Save me from my delusions! Tell me when the overseas trade wasn't vital to the U.S. economy!
I'm assuming your argument is based on actual facts. If not, spare me your name calling.
You have generalized my position to add weight to your argument. The nation can be isolationist, and still have foreign trade partners. Such as the US before the years immediately after World War 2. That is a fact. I did not call you a name, I merely stated that I think anyone arguing against facts is delusional.
if you've ever shot anything professionally you'd know that what you see and what the camera sees are never quite the same thing. the parent has a legitimate point, and I don't think many professionals would make use of this camera. although the article is a little light on details, and in my opinion what you'd really want instead of a dual eyepiece is the ability to display each shot individually by hooking up two monitors. its also possible there's a button or something to allow you to choose which frame is displayed on the eyepiece or an external monitor.
I've never photographed anything professionally. I've also never seen a 3D movie other some of the old 1980's films with the red and blue cardboard glasses. It never occurred to me that there was a problem to be solved in the first place. It also never occurred to me that there was a large demand for this. I made my previous post as a joke, that every photography nerd on here completely WOOSHED.
3D in my humble opinion is hologram technology, something I'm not sure is technically possible in 2010. To me, it simply is not stereoscopic photography and light polarization tricks. A true 3D "image" is what I see when I open my eyes, thus a display technology that truly fills a 3-dimensional space will be the only one that (IMHO) qualifies as 3D.
You make it a point to conveniently forget that this is how things once were, and everyone was better off for it.
You honestly believe there was a time when the U.S. didn't trade and compete with the rest of the planet? What's changed is that we have stronger competitors. Fifty years ago, China and India were economic basket cases that couldn't even feed themselves. Now look at them.
Yes there has never been a time when the US didn't trade and compete with the rest of the world. There was however a time when the US had extremely limited foreign trade partners. Perhaps you should read up on the history of this country. Anyone that argues against this fact is delusional.
Funny thing about that camera. There's only one eyepiece. I guess you're not expected to see the scene as it's recorded. That's a shame.
Thankfully I was born with 2 eyes and have yet to incur the loss of one, thus allowing me to perceive things around me in 3D without the aid of a stereoscopic recording device.
Sigh. Like advocates of protective tariffs, you forget that the U.S. economy is part of a larger global economy. You would force U.S. producers to use higher-paid U.S. workers, meaning that American goods would be priced out of the marketplace. Not even American consumers world buy them.
You make it a point to conveniently forget that this is how things once were, and everyone was better off for it. You also pretend as if competition would somehow not exist between American goods producers. You've brought yourself to an irrational conclusion based on the facts at hand.
Suppose we do nothing, and let the American middle class be destroyed. Once that happens the US will drop from 1st world status, definitely to 2nd world, and imho probably to 3rd world.
Please explain to me again why it's a good idea to cause 1st world nations to compete with 3rd world nations. Please explain to me again why it's the 1st world nations' responsibility to raise the quality of life in it's 3rd world trade partner nations. The raising of quality of life in 3rd world countries is currently carrying a cost of lowering the quality of life in our 1st world country.
I'm advocating that we stop forcing 1st world US citizens to compete with 3rd world citizens.
How?
First by reversing all the legal decisions that allowed the rich CxO's to put us in competition with them in the first place. Then enacting new laws that prevent outsourcing to 3rd world countries where the cost of living is often times orders of magnitude less than in 1st world countries. Then allowing US citizens to reclaim the former outsourced positions.
Would it be hard? I'm sure it would be. It would also be a lot easier than 2nd US Civil War; caused by the deliberate destruction of the US American working middle class at the hands of the.01% greedy corporatists. It would certainly save us from the path of destruction we are on, which is shaping the US backward into a 3rd world country.
A device like this could create a whole new industry of virtual prostitution. Although, I wouldn't get too excited because as soon as that happens, the nanny-state politicians from both sides of the aisle will no doubt move to outlaw it. I still don't understand how a government in a free society is able to tell people what they can and can't do with their body, especially when it comes to sex.
It'd work out great until some 4chan jerk hacks the connection and you have to call the hospital to have a robot hand surgically removed from your p33n0r
I was thinking maybe the patch is just a paper towel taped onto your arm after being dipped in tap water. Though I'm not sure you can get diarrhea just from touching the water in Mexico...
A great fear of mine is that a machine will decide what I should or should not know about. Another is that a machine like this could be tampered with by any human being to make the same decision.
Big Brother SkyNet is watching you, and telling you all you need to know.
I don't think our unemployed workers have the capacity to make up for what China is producing for us now. With the current (highly abnormal) 10% unemployment rate, we have about 15 million unemployed people. Paying them minimum wage gives $150 million an hour, multiply that by 2000 hours/year gives $225 billion per year. So if all the unemployed workers were somehow marshalled to the job, we'll still have 30% less than the $338 billion annual imports from China. And that's just labor cost. To match demand, we'll have to cannibalize our other industries.
There are other benefits to having trade with China. It discourages conflict and encourages better political relations. It allows Chinese workers to lead a better life and ultimately those efforts will pay back to the rest of the world.
I think patriotism and a bit of extra unemployment is a pretty small cost to pay for all this.
As I am not a citizen of China I have no concern for China's domestic or foreign policy, let alone economic policy. China produces a lot for the US. I'm not sure if you understand that once the demand is gone, the supply will increase and the cost will decrease. China needs the US more than the US needs China from that perspective.
If a people do not collectively have the will to demand better human rights for themselves, they do not deserve them. I know that sounds extremely callous, but I honestly believe that if you don't demand better human rights for yourself that you shouldn't have them to begin with.
My rights were paid for with the blood of patriots and tyrants. I fully appreciate that fact, and I find people that don't appreciate that are a disgrace.
I think a higher cost of goods is an acceptable side effect of everyone having a job, and things being made in America.
Basically, you're advocating that we protect U.S. jobs by locking out foreign competition. That's been tried, and the results were not pleasant.
Not at all. I'm advocating that we stop forcing 1st world US citizens to compete with 3rd world citizens. There are only two ways that is fair is to reduce the 1st world country into a 3rd world country. Now, that would probably have the benefit of stopping illegal immigration dead in it's tracks, but it would also take society backwards a few steps, and I'm against that. The other way is to raise the 3rd world country to a 1st world status. That would progress, and I am all for that.
The problem there is, it shouldn't be my problem. Corporate greed has made it my problem by forcing me to compete with 3rd world citizens, and that is my main point. It's a situation that doesn't need to exist, but is being forced upon us to make.01% of us rich beyond rich, while making 99.99% of us poor beyond poor.
If I wanted to live in a 3rd world country I would move to one, so please stop trying to turn my 1st world country into one.
It's not as simple as that. People have a fixed amount of money to spend, and if they're suddenly spending an extra $1000/year on cheap consumer goods then that's $1000/year that they're not spending on, say, movie theaters, and those workers suffer.
Unless American workers can do the same work as Chinese workers for the same or lower wages, that means that Americans are not as efficient in that sector and should redirect their efforts to what they're good at. This is called free trade, and is an essential part of an efficient global economy.
I think that a surplus of income amongst the currently unemployed would offset your theoretical rise in the price of consumer goods.
I think a higher cost of goods is an acceptable side effect of everyone having a job, and things being made in America. The problem with your theory is that you forget about competition. Things might become more expensive, but someone else will always be able to do it for less. Even if it's all made in the US by citizens of the US.
Whoa. You just blew my mind by suggesting that we were isolationists during WW2. All I can say is that you and I clearly have different notions isolationism, since yours somehow includes "the hugest mobilization of a military to fight in a foreign war in the history of the world".
There is no reason for us to continue this discussion, since there is no way you will convince me that we were isolationist during WW2. Good luck with your theory.
Just goes to show how much you obviously don't know about World War 2, or the US's foreign trade policy. The fact is, WW2 spurned us to open up and acquire more trade partners. Good luck being ignorant of the facts.
It's not reasonable to expect to see screenshots of Trumpet and Netscape because they were not part of Windows. My point was only that they're not "suspiciously missing", they're just not supposed to be there.
Wait, was that your point in the first place?
My point was what the world did look like back then.
The fact is, the people of the US were better off when we were mostly isolationist and had extremely limited foreign trade partners. We were certainly better off before our government let our corporations sell us out to cheap 3rd world labor.
If you look at the numbers, that's just not true. For example, the census bureau has per capita money income data here:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/incpertoc.html
Look at the first one - you can see that between 1967 & 2008 per capita money income, adjusted to 2008 dollars, doubled. And the years leading up to 1967 were ones of unprecedented growth in the US. The fact is, the people of the US would be much worse off if we were "mostly isolationist" and limited our trade.
Thanks for corroborating my stance that we can sustain growth as isolationists.
Duh! That isn't what you said. You claimed that the USA would be better off with more isolationist policies. B0bby demonstrated that you're full of crap. That ain't what I'd call "corroboration". Idiot.
Which part of unprecedented growth doesn't corroborate that?
The fact is, the people of the US were better off when we were mostly isolationist
In what alternate reality was the 1800s better for America than the 1900s? Are you aware of the 1900s being called "The American Century"? Is it warm and sunny inside your imagination?
The fact is, no people of any country have ever been better off with "extremely limited foreign trade partners".
Besides, I don't think even in the 1800s were we "mostly isolationist". We've had aggressive foreign policy since pretty much the beginning.
No, we were very isolationist until a few years after the end of World War 2.
Also, I can think of a few indigenous peoples that were better off as isolationists with very limited foreign trade...
Slashdot Mirror
You mean you have to use your hands? That's like a baby's toy!
Save me from my delusions! Tell me when the overseas trade wasn't vital to the U.S. economy!
I'm assuming your argument is based on actual facts. If not, spare me your name calling.
You have generalized my position to add weight to your argument. The nation can be isolationist, and still have foreign trade partners. Such as the US before the years immediately after World War 2. That is a fact. I did not call you a name, I merely stated that I think anyone arguing against facts is delusional.
if you've ever shot anything professionally you'd know that what you see and what the camera sees are never quite the same thing. the parent has a legitimate point, and I don't think many professionals would make use of this camera. although the article is a little light on details, and in my opinion what you'd really want instead of a dual eyepiece is the ability to display each shot individually by hooking up two monitors. its also possible there's a button or something to allow you to choose which frame is displayed on the eyepiece or an external monitor.
I've never photographed anything professionally. I've also never seen a 3D movie other some of the old 1980's films with the red and blue cardboard glasses. It never occurred to me that there was a problem to be solved in the first place. It also never occurred to me that there was a large demand for this. I made my previous post as a joke, that every photography nerd on here completely WOOSHED.
3D in my humble opinion is hologram technology, something I'm not sure is technically possible in 2010. To me, it simply is not stereoscopic photography and light polarization tricks. A true 3D "image" is what I see when I open my eyes, thus a display technology that truly fills a 3-dimensional space will be the only one that (IMHO) qualifies as 3D.
You make it a point to conveniently forget that this is how things once were, and everyone was better off for it.
You honestly believe there was a time when the U.S. didn't trade and compete with the rest of the planet? What's changed is that we have stronger competitors. Fifty years ago, China and India were economic basket cases that couldn't even feed themselves. Now look at them.
Yes there has never been a time when the US didn't trade and compete with the rest of the world. There was however a time when the US had extremely limited foreign trade partners. Perhaps you should read up on the history of this country. Anyone that argues against this fact is delusional.
Funny thing about that camera. There's only one eyepiece. I guess you're not expected to see the scene as it's recorded. That's a shame.
Thankfully I was born with 2 eyes and have yet to incur the loss of one, thus allowing me to perceive things around me in 3D without the aid of a stereoscopic recording device.
Shocked you say? Amazing how everyone forgets McCarthyism.
Yeah, but nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Sigh. Like advocates of protective tariffs, you forget that the U.S. economy is part of a larger global economy. You would force U.S. producers to use higher-paid U.S. workers, meaning that American goods would be priced out of the marketplace. Not even American consumers world buy them.
You make it a point to conveniently forget that this is how things once were, and everyone was better off for it. You also pretend as if competition would somehow not exist between American goods producers. You've brought yourself to an irrational conclusion based on the facts at hand.
Suppose we do nothing, and let the American middle class be destroyed. Once that happens the US will drop from 1st world status, definitely to 2nd world, and imho probably to 3rd world.
Please explain to me again why it's a good idea to cause 1st world nations to compete with 3rd world nations. Please explain to me again why it's the 1st world nations' responsibility to raise the quality of life in it's 3rd world trade partner nations. The raising of quality of life in 3rd world countries is currently carrying a cost of lowering the quality of life in our 1st world country.
I'm sure there is a joke in there somewhere.
Hey at least 1 person got it! :D
Truly nothing to see here.
I'm advocating that we stop forcing 1st world US citizens to compete with 3rd world citizens.
How?
First by reversing all the legal decisions that allowed the rich CxO's to put us in competition with them in the first place. Then enacting new laws that prevent outsourcing to 3rd world countries where the cost of living is often times orders of magnitude less than in 1st world countries. Then allowing US citizens to reclaim the former outsourced positions.
Would it be hard? I'm sure it would be. It would also be a lot easier than 2nd US Civil War; caused by the deliberate destruction of the US American working middle class at the hands of the .01% greedy corporatists. It would certainly save us from the path of destruction we are on, which is shaping the US backward into a 3rd world country.
A device like this could create a whole new industry of virtual prostitution. Although, I wouldn't get too excited because as soon as that happens, the nanny-state politicians from both sides of the aisle will no doubt move to outlaw it. I still don't understand how a government in a free society is able to tell people what they can and can't do with their body, especially when it comes to sex.
It'd work out great until some 4chan jerk hacks the connection and you have to call the hospital to have a robot hand surgically removed from your p33n0r
I was thinking maybe the patch is just a paper towel taped onto your arm after being dipped in tap water. Though I'm not sure you can get diarrhea just from touching the water in Mexico...
A great fear of mine is that a machine will decide what I should or should not know about. Another is that a machine like this could be tampered with by any human being to make the same decision.
Big Brother SkyNet is watching you, and telling you all you need to know.
Sweet! A decrypted protocol with an OS by a company that doesn't care about your privacy... Where do I sign up???
The minimum number of help desk technicians required is always directly proportional to the total number of ID10-T users they are to support.
I don't think our unemployed workers have the capacity to make up for what China is producing for us now. With the current (highly abnormal) 10% unemployment rate, we have about 15 million unemployed people. Paying them minimum wage gives $150 million an hour, multiply that by 2000 hours/year gives $225 billion per year. So if all the unemployed workers were somehow marshalled to the job, we'll still have 30% less than the $338 billion annual imports from China. And that's just labor cost. To match demand, we'll have to cannibalize our other industries.
There are other benefits to having trade with China. It discourages conflict and encourages better political relations. It allows Chinese workers to lead a better life and ultimately those efforts will pay back to the rest of the world.
I think patriotism and a bit of extra unemployment is a pretty small cost to pay for all this.
As I am not a citizen of China I have no concern for China's domestic or foreign policy, let alone economic policy. China produces a lot for the US. I'm not sure if you understand that once the demand is gone, the supply will increase and the cost will decrease. China needs the US more than the US needs China from that perspective.
If a people do not collectively have the will to demand better human rights for themselves, they do not deserve them. I know that sounds extremely callous, but I honestly believe that if you don't demand better human rights for yourself that you shouldn't have them to begin with.
My rights were paid for with the blood of patriots and tyrants. I fully appreciate that fact, and I find people that don't appreciate that are a disgrace.
I think a higher cost of goods is an acceptable side effect of everyone having a job, and things being made in America.
Basically, you're advocating that we protect U.S. jobs by locking out foreign competition. That's been tried, and the results were not pleasant.
Not at all. I'm advocating that we stop forcing 1st world US citizens to compete with 3rd world citizens. There are only two ways that is fair is to reduce the 1st world country into a 3rd world country. Now, that would probably have the benefit of stopping illegal immigration dead in it's tracks, but it would also take society backwards a few steps, and I'm against that. The other way is to raise the 3rd world country to a 1st world status. That would progress, and I am all for that.
The problem there is, it shouldn't be my problem. Corporate greed has made it my problem by forcing me to compete with 3rd world citizens, and that is my main point. It's a situation that doesn't need to exist, but is being forced upon us to make .01% of us rich beyond rich, while making 99.99% of us poor beyond poor.
If I wanted to live in a 3rd world country I would move to one, so please stop trying to turn my 1st world country into one.
WOOOOOSH to whoever modded parent troll
It's not as simple as that. People have a fixed amount of money to spend, and if they're suddenly spending an extra $1000/year on cheap consumer goods then that's $1000/year that they're not spending on, say, movie theaters, and those workers suffer.
Unless American workers can do the same work as Chinese workers for the same or lower wages, that means that Americans are not as efficient in that sector and should redirect their efforts to what they're good at. This is called free trade, and is an essential part of an efficient global economy.
I think that a surplus of income amongst the currently unemployed would offset your theoretical rise in the price of consumer goods.
I think a higher cost of goods is an acceptable side effect of everyone having a job, and things being made in America. The problem with your theory is that you forget about competition. Things might become more expensive, but someone else will always be able to do it for less. Even if it's all made in the US by citizens of the US.
Whoa. You just blew my mind by suggesting that we were isolationists during WW2. All I can say is that you and I clearly have different notions isolationism, since yours somehow includes "the hugest mobilization of a military to fight in a foreign war in the history of the world".
There is no reason for us to continue this discussion, since there is no way you will convince me that we were isolationist during WW2. Good luck with your theory.
Just goes to show how much you obviously don't know about World War 2, or the US's foreign trade policy. The fact is, WW2 spurned us to open up and acquire more trade partners. Good luck being ignorant of the facts.
It's not reasonable to expect to see screenshots of Trumpet and Netscape because they were not part of Windows. My point was only that they're not "suspiciously missing", they're just not supposed to be there.
Wait, was that your point in the first place?
My point was what the world did look like back then.
The fact is, the people of the US were better off when we were mostly isolationist and had extremely limited foreign trade partners. We were certainly better off before our government let our corporations sell us out to cheap 3rd world labor.
If you look at the numbers, that's just not true. For example, the census bureau has per capita money income data here: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/incpertoc.html Look at the first one - you can see that between 1967 & 2008 per capita money income, adjusted to 2008 dollars, doubled. And the years leading up to 1967 were ones of unprecedented growth in the US. The fact is, the people of the US would be much worse off if we were "mostly isolationist" and limited our trade.
Thanks for corroborating my stance that we can sustain growth as isolationists.
Duh! That isn't what you said. You claimed that the USA would be better off with more isolationist policies. B0bby demonstrated that you're full of crap. That ain't what I'd call "corroboration". Idiot.
Which part of unprecedented growth doesn't corroborate that?
The fact is, the people of the US were better off when we were mostly isolationist
In what alternate reality was the 1800s better for America than the 1900s? Are you aware of the 1900s being called "The American Century"? Is it warm and sunny inside your imagination?
The fact is, no people of any country have ever been better off with "extremely limited foreign trade partners".
Besides, I don't think even in the 1800s were we "mostly isolationist". We've had aggressive foreign policy since pretty much the beginning.
No, we were very isolationist until a few years after the end of World War 2.
Also, I can think of a few indigenous peoples that were better off as isolationists with very limited foreign trade...
mod parent interesting
You fail to fully appreciate the lack of buying power that is the American consumer when everything is suddenly 3 times more expensive.
You fail to fully appreciate the lack of buying power that is the unemployed American worker.