Slashdot Mirror
US Company's China Employee Allegedly Stole Code To Help Local Government (csoonline.com)
Reader itwbennett writes: Xu Jiaqiang, a Chinese national, worked as a developer for an unnamed U.S. company's branch in China (a Reuters report says it's IBM) from November 2010 to May 2014, when he resigned voluntarily. A year later he was allegedly caught trying to sell stolen proprietary source code to U.S. undercover agents, who claimed they were starting a large-data storage company. The software is described in the original complaint as a key component of one of the world's largest scientific supercomputers and of commercial applications that require rapid access to large volumes of data. In December 2015, Xu was arrested by the FBI, alleged to have stolen for his own benefit and that of the National Health and Family Planning Commission in China, although no specific charges relating to actual transfer of the code to the National Health and Family Planning Commission are mentioned in the superseding indictment.
Unsurprising
this is common if you cooperate with china. They let you show how to do it and then they erect a second factory owned by the brother or the nephew or something. Ten years later you will be bought by that company.
And China wants to get the "free market" label. ROFL at this ridiculousness. OOXML is ten times more an open standard than china is a free market.
Trump could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody. And he wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's like incredible.
There's a really obvious reason why he's so popular, so I don't think "incredible" is the right word to use.
A lot of people are facing complete ruin and are scared, holding their breath hoping that something will change.
Trump is the candidate for "change", and Clinton is the candidate for "stay the course".
I'm not a Clinton supporter, but I don't think that statement about Hillary is particularly controversial even among her supporters. She's definitely a political insider, is funded by moneyed interests, and her website has a list of issues that give a sense of "direction" without promising anything concrete. Typical of politicians for the last 50 years - nothing bad or unusual about that.
Trump has a list of 7 things that he will change, with a concrete list of changes for each. All of his proposed changes are aimed at making peoples' lives better.
People who are secure in their position, who have a job and don't see themselves being laid off or expect to find a new job quickly if they are laid off should vote for Hillary. There are a lot of these people in the country, and "stay the course" is the least risky choice for them to make.
People who are unemployed, struggling, or in fear of losing their situation should vote for Trump, because he's proposing to make changes.
As the theory goes, when you're doing well you should minimise risk - don't do anything that could change your situation. When you're doing poorly, you can tolerate more risk in the hopes that it might help.
So it really all boils down to the proportion of people in the country who are at-risk and scared, versus the proportion who think the current situation is "pretty good".
We're presented with a never-ending stream of depressing news about this here on Slashdot, so it's easy to believe that majority of the country might be shivering in fear hoping for something to change, but that might not be an accurate view.
"Change" or "stay the course"? The voters will probably decide this November.