Here's a map with the top world producers of Cinnamon in 2005.
China has 10 yellow bubbles (=10% of the world's top producer) meaning in 2005 it produced 60,000 tones of cinnamon.
For comparison, the entire world's gold production of 2006 was 2,310 tons.
Me thinks that the world risks running out of gold faster than China of cinnamon... but hey, I might be mistaken.
However, on another track, TFA says:
They mixed gold salts with a common spice – cinnamon – and stirred the mixture in water to synthesize gold nanoparticles.
Now, unless one finds a method to obtain gold salts by using plain cooking salt (Ok... I'll make a concession and allow capsicum powder as well), this step may require indeed the use of toxic chemicals.
Mod parent +Insighful.
Indeed the use of a non-public compiler makes the protection of the copyright law less effective.
(as for the part of liar and troll, let it drop, buddy. You are mistaken on this one: I may be wrong but certainly not a troll much less a liar. A correction is sufficient).
wouldn't it be fair to ask them before being pretty sure they wouldn't mind?
Why for? Is not like they can change anything. We're powerless so we're just exchanging pointless opinions.
Would this opinions be in higher number and heard, at least there are chances for something to change (don't give up)
Anyway, the whole point with prefixing my opinion with "I'm not a contributor"...
Ok, now I understand.
I'm like |this| to scratch you of as a troll but this statement looks sincere:
Glad you didn't: even if controversial, the exchange of opinions doesn't (always) hurt.
So you want a nuanced answer? Deep analysis? Numbers?
Thank you for them (and I'm sincere, not just formal).
(well, cutting short the conversation, just saw your other answer. Hasty to make judgments, are you? Anyway, my thanks for the link are still valid. A wish to "have a good day ahead" from an alleged troll).
Although I feel that nobody should be able to successfully claim that multiple different works which were released at seperate times to be identical.
As long as all it is shown to you is a compiled binary (Linux can still be compiled monolithically) and you have no way of proving that they didn't mis-appropriate a more recent source code (or the way is too expensive for you to verify), then I think yes, they can claim it with pretty good chances that you won't be able to verify (like: what if they use a compiler that's available only for them, in-house developed or even an internal hack of gcc?).
Anyway, 50 years sounds good for me, but... you know what?... ask me again 30 years from now:)
If neither of them, then what do you think about software copyrights? Take the Linux kernel that's under development since 1991 - when do you think the copyright on it should expire?
If I'm understanding your question correctly each new work is covered by copyright. As time passes the older versions would become public domain after the copyright period expires.
And what would be the period for the software copyright expiration. If 20 years or shorter, an example of what I fear here.
I am 100% in agreement that software (including games) which isn't maintained anymore should be released into the public domain. If nothing it'll mean that developers will take more care of their products.
Now if the code in question is not modified in 20 years, then burnt on a cd, it shouldn't be increased because it changed medium.
Now, that's a sensible ammendment to what the GP proposed. I would probably agree with it.
Most Open Source licenses, and the GPL in particular, are designed to subvert copyright.
I beg to differ in this matter - the way I see, GPL is using the copyright concept more in line with the very purpose of this concept: foster creation by restricting the restrictors, even if only the potential ones. (hmmm... does it make sense? See below).
Certainly once copyright expires authors using the GPL would have no problem letting everyone use their stuff, the key here being that MSFT and IBM and AAPL have to do the same.
Would it be fair to ask them before assuming they would not mind?
I don't know that a 20 year old version of an OS would do many people much good, especially with BSD out there... but you'd be welcome to try.
I'm not a linux contributor myself (unless you count bug reports) but I'm pretty sure linux contributors wouldn't mind shortening their copyright terms if to 5 years of all those annoying software patents cartels had their terms reduced as well.
Given you are not a contributor, wouldn't it be fair to ask them before being pretty sure they wouldn't mind?
I'm not saying that the copyright law is perfect, but is one thing to say Let's find something else and yet another thing You know, the only way we can make it work is to maintain the copyright but shorten the protection to only 5 years.
I reckon that's a failure of imagination. Can't we do better, find other ideas to balance between the protection/encouragement of creators and the need of the creation consumers? Should we swing between two very far extremes?
You can't do foreign policy without secret cables flying around. You can't fight wars without intelligence.
You can't have government accountability with state secrets. I'd rather have the government accountability.
I'd rather not limit the countries who can have effective diplomatic ties to the countries who are unafraid to murder someone who becomes politically inconvenient (Russia, China, Iran, N. Korea, etc). Why do you suppose we haven't heard of any "leaks" from those countries? Are their diplomatic records so much more spotless than the US?
If US take pride of being the champion of democracy, would it be nice to start with their own practices? I mean, sort of leading by example?
I'm not sure what you mean here.
Like US diplomats not being asked to spy on UN officials and obtain a range of things (like DNA samples) or such? I think it would be a good start. Would this hurt US? (or is UN in conflict with US? I wouldn't be amazed after the stunt with the WMD argument used to invade Iraq).
No, I don't think so. Maybe nitpicking here and IANAL, but here's a quote from the OP:
A couple of decades from publication to public domain is plenty. If you don't want your thoughts and ideas to enter the public domain then keep them to yourself.
Are you able to guarantee IP lawyer would NOT be able to spin this on the line of:
-Well, the kernel was first published in 1991. 2011 makes a couple of decades from publication, formally I can take the kernel and the bug fixes... you know, there are some bug fixes in 20 years... and use it as I please.
-If you think I included more than the bug fixes, it is *your* burden to demonstrate.
- No, without a court ruling I'm not going start a discovery process, apologies but we are running a business here, go away kid don't waste our time...
- So, no, once again and for the final time... you cannot see the code from which we compiled our closed source version"?
How would you like it? Because I'd very much like to stay on the safe side and, until something better comes along, within the current limits of the copyright law, thank you.
Given that perspective, how does it aid society for you to retain control of your software until your death? It doesn't, especially for software. 20 or 30 years from now, any software you've written will likely have zero value to anyone,
I'll try to return with another question: the first Linux kernel was created (if my memory serves) in 1991. When do you think a corporation... say, Oracle for instance... should be entitled to grab the kernel, add some trifles and sell the work of hundreds of creators without giving them back anything, not even the credit?
I cannot agree: if I'm writing my software and releasing it in open source for everybody to befit, then I want to stay opened until I go to grave (after that, I wouldn't know).
Okay, it's fine that you want that. But what you haven't said is why you think society should spend its resources to force your desire on others, to its own detriment.
Because otherwise I might not be inclined to release the software in open source (so that many others may benefit)? Hell, maybe I'd be not inclined to write that software at all?
Returning your question: how the world will benefit from this? (for instance: would you say the world is better with iPhone only and no Android and Nokia?).
Let's be honest. Copyrights expire at death, with a minimum term (like 15 years) to support any children. Or how about death + years until any children are over 18.
Frankly, copyright should be original publish date. If it was published in a magazine, then later in book form. Should the copyright be furthered? The music industry has used so-called "re-mastering" to continuously keep works in copyright.
Do you care to apply the same argumentation for the case of the Linux Kernel? You know, the inception moment is already 20 years ago and it has quite a number of authors and heck of a lot of versions and releases. When do you think it would be fair for a corporation to get its hands on it and say "I'm going to improve it the way only us know how - that's trade secret, mind you - close it and sell all the other 99.995% contributed by the suckers that worked decades for free".
Personally I don't see why the author's death should figure into it at all. A couple of decades from publication to public domain is plenty. If you don't want your thoughts and ideas to enter the public domain then keep them to yourself.
I cannot agree: if I'm writing my software and releasing it in open source for everybody to befit, then I want to stay opened until I go to grave (after that, I wouldn't know).
For the time being, my will is protected by copyright and I like it this way, thank you.
And I don't know Poul Anderson's daughter, but the idea of progeny of famous people trying to live off their parents' work is distasteful to me.
Anyway, I've decided arbitrarily to make 15 years the point at which a work becomes public domain and I intend to act accordingly. The only thing to do when laws are out of whack is to act as if they are not.
Civil disobedience is still punishable under law (consequence: wisely pick your fights/causes, you may be spending some years in jail for causes that you might find weren't actually worthing)
Keeping Poul Anderson's works under copyright is going to encourage him to create more works? Really?
Or Walt Disney?
In theory, that's the PURPOSE of copyright.
The purpose of copyright is to encourage works of expression PERIOD. Not necessary by the same author... potentially encourage others to jump into the act of creation, start wasting their life in trying to prove their work is valuable only to see their kids and grandkids benefiting from his sacrifice.
"Software patents and method patents" or "Method Patents and Software (probably copyrights)" that should last 6 months?
If it is the former, I can't agree: software should not be patentable (even thought a 6 month patent on software is short enough not to count).
If it is the later, I can' agree either. Software copyrights are still the very basis allowing open-software to remain open (it is the will of the authors and is protected by copyright).
If neither of them, then what do you think about software copyrights? Take the Linux kernel that's under development since 1991 - when do you think the copyright on it should expire?
The rights of the dead should not infringe upon the rights of the living.
Wouldn't this enter on collision course with the idea of a will (before death) act? I mean, can you imagine what the death of a house owner would bring? (relatives stampeding to pick everything before anyone from outside would enter the home and start shouting "Finders keepers").
I think it is pretty clear that their jobs will be harder if they cannot speak frankly with foreign diplomats and leaders. If China won't confide in us that they would like to see Korea united, then we have to guess. If the Arab leaders won't be frank about Iran, then we have to guess.
Guessing leads to mistakes. Diplomatic mistakes can lead to war.
(Is it that you are really afraid or just spreading fear? Never mind, I'll assume the first)
If China wants really bad really bad to see Korea reunited, they may make their opinion public and see who jumps in to help them, I'm sure UN will be pleased to hear. Why would US need to make mistakes for something that China wants but it doesn't say? (or, why would US need to bomb Iran because the Arabs wants so?)
Take the above as a counter-example for not accepting your post as a real demonstration that leaking diplomatic documents necessary leads to war. In the third millennium one can hope the war is a matter serious enough to be actually considered and discussed before going into (even GWB and his COW have - at least formally - done so; true with the - most probable phony - argument of WMD in Iraq, but nevertheless even they have done it).
It sure is going to be hard to close Guantanamo now, that much is probably certain.
And that's somehow related with Wikileaks and/or Assange... Hmmmm... I might be exceedingly obtuse today, I don't follow. Can you please elaborate?
How are you satisfied coming to a conclusion without knowing the whole story?
Apologies, mate, nobody said anything about conclusions.
Actually no, I did say something, below the relevant quote from my original post:
at first, please decide for yourself if the existence of Wikileaks is good or bad irrespective of mr. Assange's motivation.
What it does mean: everybody is free to draw whatever conclusions they find appropriate, my suggestion being "just be aware that leaking (and the WikiLeaks) and mr. Assange's motivations are two different things. Being such, it worth assessing their value – moral or not, legit or not – independently".
But if the USA bombs the wrong house by accident then it's not okay?
No, its not OK. Not if they pretend to have higher moral ground. For the sake of god, I can use the same argument in relation with your position with Assange: is he not allowed to make mistakes? What is the difference between US bombing the wrong house and the redacters of the leaked documents overseeing to wipe out an identifiable name?
Which is exactly why the release of these diplomatic cables really isn't that big of a deal, IMHO. Most of them involve loose transcripts of diplomatic meetings that took place; these diplomatic meetings always have minute takers on both sides. The parties fully expect that each respective government apparatus is going to dissect and analyze everything that was said
Sure, most of them. But on the other hand, Arab countries urging the US to bomb Iran probably are quite upset that Iran now knows they did so.
So that Iran may now think twice before being so defiant on their position?
Yeah, good luck with that, its a ridiculous stance to take.
You have essentially just said that diplomats should not be making any full and frank assessments of foreign diplomats, countries or situations. Assessments that may aid others in their work, but may equally insult the subject, or cause the subject to legitimately show insult or withdraw cooperation if said assessment became public.
And this is maybe how the world may get better, by stating clear what positions you stand for? Maybe it won't necessary follow as an outcome, but I think is not impossible... But it is undeniable that if you don't try, you need a sheer luck for this to happen.
Take for example the revelation that China is growing weary of North Korea and could soon be in a position to cease supporting the countries government - that has the potential to seriously damage the current relationship between North Korea and China, causing North Korea to stop listening to Chinese suggestions or even back away from the negotiating table completely.
May happen, may not. Would it happen, what do you suppose North Korea will do?
In turn, China could make trade negotiations that much more difficult for American diplomats, because of the position they have been put in.
Should I understand the existence of the "2 dollars shop" (or Wall-Mart) is more precious to you than what the people of North Korea experience now? If positive, forgive me if I'll to reject the moral grounds you use to justify the needs of secrecy in diplomacy, while still admitting that some pragmatic basis may exists. Would you advice the diplomats in China to put this pragmatic justification on the negotiations table? If not, why not?
Your stance of "that shouldn't have been kept secret" would have resulted in one of two scenarios - either the assessment from the front line diplomat doesn't get written because they don't want an international spat on their hands,
Might or might not happen. Suppose the report from the diplomat would not have been written, how is this situation worse/better than the one we are already in?
or all further meetings are cancelled with that diplomat, and you have the aforementioned spat.
With US the highest buyer of wholesale cheap work-hours? Somehow, I don't think the spat is inevitable... but I admit I may be wrong. However, can you demonstrate it will inevitable happen, or it is you just fear it would happen?
Slashdot Mirror
For comparison, the entire world's gold production of 2006 was 2,310 tons.
Me thinks that the world risks running out of gold faster than China of cinnamon... but hey, I might be mistaken.
However, on another track, TFA says:
They mixed gold salts with a common spice – cinnamon – and stirred the mixture in water to synthesize gold nanoparticles.
Now, unless one finds a method to obtain gold salts by using plain cooking salt (Ok... I'll make a concession and allow capsicum powder as well), this step may require indeed the use of toxic chemicals.
Indeed the use of a non-public compiler makes the protection of the copyright law less effective.
(as for the part of liar and troll, let it drop, buddy. You are mistaken on this one: I may be wrong but certainly not a troll much less a liar. A correction is sufficient).
wouldn't it be fair to ask them before being pretty sure they wouldn't mind?
Why for? Is not like they can change anything. We're powerless so we're just exchanging pointless opinions.
Would this opinions be in higher number and heard, at least there are chances for something to change (don't give up)
Anyway, the whole point with prefixing my opinion with "I'm not a contributor"...
Ok, now I understand.
I'm like |this| to scratch you of as a troll but this statement looks sincere:
Glad you didn't: even if controversial, the exchange of opinions doesn't (always) hurt.
So you want a nuanced answer? Deep analysis? Numbers?
Thank you for them (and I'm sincere, not just formal). (well, cutting short the conversation, just saw your other answer. Hasty to make judgments, are you? Anyway, my thanks for the link are still valid. A wish to "have a good day ahead" from an alleged troll).
Although I feel that nobody should be able to successfully claim that multiple different works which were released at seperate times to be identical.
As long as all it is shown to you is a compiled binary (Linux can still be compiled monolithically) and you have no way of proving that they didn't mis-appropriate a more recent source code (or the way is too expensive for you to verify), then I think yes, they can claim it with pretty good chances that you won't be able to verify (like: what if they use a compiler that's available only for them, in-house developed or even an internal hack of gcc?).
Anyway, 50 years sounds good for me, but... you know what?... ask me again 30 years from now :)
If neither of them, then what do you think about software copyrights? Take the Linux kernel that's under development since 1991 - when do you think the copyright on it should expire?
If I'm understanding your question correctly each new work is covered by copyright. As time passes the older versions would become public domain after the copyright period expires.
And what would be the period for the software copyright expiration. If 20 years or shorter, an example of what I fear here.
I am 100% in agreement that software (including games) which isn't maintained anymore should be released into the public domain. If nothing it'll mean that developers will take more care of their products. Now if the code in question is not modified in 20 years, then burnt on a cd, it shouldn't be increased because it changed medium.
Now, that's a sensible ammendment to what the GP proposed. I would probably agree with it.
Most Open Source licenses, and the GPL in particular, are designed to subvert copyright.
I beg to differ in this matter - the way I see, GPL is using the copyright concept more in line with the very purpose of this concept: foster creation by restricting the restrictors, even if only the potential ones. (hmmm... does it make sense? See below).
Certainly once copyright expires authors using the GPL would have no problem letting everyone use their stuff, the key here being that MSFT and IBM and AAPL have to do the same.
Would it be fair to ask them before assuming they would not mind?
I don't know that a 20 year old version of an OS would do many people much good, especially with BSD out there... but you'd be welcome to try.
An example of what I fear here.
I'm not a linux contributor myself (unless you count bug reports) but I'm pretty sure linux contributors wouldn't mind shortening their copyright terms if to 5 years of all those annoying software patents cartels had their terms reduced as well.
Given you are not a contributor, wouldn't it be fair to ask them before being pretty sure they wouldn't mind?
I'm not saying that the copyright law is perfect, but is one thing to say Let's find something else and yet another thing You know, the only way we can make it work is to maintain the copyright but shorten the protection to only 5 years.
I reckon that's a failure of imagination. Can't we do better, find other ideas to balance between the protection/encouragement of creators and the need of the creation consumers? Should we swing between two very far extremes?
You can't do foreign policy without secret cables flying around. You can't fight wars without intelligence.
You can't have government accountability with state secrets. I'd rather have the government accountability.
I'd rather not limit the countries who can have effective diplomatic ties to the countries who are unafraid to murder someone who becomes politically inconvenient (Russia, China, Iran, N. Korea, etc). Why do you suppose we haven't heard of any "leaks" from those countries? Are their diplomatic records so much more spotless than the US?
If US take pride of being the champion of democracy, would it be nice to start with their own practices? I mean, sort of leading by example?
I'm not sure what you mean here.
Like US diplomats not being asked to spy on UN officials and obtain a range of things (like DNA samples) or such? I think it would be a good start. Would this hurt US? (or is UN in conflict with US? I wouldn't be amazed after the stunt with the WMD argument used to invade Iraq).
A couple of decades from publication to public domain is plenty. If you don't want your thoughts and ideas to enter the public domain then keep them to yourself.
Are you able to guarantee IP lawyer would NOT be able to spin this on the line of:
-Well, the kernel was first published in 1991. 2011 makes a couple of decades from publication, formally I can take the kernel and the bug fixes... you know, there are some bug fixes in 20 years... and use it as I please.
-If you think I included more than the bug fixes, it is *your* burden to demonstrate.
- No, without a court ruling I'm not going start a discovery process, apologies but we are running a business here, go away kid don't waste our time...
- So, no, once again and for the final time... you cannot see the code from which we compiled our closed source version"?
How would you like it? Because I'd very much like to stay on the safe side and, until something better comes along, within the current limits of the copyright law, thank you.
Given that perspective, how does it aid society for you to retain control of your software until your death? It doesn't, especially for software. 20 or 30 years from now, any software you've written will likely have zero value to anyone,
I'll try to return with another question: the first Linux kernel was created (if my memory serves) in 1991. When do you think a corporation... say, Oracle for instance... should be entitled to grab the kernel, add some trifles and sell the work of hundreds of creators without giving them back anything, not even the credit?
I cannot agree: if I'm writing my software and releasing it in open source for everybody to befit, then I want to stay opened until I go to grave (after that, I wouldn't know).
Okay, it's fine that you want that. But what you haven't said is why you think society should spend its resources to force your desire on others, to its own detriment.
Because otherwise I might not be inclined to release the software in open source (so that many others may benefit)? Hell, maybe I'd be not inclined to write that software at all?
Returning your question: how the world will benefit from this? (for instance: would you say the world is better with iPhone only and no Android and Nokia?).
Learn how to operate another program? Spend from the budget for another set of licenses? (the horror)... start to use Open Office or the like?
Let's be honest. Copyrights expire at death, with a minimum term (like 15 years) to support any children. Or how about death + years until any children are over 18.
Frankly, copyright should be original publish date. If it was published in a magazine, then later in book form. Should the copyright be furthered? The music industry has used so-called "re-mastering" to continuously keep works in copyright.
Do you care to apply the same argumentation for the case of the Linux Kernel? You know, the inception moment is already 20 years ago and it has quite a number of authors and heck of a lot of versions and releases. When do you think it would be fair for a corporation to get its hands on it and say "I'm going to improve it the way only us know how - that's trade secret, mind you - close it and sell all the other 99.995% contributed by the suckers that worked decades for free".
Personally I don't see why the author's death should figure into it at all. A couple of decades from publication to public domain is plenty. If you don't want your thoughts and ideas to enter the public domain then keep them to yourself.
I cannot agree: if I'm writing my software and releasing it in open source for everybody to befit, then I want to stay opened until I go to grave (after that, I wouldn't know).
For the time being, my will is protected by copyright and I like it this way, thank you.
And I don't know Poul Anderson's daughter, but the idea of progeny of famous people trying to live off their parents' work is distasteful to me.
Anyway, I've decided arbitrarily to make 15 years the point at which a work becomes public domain and I intend to act accordingly. The only thing to do when laws are out of whack is to act as if they are not.
Civil disobedience is still punishable under law (consequence: wisely pick your fights/causes, you may be spending some years in jail for causes that you might find weren't actually worthing)
Keeping Poul Anderson's works under copyright is going to encourage him to create more works? Really?
Or Walt Disney?
In theory, that's the PURPOSE of copyright.
The purpose of copyright is to encourage works of expression PERIOD.
Not necessary by the same author... potentially encourage others to jump into the act of creation, start wasting their life in trying to prove their work is valuable only to see their kids and grandkids benefiting from his sacrifice.
At least, that's the theory.
Software/Method patents: Six months
"Software patents and method patents" or "Method Patents and Software (probably copyrights)" that should last 6 months?
If it is the former, I can't agree: software should not be patentable (even thought a 6 month patent on software is short enough not to count).
If it is the later, I can' agree either. Software copyrights are still the very basis allowing open-software to remain open (it is the will of the authors and is protected by copyright).
If neither of them, then what do you think about software copyrights? Take the Linux kernel that's under development since 1991 - when do you think the copyright on it should expire?
The rights of the dead should not infringe upon the rights of the living.
Wouldn't this enter on collision course with the idea of a will (before death) act? I mean, can you imagine what the death of a house owner would bring? (relatives stampeding to pick everything before anyone from outside would enter the home and start shouting "Finders keepers").
I think it is pretty clear that their jobs will be harder if they cannot speak frankly with foreign diplomats and leaders. If China won't confide in us that they would like to see Korea united, then we have to guess. If the Arab leaders won't be frank about Iran, then we have to guess.
Guessing leads to mistakes. Diplomatic mistakes can lead to war.
(Is it that you are really afraid or just spreading fear? Never mind, I'll assume the first)
If China wants really bad really bad to see Korea reunited, they may make their opinion public and see who jumps in to help them, I'm sure UN will be pleased to hear. Why would US need to make mistakes for something that China wants but it doesn't say? (or, why would US need to bomb Iran because the Arabs wants so?)
Take the above as a counter-example for not accepting your post as a real demonstration that leaking diplomatic documents necessary leads to war. In the third millennium one can hope the war is a matter serious enough to be actually considered and discussed before going into (even GWB and his COW have - at least formally - done so; true with the - most probable phony - argument of WMD in Iraq, but nevertheless even they have done it).
It sure is going to be hard to close Guantanamo now, that much is probably certain.
And that's somehow related with Wikileaks and/or Assange... Hmmmm... I might be exceedingly obtuse today, I don't follow. Can you please elaborate?
How are you satisfied coming to a conclusion without knowing the whole story?
Apologies, mate, nobody said anything about conclusions.
Actually no, I did say something, below the relevant quote from my original post:
at first, please decide for yourself if the existence of Wikileaks is good or bad irrespective of mr. Assange's motivation.
What it does mean: everybody is free to draw whatever conclusions they find appropriate, my suggestion being "just be aware that leaking (and the WikiLeaks) and mr. Assange's motivations are two different things. Being such, it worth assessing their value – moral or not, legit or not – independently".
But if the USA bombs the wrong house by accident then it's not okay?
No, its not OK. Not if they pretend to have higher moral ground.
For the sake of god, I can use the same argument in relation with your position with Assange: is he not allowed to make mistakes? What is the difference between US bombing the wrong house and the redacters of the leaked documents overseeing to wipe out an identifiable name?
What do you mean "unsuccessful DDoS campaign"? I'm trying to download the .torrent file for 2 days now.
Sure, most of them. But on the other hand, Arab countries urging the US to bomb Iran probably are quite upset that Iran now knows they did so.
So that Iran may now think twice before being so defiant on their position?
Yeah, good luck with that, its a ridiculous stance to take. You have essentially just said that diplomats should not be making any full and frank assessments of foreign diplomats, countries or situations. Assessments that may aid others in their work, but may equally insult the subject, or cause the subject to legitimately show insult or withdraw cooperation if said assessment became public.
And this is maybe how the world may get better, by stating clear what positions you stand for? Maybe it won't necessary follow as an outcome, but I think is not impossible... But it is undeniable that if you don't try, you need a sheer luck for this to happen.
Take for example the revelation that China is growing weary of North Korea and could soon be in a position to cease supporting the countries government - that has the potential to seriously damage the current relationship between North Korea and China, causing North Korea to stop listening to Chinese suggestions or even back away from the negotiating table completely.
May happen, may not. Would it happen, what do you suppose North Korea will do?
In turn, China could make trade negotiations that much more difficult for American diplomats, because of the position they have been put in.
Should I understand the existence of the "2 dollars shop" (or Wall-Mart) is more precious to you than what the people of North Korea experience now? If positive, forgive me if I'll to reject the moral grounds you use to justify the needs of secrecy in diplomacy, while still admitting that some pragmatic basis may exists.
Would you advice the diplomats in China to put this pragmatic justification on the negotiations table? If not, why not?
Your stance of "that shouldn't have been kept secret" would have resulted in one of two scenarios - either the assessment from the front line diplomat doesn't get written because they don't want an international spat on their hands,
Might or might not happen. Suppose the report from the diplomat would not have been written, how is this situation worse/better than the one we are already in?
or all further meetings are cancelled with that diplomat, and you have the aforementioned spat.
With US the highest buyer of wholesale cheap work-hours? Somehow, I don't think the spat is inevitable... but I admit I may be wrong.
However, can you demonstrate it will inevitable happen, or it is you just fear it would happen?