarious name to give me. It was hilariously inappropriate. That was back in the day when this thing called Bulletin Boards was just coming up and I had to pick a name. So I picked the name then. It was actually Vorpal Bunnie and I had to shorten it to bunnie when I went to college because they didn't have enough characters for it. And back then, you just never thought that people would call you by your online handle. But it really stuck. And I've grown into it, so I like the name.

    Seriously, if you don't have a story like this about your nickname, are you really a geek? Definitely +10 geek cred points on that paragraph. Now if they can just lose the ballbag picture frame, maybe they'll have something.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Nifty article by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      ...I used to play a lot of roll-playing fantasy-type games...

      And minus -10 geek cred points for the article writer...

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    2. Re:Nifty article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And minus -10 geek cred points for the article writer...

      Bah, anyone who's really played pen'n'paper knows that both role-players and roll-players are equally geeky. It's just that the former geeks-out on things like the setting or story-telling aspects of the game and the latter geeks-out on the mathematics of the game rules.:P

    3. Re:Nifty article by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      And minus -10 geek cred points for the article writer...

      I don't know the author's intent, because my crystal ball is broken. Maybe I should get an all-seeing orb. But there is indeed a convention among gamers to refer to games which make overuse of dice as "roll" playing games, especially among arrogant pricks like me who would prefer to play Amber Diceless. (Now if I could just find a good game, perhaps via irc. I can summon the apparently obligatory disdain for the second series if necessary for entry...)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Nifty article by noidentity · · Score: 1

      When I start to reenact scenes from Spaceball with them, I'll start accepting snarky comments.

      Bad news: there will never be official Spaceball merchandise. I know I was crushed when I found out.

  14. You can buy American flags Made in the USA.. by tjstork · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    This is my sig.
  15. Chumby guy has wrong facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I think the Chumby guy has his facts wrong about US manufacturing.

    FTA:
    I was reading the other day Boeing union labor gets paid $110,000 a year for machining parts

    I found an article from last September saying this:
    While the average salary is about $54,000 a year, more than 4,000 machinists make less than $30,000, Kelliher said.

    Earlier in the article it states that Boeing:
    ... offered a package ... including overtime, bonuses, and benefits ... to $110,400

    The union rejected that deal, but accepted a 15% pay increase combined with other concessions.
    No details on if that applies to the low end machinists or the overall average salary.

    Obviously this is still much higher than Chinese labor wages, but $110,000 is a huge overestimation.

  16. There's just a lot of problems with that. by tjstork · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Even if we could assume that by, itself, a scenario of long term debt and eventual bankruptcy would not have terrible consequences for the USA, losing our ability to manufacture for ourselves is corrosive to our society. A slave economy retards technological innovation, undermines scientific achievement and ultimately results in social stagnation. The Romans collapsed as they went more and more into a slave economy, and having an economic reliance on slaves also doomed the old African tribal states, the Muslim states, and then most recently even the old Confederacy. Why invest millions into building machinery, when you can just add more slaves to your mix without any real capital cost at all? In that sense, slavery and a destruction of worker's rights is not just evil, its stupid.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:There's just a lot of problems with that. by TheLink · · Score: 1

      How does a slave economy retard technological innovation etc? Please explain your reasoning more and show more proof.

      OK so I'm dense, it's not obvious to me.

      So far all empires eventually collapse. Saying the Romans, etc collapsed because of slave labour seems a bit of a stretch.

      Practically every empire back then had slave labour. Even the Americans and British had slaves and during the period they had slaves they sure didn't seem like they would be collapsing because of slavery.

      The Greeks had slave labour and because of that a lot of the Greeks could sit around all day and debate math and philosophy. Some Greeks even came up with technological advances.

      "Why invest millions into building machinery..."

      If it's not obvious enough for you, China has also invested millions (if not more) into building machinery. Humans (even slaves) have a cost - they don't come free. In many scenarios machines are better than humans.

      It'll be good if you can back up your claims and reasoning with something more solid.

      --
  17. Gawd by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    What a fugly piece of equipment.

  18. thats called 'red flag for an inside job' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe if they didnt hire so many contractors at MS, they wouldnt have to sell insider information overseas in order to afford to live

  19. Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excellent summary of some of China's strategic advantages over Japan.

  20. Blog better than interview by SB9876 · · Score: 1

    Bunnie's go a fairly good blog that has a number of entries on the Chumby manufacturing process that goes into a lot more detail than the interview.

    http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?cat=7

  21. Trade with China is immoral by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trade with China is immoral

    China is a repressive dictatorship and Democracies have no business trading with any Communist regime period.

  22. Even if I Wanted to buy "American" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n electronics...I CAN NOT!

      SOny, HPs are all made overseas,
    all the electronics -- made overseas...

    so whats the poinT?

  23. National Defense? by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    USians: you are a bunch of wackos...

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  24. They will buy your sorry asses. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    And if the government would not allow it, your currency would become monopoly money.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  25. If the dollar tanks trade will be in euros by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Or in any other currency that is perceived as to be stable.

    In Zimbabwe (your example) people trade using hard currecny.

    The same would happen in the world economy if the US dollar became the world's Zimbabwean currency...

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.