Any smartphone manufacturer who employs cheap (foreign) labor ends up with a competitive advantage over a domestic manufacturer, while still benefiting from the domestic manufacturer's decision to build in the US and employ US workers.
That is correct. As long as the US has wages that substantially exceed those of other countries there will be a strong pull to locate labor intensive jobs in places where labor costs are low. That is why most US based manufacturing is capital intensive instead of labor intensive.
It would be a very good thing if electronics makers were to start building in the US, but without being forced to as a group, it's not going to happen because while all of them building in the US together would have no negative impacts, any of them choosing not to participate would negatively impact those that do.
It would (probably) be a good thing but trade barriers will NOT accomplish that goal. Those industries will only come back to the US for one of three reasons. 1) Technological advancement, 2) Labor costs falling in the US relative to elsewhere or, 3) advances in automation turning labor intensive production into capital intensive production. But since the supply chains for electronics production have spent the last 3-4 decades moving to Asia they aren't going to come back quickly even if they ever do. Asian manufacturers have a currently insurmountable cost advantage so production will stay there until that is overcome. Trade barriers will not in any way erase the cost advantage.
Yes, the Americans could start producing iPhones and cars.
The US makes millions of cars and commercial vehicles every year. Auto manufacturing is alive and well in the US. However high labor costs in the US necessitate a high level of automation in US auto assembly plants so increases in auto production in the US won't result in higher wages or substantially increased employment in the auto assembly plants.
So, basically the economy would go up because of lower unemployment, and down from higher prices..
Faulty analysis. A trade war with China would cause short term unemployment in both the US and China to rise because prices would immediately rise. It would take substantial time for alternative supply chains to be built and high costs would result in fewer product sales and thus fewer jobs. Virtually all economists agree that protecionism is a net negative for the economy as a whole even if it positively impacts select industries. This is economics 101 stuff. Protectionism is almost never a net benefit to a society.
If China were to do such a thing it might... reduce unemployment in the US.
This sort of drivel is why we have Trump in the White House. Idiots who think a naive sound bite is a valid substitute for sane trade policy and economic reality. A trade war with China would do no such thing. In fact it would almost certainly result in increased unemployment and significantly increased prices on a wide variety of goods. China and the US depend heavily on each other economically. A trade war between China and the US would probably result in at minimum a global recession in the best case scenario.
iPhones and other smartphones being made here will probably up the prices slightly, but most of the estimates I've heard are absurd.
No they are not. For one many/most of the key components for smartphones (and laptops and desktops and...) are made in China too. Where do you think you are going to get parts? The supply chain for these does not exist in the US or EU. Worse China has a monopoly on rare earth minerals without which you cannot build many modern electronics. The US has reserves of these but re-opening the mines for these would not happen overnight.
Trump starting a trade war would drive up prices dramatically on a huge amount of goods and would almost instantly trigger a recession or depression. It would be catastrophically stupid of him to do that. A trade war would benefit no one and it sure as hell would not increase net jobs in the US.
I'd also suspect that the increased wages (higher demand for employees = fewer minimum wage jobs) would more than offset the price increases you'd see.
No it would not. The number of extra people who would be employed by this wouldn't offset the extra cost of production. That is why it is being produced in China now. If that were not true then we would already see production happening here in the US. Furthermore having a few people making higher wages doesn't help the millions who would have to pay more for the product itself. I don't work for Apple or a smartphone manufacturing company so someone else having higher wages doesn't help me one bit.
For a lot of people it is. For those who make their living doing IT it might seem rather straightforward but that's a tiny percentage of the population. Like any task that is outside your domain of expertise even easy things can seem hard if you don't know enough to ask the right questions. And frankly even most IT pros really aren't experts in security despite what they might tell you.
The "most secure Windows ever" still requires a lot of security updates, which means it really isn't all that secure.
Every major operating system requires security updates including Windows, linux, Android, iOS, OS X, and the rest. You will not find a non-trivial piece of operating system software that does not require security patches from time to time.
Security that the USER cannot control is not what **i** would call a selling point
A fine stance if you are a a technically competent IT pro or equivalent. However for the 99+% of the people out there who don't fit that description, having the security handled by the system vendor can actually be a good idea. Microsoft can do a better job of it than my mother can. (yes I know... stop snickering) The VAST majority of users don't have the foggiest idea how to properly secure their computers nor any meaningful interest in learning. Having the option of user control for those with the ability is a good idea but probably not a good default for most users. Microsoft may not do a great job but they'll probably do a better job than the majority of users (which is kind of a sad commentary but it is reality). It only is a problem if they deny competent users the ability to control security when the need arises.
A New York-based startup called EnGoPlanet has installed four streetlights in a plaza off the Las Vegas Strip that are powered exclusively by solar and kinetic energy. The installations aren't mere streetlights though -- they also power a variety of environmental monitors, support video surveillance, and, for the masses, offer USB ports for device charging.
While this sounds like a neat technical proof-of-concept, I cannot imagine that it would be economically viable for an application like this. The tiles would have to be be impossibly cheap for this to cost even close to the cost of grid power. I could see potential uses for the technology (emergency power comes to mind) but this particular application doesn't seem optimum. Might be a great way to prove the concept though and test it in a heavy utilization environment.
When you make your money based on correcting a defect in a product you shouldn't be surprised when the company making the defect gives away a solution. The only real surprise is that it's taken Microsoft so long to acknowledge the malware problem with a product.
It's like the people who built businesses on refilling overpriced ink cartridges for inkjets. Sure they might make some money but it's a flimsy business model. They could be put out of business tomorrow by companies like HP simply dropping the price of their ink. It's an artificial problem and businesses built around artificial problems are easily crushed.
If we don't know his motivations, how do you "know" that he will use the Presidency to game his own business interests?
How do I know a guy who has spent a lifetime focused on making money and plastering his name on everything he can, bragging about how rich he is and how he games the system, and turning himself into a brand will pursue his own interests? You have to be an idiot to think he would do anything else. Maybe he'll surprise us all but I very much doubt it.
I guess I'm more on the side where he doesn't seem to have motivation to get rich (he's already rich) nor does he have the motivation to need to impress anyone or curry favor
Rich people always want to get richer. There never seems to be a limit where enough is enough. And he now can perfectly legally engage in insider trading just like congress can.
A leader with no checks or balances stands every chance of becoming a despot or an American analog of one. With a republican congress what's to really stop him from trampling the civil rights of millions of minorities? Who will keep him from trashing the environment? Who is to keep him from removing health insurance from millions of people? Who will protect the reproductive and civil rights of women? Who will keep the religious crazies out of schools? These are not idle or hypothetical questions any more.
And really, what does the unsolicited endorsement of KKK loonies have to do with it?
Because nobody knows what he really stands for aside from himself, and even that is in question. Groups like the KKK look at him and see him as their guy. Given the racist, xenophobic drivel that has come out of his mouth why wouldn't hey. It's just an example but hardly the only one. He's like those actors who don't actually emote much so people can project themselves on to them. Nobody actually knows what the guy thinks and that is terrifying in someone who is being given the most important job in the world.
Not sure which regulations you are referring to but whichever they are they were horrid in his opinion. Not an opinion that is universally shared. Regulations usually exist for a reason and getting rid of regulations just because the are inconvenient for Donald Trump isn't enough of a reason.
I too, doubt he will do anything bad for the economy.
Based on what? You have NO idea what he's going to do. Nobody does. Most of the crap that has come out of his mouth has been ill-considered if not outright harmful and he changes positions more often than most people change their pants. He tells transparent and easily refuted lies on a routine basis about topics that he clearly doesn't understand and refuses to listen to others about.
But monopolies are bad for the economy.
Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. A monopoly in and of itself isn't necessarily bad but they require careful regulation and oversight in most cases. Sometimes monopolies are the most economically efficient way to do something. But this particular merger doesn't seem to benefit consumers in any meaningful way.
But he also said that that was broken and shouldn't be happening, and that one of his strengths was that he was best positioned to fix it because he knew exactly how it was broken as an insider participant.
Anyone who believe he actually can or will do anything about this is naive to the point of being retarded. Trump will game this to his own best advantage and seek to help his own enterprises and cronies profit. To believe otherwise is idiotic.
I think it's certainly possible that he could block anti-competitive mergers based on his campaign rhetoric, and more importantly, the open contempt for him that establishment insiders had for him and his campaign, Republicans included. He doesn't owe those people *anything*, if anything they owe him -- he delivered the White House *and* the downticket vote.
That's the scary thing. He doesn't owe much so we don't know his motivations. It also means he doesn't have much incentive to actually listen to anyone. For a guy that was openly endorsed by the KKK that's more than a little frightening.
Google is reminding the device makers to follow the USB spec because bad things can happen if they don't. Google is enforcing this compliance with the spec with an implied threat to end doing business with them.
Which is meaningless because it doesn't prevent some no-name generic maker of USB charge cables that doesn't give a flying turd about doing business with Google from trying to shave a few cents off the cost of their cables to boost their bottom line. If there is money to be made by cutting corners then you can be certain that corners will be cut by someone and hilarity will ensue.
I wonder how many of the Galaxy Note 7 fires were using rapid charging.
Interesting question though it wouldn't top my list of possible explanations I don't think it could be ruled out either.
Basically all google is really saying is follow the USB-C standard
It is incredibly naive of Google to trust that third parties will follow the USB-C standard if there is money to be made in not following it. There is an old saying that "people generally don't do what you expect, they do what you inspect". Or as another put it "trust but verify". If it is important enough to worry about then Google should be implementing measures to ensure that it will not work unless they follow the USB-C standard. If the USB-C standard provides no means to check if it is being followed then it is a flawed standard and should (in principle) be scrapped for a better one.
As surprising as this may be...there are quite a lot of conservative, and Christian or with Christian roots, women in America. They are pro-life, not because they want to have their reproductive system controlled by the government, but because they want to prevent other people from killing babies. That is how they see it, whether you spin it that way or not.
Because they want to be a slave. I don't understand why but clearly they do. They are slave to their church and a slave to a theocratic government and a slave to the men in their life. If women want to be free they need the right to control their reproductive system. That includes contraception and abortion. It's not a coincidence that women who have the ability to control their reproductive rights end up being wealthier and more successful and more powerful in society. Women like the ones you describe are clearly content being subservient to men. I find that thoroughly baffling and disheartening but if they only did that for themselves I could live with it. But the problem is that they seem to feel the need to control the reproductive system of women who don't want to be slaves to men.
I find it curious that the party which claims to be in favor of limited government throws that out the window when religion gets involved. They are fine with big government when it comes to keeping women in subservient societal roles. They are perfectly fine with the government telling women what to do with their bodies despite the fact that doing so thoroughly violates what they claim to be their philosophy about government. They are fine with the government getting involved with saying who can get married even though there is no reason for government to have ANY involvement in marriages. They are fine with the government spending endless dollars putting people in prison for recreational drug use or for immigrating to the US for work. The republicans are all about small government unless it violates their personal religion and/or racism and then they are all in on big government. It's hypocritical and reprehensible.
People see Trump as the lesser evil than Clinton. Why is that hard to understand?
Because I have a functional brain. Voting for Trump makes no logical sense unless you are a racist scared white male who is dumb enough to believe that Trump actually can deliver on the absurd and vague "promises" he has conveniently avoided detailing because he has no actual plans. Trump is a climate change denier, opposed to women's rights, racist, xenophobic, disrespectful, petty, and thoroughly unqualified for the job. He has no experience or interest in public service. He doesn't take anything seriously except for his Trump brand and ego.
For me, personal misgivings aren't as important as professional misgivings.
Seriously? You CLEARLY haven't bothered to look at the rap sheet on Trump if you actually believe his professional failures are somehow less odious than those of Clinton.
I would rather a POTUS that the media and congress would hold accountable than not.
Show me ONE example where Trump was held accountable for the horrific things that came out of his mouth. He said things routinely that would have ended the political career of almost anyone else. The media LOVE Trump because they love anyone who makes them money like he does. He's a reliable headline maker and they love him for it - even the bits of the media that hate what he represents.
No, Clinton was was impeached for perjury in front of a Grand Jury, in which he was being investigated for sexual assault
Get real. He was impeached for lying about a blowjob and a sexual harrassment lawsuit which was dismissed. The impeachment was completely a politically motivated hatchet job. I'm not claiming he was clean as a daisy but anyone who actually believes the impeachment had any actual honest justice-seeking motivation is delusional.
an assault that he later paid off with $850,000 and surrender of his law license
He was sued for sexual harassment, not sexual assault and the charges were dismissed. He entered an out-of-court settlement while the case was being appealed to make it go away. He gave up his law license (a meaningless gesture) to make contempt of court charges go away. No Bill Clinton is probably not a decent human being. But let's not pretend that his impeachment proceedings were anything but an act of political opportunism buy other corrupt power seeking politicians.
Just shut the fuck up you stupid piece of shit, did you not see where he said Clinton won his state REGARDLESS of how he voted? Typical Trump supporter: violently ignorant.
Curious to call me a Trump supporter since I voted for Clinton and have posted quite a bit here on slashdot indicating that I think Trump is the worst presidential candidate in my lifetime.
He did not know that she had won his state when he voted so that is an idiotic argument.
It's only interesting if you are a ridiculously partisan Republican. Both of them were impeached for "crimes" that really were covers for an effort to remove them from office for political reasons rather than any actual serious crimes. Basically it tells you that Republicans will fight incredibly dirty and use any tactic no matter how unsavory.
Cool - I'll take that bet. Given what has become the standard for impeachment, anything short of outright murder of another person (and even then, it's OK if you use a drone to kill a US citizen, without trial) won't qualify for impeachment.
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob so the standard is considerably lower than murder. Andrew Johnson was impeached for violating the Tenure of Office Act. Both were actions of political expedience that had essentially nothing to do with any actual crimes.
Impeachment means to accuse - it is a legal statement of charges, basically an indictment. It does not mean to remove a public servant from office. You impeach and then hold a trial to determine if the person is removed from office.
I did not vote for Clinton, either; wouldn't have mattered how I voted, Clinton won my State anyway. But I didn't want that loudmouthed son-of-a-bitch to win, either.
If you didn't vote for Clinton then effectively you voted for Trump whether or not he actually got your vote. Those were the only real world options on the table. There was no third option as much as many of us would like one. Hold your nose and pick one or the other. If you vote third party then you effectively have let someone else vote on your behalf. If you really didn't want Trump to win then your only option was to pick Clinton and vice-versa.
After looking at how many women voted for Trump it doesn't bother many of them I guess.
That's one of the things that really baffles me. How any sane and self respecting woman could vote for Trump absolutely mystifies me. I heard a report this morning that a (slightly) higher percentage of women apparently voted for Obama than voted for Hillary Clinton! Apparently women are totally cool with being demeaned, insulted, objectified, and having their reproductive system controlled by Trump.
Sometimes you don't need complex socio-economic theories to solve a problem, you just need a wall.
There's nothing complex about it. There are more jobs here in the US than there are in Mexico so people come here to find work and feed their families. If there were plenty of jobs in Mexico then you wouldn't see much in the way of illegal immigration.
You shouldn't worry about people coming here to work. You should worry if they stop wanting to come here for work. That means something very bad has happened.
Trump stated that he wanted Apple to make it's products here in the USA. That might be possible with a system of tariffs.
No it will not. Tariffs will not cause that to happen. The USA almost utterly lacks the infrastructure to build products like what Apple makes domestically. The supply chains are almost all in China and various parts of eastern Asia. We lost those a long time ago and they aren't coming back soon. And I'm not even getting into the labor cost differential which absolutely matters. It would cost a fortune to manufacture an iPhone domestically at this point. Even Apple doesn't make enough profit to make that idea feasible.
Under those kinda of pressures I think tech companies might just leave the US.
There is no might. They would be forced to leave.
Old-school big-industry manufacturing is gone. It's not coming back. The only way to rekindle those kinds of jobs is through the development of new products.
Complete nonsense. The USA has a manufacturing sector worth over $3 TRILLION annually. By itself it would be one of the ten largest economies in the world. I've worked in manufacturing for several decades in the US and news of it's demise is greatly exaggerated. The sector has become a shrinking portion of the overall jobs market but there is plenty of manufacturing going on and very profitable manufacturing at that. It's just capital intensive manufacturing rather than labor intensive. If you want to bring back labor intensive manufacturing jobs you had better be prepared to pay low wages competitive with those in China and elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Any smartphone manufacturer who employs cheap (foreign) labor ends up with a competitive advantage over a domestic manufacturer, while still benefiting from the domestic manufacturer's decision to build in the US and employ US workers.
That is correct. As long as the US has wages that substantially exceed those of other countries there will be a strong pull to locate labor intensive jobs in places where labor costs are low. That is why most US based manufacturing is capital intensive instead of labor intensive.
It would be a very good thing if electronics makers were to start building in the US, but without being forced to as a group, it's not going to happen because while all of them building in the US together would have no negative impacts, any of them choosing not to participate would negatively impact those that do.
It would (probably) be a good thing but trade barriers will NOT accomplish that goal. Those industries will only come back to the US for one of three reasons. 1) Technological advancement, 2) Labor costs falling in the US relative to elsewhere or, 3) advances in automation turning labor intensive production into capital intensive production. But since the supply chains for electronics production have spent the last 3-4 decades moving to Asia they aren't going to come back quickly even if they ever do. Asian manufacturers have a currently insurmountable cost advantage so production will stay there until that is overcome. Trade barriers will not in any way erase the cost advantage.
Yes, the Americans could start producing iPhones and cars.
The US makes millions of cars and commercial vehicles every year. Auto manufacturing is alive and well in the US. However high labor costs in the US necessitate a high level of automation in US auto assembly plants so increases in auto production in the US won't result in higher wages or substantially increased employment in the auto assembly plants.
So, basically the economy would go up because of lower unemployment, and down from higher prices..
Faulty analysis. A trade war with China would cause short term unemployment in both the US and China to rise because prices would immediately rise. It would take substantial time for alternative supply chains to be built and high costs would result in fewer product sales and thus fewer jobs. Virtually all economists agree that protecionism is a net negative for the economy as a whole even if it positively impacts select industries. This is economics 101 stuff. Protectionism is almost never a net benefit to a society.
If China were to do such a thing it might... reduce unemployment in the US.
This sort of drivel is why we have Trump in the White House. Idiots who think a naive sound bite is a valid substitute for sane trade policy and economic reality. A trade war with China would do no such thing. In fact it would almost certainly result in increased unemployment and significantly increased prices on a wide variety of goods. China and the US depend heavily on each other economically. A trade war between China and the US would probably result in at minimum a global recession in the best case scenario.
iPhones and other smartphones being made here will probably up the prices slightly, but most of the estimates I've heard are absurd.
No they are not. For one many/most of the key components for smartphones (and laptops and desktops and...) are made in China too. Where do you think you are going to get parts? The supply chain for these does not exist in the US or EU. Worse China has a monopoly on rare earth minerals without which you cannot build many modern electronics. The US has reserves of these but re-opening the mines for these would not happen overnight.
Trump starting a trade war would drive up prices dramatically on a huge amount of goods and would almost instantly trigger a recession or depression. It would be catastrophically stupid of him to do that. A trade war would benefit no one and it sure as hell would not increase net jobs in the US.
I'd also suspect that the increased wages (higher demand for employees = fewer minimum wage jobs) would more than offset the price increases you'd see.
No it would not. The number of extra people who would be employed by this wouldn't offset the extra cost of production. That is why it is being produced in China now. If that were not true then we would already see production happening here in the US. Furthermore having a few people making higher wages doesn't help the millions who would have to pay more for the product itself. I don't work for Apple or a smartphone manufacturing company so someone else having higher wages doesn't help me one bit.
Because security is soooooooo hard!
For a lot of people it is. For those who make their living doing IT it might seem rather straightforward but that's a tiny percentage of the population. Like any task that is outside your domain of expertise even easy things can seem hard if you don't know enough to ask the right questions. And frankly even most IT pros really aren't experts in security despite what they might tell you.
The "most secure Windows ever" still requires a lot of security updates, which means it really isn't all that secure.
Every major operating system requires security updates including Windows, linux, Android, iOS, OS X, and the rest. You will not find a non-trivial piece of operating system software that does not require security patches from time to time.
Security that the USER cannot control is not what **i** would call a selling point
A fine stance if you are a a technically competent IT pro or equivalent. However for the 99+% of the people out there who don't fit that description, having the security handled by the system vendor can actually be a good idea. Microsoft can do a better job of it than my mother can. (yes I know... stop snickering) The VAST majority of users don't have the foggiest idea how to properly secure their computers nor any meaningful interest in learning. Having the option of user control for those with the ability is a good idea but probably not a good default for most users. Microsoft may not do a great job but they'll probably do a better job than the majority of users (which is kind of a sad commentary but it is reality). It only is a problem if they deny competent users the ability to control security when the need arises.
A New York-based startup called EnGoPlanet has installed four streetlights in a plaza off the Las Vegas Strip that are powered exclusively by solar and kinetic energy. The installations aren't mere streetlights though -- they also power a variety of environmental monitors, support video surveillance, and, for the masses, offer USB ports for device charging.
While this sounds like a neat technical proof-of-concept, I cannot imagine that it would be economically viable for an application like this. The tiles would have to be be impossibly cheap for this to cost even close to the cost of grid power. I could see potential uses for the technology (emergency power comes to mind) but this particular application doesn't seem optimum. Might be a great way to prove the concept though and test it in a heavy utilization environment.
When you make your money based on correcting a defect in a product you shouldn't be surprised when the company making the defect gives away a solution. The only real surprise is that it's taken Microsoft so long to acknowledge the malware problem with a product.
It's like the people who built businesses on refilling overpriced ink cartridges for inkjets. Sure they might make some money but it's a flimsy business model. They could be put out of business tomorrow by companies like HP simply dropping the price of their ink. It's an artificial problem and businesses built around artificial problems are easily crushed.
If we don't know his motivations, how do you "know" that he will use the Presidency to game his own business interests?
How do I know a guy who has spent a lifetime focused on making money and plastering his name on everything he can, bragging about how rich he is and how he games the system, and turning himself into a brand will pursue his own interests? You have to be an idiot to think he would do anything else. Maybe he'll surprise us all but I very much doubt it.
I guess I'm more on the side where he doesn't seem to have motivation to get rich (he's already rich) nor does he have the motivation to need to impress anyone or curry favor
Rich people always want to get richer. There never seems to be a limit where enough is enough. And he now can perfectly legally engage in insider trading just like congress can.
A leader with no checks or balances stands every chance of becoming a despot or an American analog of one. With a republican congress what's to really stop him from trampling the civil rights of millions of minorities? Who will keep him from trashing the environment? Who is to keep him from removing health insurance from millions of people? Who will protect the reproductive and civil rights of women? Who will keep the religious crazies out of schools? These are not idle or hypothetical questions any more.
And really, what does the unsolicited endorsement of KKK loonies have to do with it?
Because nobody knows what he really stands for aside from himself, and even that is in question. Groups like the KKK look at him and see him as their guy. Given the racist, xenophobic drivel that has come out of his mouth why wouldn't hey. It's just an example but hardly the only one. He's like those actors who don't actually emote much so people can project themselves on to them. Nobody actually knows what the guy thinks and that is terrifying in someone who is being given the most important job in the world.
Trump had to skirt some horrid regulations.
Not sure which regulations you are referring to but whichever they are they were horrid in his opinion. Not an opinion that is universally shared. Regulations usually exist for a reason and getting rid of regulations just because the are inconvenient for Donald Trump isn't enough of a reason.
I too, doubt he will do anything bad for the economy.
Based on what? You have NO idea what he's going to do. Nobody does. Most of the crap that has come out of his mouth has been ill-considered if not outright harmful and he changes positions more often than most people change their pants. He tells transparent and easily refuted lies on a routine basis about topics that he clearly doesn't understand and refuses to listen to others about.
But monopolies are bad for the economy.
Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. A monopoly in and of itself isn't necessarily bad but they require careful regulation and oversight in most cases. Sometimes monopolies are the most economically efficient way to do something. But this particular merger doesn't seem to benefit consumers in any meaningful way.
But he also said that that was broken and shouldn't be happening, and that one of his strengths was that he was best positioned to fix it because he knew exactly how it was broken as an insider participant.
Anyone who believe he actually can or will do anything about this is naive to the point of being retarded. Trump will game this to his own best advantage and seek to help his own enterprises and cronies profit. To believe otherwise is idiotic.
I think it's certainly possible that he could block anti-competitive mergers based on his campaign rhetoric, and more importantly, the open contempt for him that establishment insiders had for him and his campaign, Republicans included. He doesn't owe those people *anything*, if anything they owe him -- he delivered the White House *and* the downticket vote.
That's the scary thing. He doesn't owe much so we don't know his motivations. It also means he doesn't have much incentive to actually listen to anyone. For a guy that was openly endorsed by the KKK that's more than a little frightening.
Google is reminding the device makers to follow the USB spec because bad things can happen if they don't. Google is enforcing this compliance with the spec with an implied threat to end doing business with them.
Which is meaningless because it doesn't prevent some no-name generic maker of USB charge cables that doesn't give a flying turd about doing business with Google from trying to shave a few cents off the cost of their cables to boost their bottom line. If there is money to be made by cutting corners then you can be certain that corners will be cut by someone and hilarity will ensue.
I wonder how many of the Galaxy Note 7 fires were using rapid charging.
Interesting question though it wouldn't top my list of possible explanations I don't think it could be ruled out either.
Basically all google is really saying is follow the USB-C standard
It is incredibly naive of Google to trust that third parties will follow the USB-C standard if there is money to be made in not following it. There is an old saying that "people generally don't do what you expect, they do what you inspect". Or as another put it "trust but verify". If it is important enough to worry about then Google should be implementing measures to ensure that it will not work unless they follow the USB-C standard. If the USB-C standard provides no means to check if it is being followed then it is a flawed standard and should (in principle) be scrapped for a better one.
As surprising as this may be...there are quite a lot of conservative, and Christian or with Christian roots, women in America. They are pro-life, not because they want to have their reproductive system controlled by the government, but because they want to prevent other people from killing babies. That is how they see it, whether you spin it that way or not.
Because they want to be a slave. I don't understand why but clearly they do. They are slave to their church and a slave to a theocratic government and a slave to the men in their life. If women want to be free they need the right to control their reproductive system. That includes contraception and abortion. It's not a coincidence that women who have the ability to control their reproductive rights end up being wealthier and more successful and more powerful in society. Women like the ones you describe are clearly content being subservient to men. I find that thoroughly baffling and disheartening but if they only did that for themselves I could live with it. But the problem is that they seem to feel the need to control the reproductive system of women who don't want to be slaves to men.
I find it curious that the party which claims to be in favor of limited government throws that out the window when religion gets involved. They are fine with big government when it comes to keeping women in subservient societal roles. They are perfectly fine with the government telling women what to do with their bodies despite the fact that doing so thoroughly violates what they claim to be their philosophy about government. They are fine with the government getting involved with saying who can get married even though there is no reason for government to have ANY involvement in marriages. They are fine with the government spending endless dollars putting people in prison for recreational drug use or for immigrating to the US for work. The republicans are all about small government unless it violates their personal religion and/or racism and then they are all in on big government. It's hypocritical and reprehensible.
People see Trump as the lesser evil than Clinton. Why is that hard to understand?
Because I have a functional brain. Voting for Trump makes no logical sense unless you are a racist scared white male who is dumb enough to believe that Trump actually can deliver on the absurd and vague "promises" he has conveniently avoided detailing because he has no actual plans. Trump is a climate change denier, opposed to women's rights, racist, xenophobic, disrespectful, petty, and thoroughly unqualified for the job. He has no experience or interest in public service. He doesn't take anything seriously except for his Trump brand and ego.
For me, personal misgivings aren't as important as professional misgivings.
Seriously? You CLEARLY haven't bothered to look at the rap sheet on Trump if you actually believe his professional failures are somehow less odious than those of Clinton.
I would rather a POTUS that the media and congress would hold accountable than not.
Show me ONE example where Trump was held accountable for the horrific things that came out of his mouth. He said things routinely that would have ended the political career of almost anyone else. The media LOVE Trump because they love anyone who makes them money like he does. He's a reliable headline maker and they love him for it - even the bits of the media that hate what he represents.
No, Clinton was was impeached for perjury in front of a Grand Jury, in which he was being investigated for sexual assault
Get real. He was impeached for lying about a blowjob and a sexual harrassment lawsuit which was dismissed. The impeachment was completely a politically motivated hatchet job. I'm not claiming he was clean as a daisy but anyone who actually believes the impeachment had any actual honest justice-seeking motivation is delusional.
an assault that he later paid off with $850,000 and surrender of his law license
He was sued for sexual harassment, not sexual assault and the charges were dismissed. He entered an out-of-court settlement while the case was being appealed to make it go away. He gave up his law license (a meaningless gesture) to make contempt of court charges go away. No Bill Clinton is probably not a decent human being. But let's not pretend that his impeachment proceedings were anything but an act of political opportunism buy other corrupt power seeking politicians.
Just shut the fuck up you stupid piece of shit, did you not see where he said Clinton won his state REGARDLESS of how he voted? Typical Trump supporter: violently ignorant.
Curious to call me a Trump supporter since I voted for Clinton and have posted quite a bit here on slashdot indicating that I think Trump is the worst presidential candidate in my lifetime.
He did not know that she had won his state when he voted so that is an idiotic argument.
Interestingly, both were Democrats.
It's only interesting if you are a ridiculously partisan Republican. Both of them were impeached for "crimes" that really were covers for an effort to remove them from office for political reasons rather than any actual serious crimes. Basically it tells you that Republicans will fight incredibly dirty and use any tactic no matter how unsavory.
Cool - I'll take that bet. Given what has become the standard for impeachment, anything short of outright murder of another person (and even then, it's OK if you use a drone to kill a US citizen, without trial) won't qualify for impeachment.
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob so the standard is considerably lower than murder. Andrew Johnson was impeached for violating the Tenure of Office Act. Both were actions of political expedience that had essentially nothing to do with any actual crimes.
Impeachment means to accuse - it is a legal statement of charges, basically an indictment. It does not mean to remove a public servant from office. You impeach and then hold a trial to determine if the person is removed from office.
I did not vote for Clinton, either; wouldn't have mattered how I voted, Clinton won my State anyway. But I didn't want that loudmouthed son-of-a-bitch to win, either.
If you didn't vote for Clinton then effectively you voted for Trump whether or not he actually got your vote. Those were the only real world options on the table. There was no third option as much as many of us would like one. Hold your nose and pick one or the other. If you vote third party then you effectively have let someone else vote on your behalf. If you really didn't want Trump to win then your only option was to pick Clinton and vice-versa.
After looking at how many women voted for Trump it doesn't bother many of them I guess.
That's one of the things that really baffles me. How any sane and self respecting woman could vote for Trump absolutely mystifies me. I heard a report this morning that a (slightly) higher percentage of women apparently voted for Obama than voted for Hillary Clinton! Apparently women are totally cool with being demeaned, insulted, objectified, and having their reproductive system controlled by Trump.
Britain slips down to number 2 in the stupidest country rankings.
That's because we played our Trump card... ahem...
Sometimes you don't need complex socio-economic theories to solve a problem, you just need a wall.
There's nothing complex about it. There are more jobs here in the US than there are in Mexico so people come here to find work and feed their families. If there were plenty of jobs in Mexico then you wouldn't see much in the way of illegal immigration.
You shouldn't worry about people coming here to work. You should worry if they stop wanting to come here for work. That means something very bad has happened.
It might also be possible with less regulation, lower labor costs, and lower corporate taxes
Translation: More corporate abuse and pollution, trampling worker rights, and a bigger national debt.
The costs abroad are only lower because we have artificially inflated US costs.
Only if you don't care about things like living wages, clean air, clean water, preventing corporate malfeasance, etc.
Trump stated that he wanted Apple to make it's products here in the USA. That might be possible with a system of tariffs.
No it will not. Tariffs will not cause that to happen. The USA almost utterly lacks the infrastructure to build products like what Apple makes domestically. The supply chains are almost all in China and various parts of eastern Asia. We lost those a long time ago and they aren't coming back soon. And I'm not even getting into the labor cost differential which absolutely matters. It would cost a fortune to manufacture an iPhone domestically at this point. Even Apple doesn't make enough profit to make that idea feasible.
Under those kinda of pressures I think tech companies might just leave the US.
There is no might. They would be forced to leave.
Old-school big-industry manufacturing is gone. It's not coming back. The only way to rekindle those kinds of jobs is through the development of new products.
Complete nonsense. The USA has a manufacturing sector worth over $3 TRILLION annually. By itself it would be one of the ten largest economies in the world. I've worked in manufacturing for several decades in the US and news of it's demise is greatly exaggerated. The sector has become a shrinking portion of the overall jobs market but there is plenty of manufacturing going on and very profitable manufacturing at that. It's just capital intensive manufacturing rather than labor intensive. If you want to bring back labor intensive manufacturing jobs you had better be prepared to pay low wages competitive with those in China and elsewhere.