Slashdot Mirror
Mum's the Word On Google Attack At Davos
theodp writes "BusinessWeek reports that the cyber attack on Google was the elephant-in-the-room at the annual meeting of world leaders in Davos. 'China didn't want to discuss Google,' Josef Ackermann, CEO of Deutsche Bank AG and a co-chair of this year's World Economic Forum, said in an interview. China's Vice Premier Li Keqiang made that clear, he added. Even Google CEO Eric Schmidt didn't bring up China, and Bill Gates was mum on the topic in an interview. The reluctance of companies to talk about China illustrates the pressure on them to protect their business in the country, while the US government doesn't want to upset Chinese investors, said Andy Mok of Red Pagoda Concepts LLC. 'People have their commercial interests,' explained Deutsche Bank's Ackermann."
So they can just get away with it, right? Somehow I think what's -not- being said is far more interesting. I think the perpetrators will end up with more on their hands than they at first suspected when a bunch of IT powerhouses decide to start randomly hosing key pieces of their information infrastructure.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
The only question is whether the USofA will fall from its position as the world's superpower with any kind of grace, or whether it'll make life hard for everyone else as it falls.
Sorry, no. The real question is whether or not your new Chinese overlords will put up with the same silly European bullshit the US has. I seriously doubt they will.
Elephant in the room by Banksy.
Elephant in the room by The New Yorker.
Imagine also the impact as an economical attack of Google saying "China won't let foreign companies do profit against local competitors, that's why we pulled up."
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
It's idiocy to get on their bad side or lock yourselves out of their market. Smart players will play by China's rules and not try to upset them.
The thing a lot of people don't get is that morals don't matter in international politics and business. "Might makes right" *does* matter.
So, by your logic, the appropriate response to Hitler's Germany was to keep mum, because it was a superpower? By what most commenters to this article in general, it seems it was OK for IBM to supply Hitler the machines for the German census as well. History repeats itself indeed.
not to challenge China, an important global market, about cyber-attacks on google when there's no significant evidence that they were responsible. The first thing we did was accuse them, but since they deny culpability, and there isn't any evidence to contradict them, bringing it up again is at least arrogant and probably xenophobic too. If proof of their involvement surfaces, maybe then we'll have something to talk about.
Extending a curve on a graph onward "a few decades" is unreasonable when there's such a poor record of being able to predict things even two years ahead. Even more so when the bit of curve you want to extend a few decades is shorter than a few decades long.
Predictions of dominance based merely on population size tend to be wrong (otherwise India and the EU would individually be towering over the US, economically and/or militarily). Predictions of dominance based on will and opportunistic ruthlessness have often been wrong too (in the late 70s, the soviets were going to eat our lunch! in the early 80s, the soviets were waiting in long lines for bread).
China's growing at 10% (of a smallest total) whereas the US is growing at 4% (of a big total) TODAY, but China's growth is driven by technological catchup and a wide price differential. China's GDP is still only around 1/3 that of the US. As the tech catch-up continues, there is less tech to catch up to and the catching up becomes much harder. As the price differential narrows, there is less artificial incentive to buy Chinese and the growth rate slows. China overtaking the US would require a drastic shift in strategy that has not yet even begun - and thus doomsday predictions based on this cannot yet be made.
IMO, China won't get much past half the US GDP; the trade balance shifts by then to other countries being cheaper than China.
It truly is a back-handed complement that people have no qualms trashing America in their public comments. It's as if they are saying "we don't like you or some of the things you do, but you aren't truly big enough bastards to retaliate against us."
Truly evil regimes like China and Russia get different treatment.
And if you are truly idiotic like Hugo Chavez, you get visits from Sean Penn and kudos from Oliver Stone.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
I'd say the US will have hung itself with it's own rope. All China will have to do is claim that the United States has the capacity to conduct terrorism, and then if it has the means, China can setup a blockade, wage a currency war, or invade under the precedent we set a few years ago. Since we've destroyed the power of the UN and the World Court, we won't even have symbolic legal recourse.
The Golden Rule ain't for nothing. You can call it silly European bullshit I guess, but you also seem like the sort of person who fantasizes about nuclear war. Too bad.
Oh, you can bet it's being discussed. Just not publicly. That's why people go to Davos in the first place, to have the ability to discuss things privately.
Do YOU want to die for the Kuomintang?
Hi, sorry, late to the party and posting as an AC, so I don't think this will be read by anyone, but I have the urge to post all the same.
Do I want to die? No. Would I? Maybe.
I live in Mainland China. The amount of corruption, of selfishness, of people whose lives have been ruined all for the sake of a dollar is astounding here, and makes the US pale in comparison. You think Enron was bad? That's peanuts compared to the crap people have to take because of simple lack of empathy. I've seen entire neighborhoods razed with the government giving the residents, oh, around 1,000 dollars (which, before you say anything, can't buy another house here regardless of exchange rate) all so a group of people can get another million dollars and cement ties with each other.
It's really, really bad.
Taiwan, not so much. Yeah, it's worse than the States, and it's on its way to becoming another Hong Kong, but at least there's a fairly outspoken group of people who are willing to put their foot down against such activities as what I've mentioned above.
I'm pretty sure I'd be willing to put my life on the line in order to prevent the perversion of another square inch of global soil by Chinese politics.
The UN and World Court do exist when they agree with the United States. Isn't that peculiar.
No, it makes perfect sense when you have bodies that require their supporters to bear the weight of every decision they make that are frequently run by a bloated and corrupt bureaucracy. There's a reason that the 17,000 U.S. troops in Haiti weren't donated to the U.N. mission there just like there's a reason why the only action taken against Sudan has been an arrest warrant in Europe. It's unfortunate that the UN security council is a reminder to so many other countries about their comparative lack of power.
So, the trade agreements around the world are a figment of my imagination? Trade embargoes don't exist, multi-party talks to persuade foreign governments exist entirely in my imagination. It is fascinating how insane I am.
Iran. Cuba. Sudan. China, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Germany. You're not insane, those things certainly do exists, but you may wish to note they've been notoriously unreliable at actually accomplishing anything.
And you'd base this on what fortune telling ability? I'm glad simple assertions are gaining traction here on slashdot. By this time next year we can all be Brothers in Christ.
I would base it on logistical difficulty, the current tactical impossibility, and that I imagine both sides being armed with nuclear weapons makes the possibility of ever conquering either one pretty unlikely.
I'd say the US will have hung itself with it's own rope. All China will have to do is claim that the United States has the capacity to conduct terrorism, and then if it has the means, China can setup a blockade, wage a currency war, or invade under the precedent we set a few years ago. Since we've destroyed the power of the UN and the World Court, we won't even have symbolic legal recourse.
1) They don't
2) Why would a one party dictatorship growing rich on the exploitation of their people want to attack the people most responsible for the never ending stream of money that has made their economic success possible?
I have nothing against international law, but to ignore the immense limitation of it specifically with implementation and enforcement is just being unrealistic. It doesn't require you to be a warmonger to realize that the system as it stands now would be ineffective at preventing war between the US and China if that were the course they chose. Acting like a 7th grader on crack when someone points out that taking the moral high ground is sometimes less important than taking the real high ground is uncalled for.