And now that China has external supply lines they are reorganizing and rebuilding their military so that they can defend those supply lines. Plus they are engaging in quite a bit of neocolonialism in the acquisition of those resources.
The fact that you have to conflate such national security interests with trade policy is a great example of how vacuous your position on trade is. Yes, a fruitless conversation with respect to convincing you, but in case another is reading there is value in not letting your misrepresentations stand.
The ongoing Chinese involvement in operations and the participation in a national plan of action is far grander, more integrated (govt/priv), and more supervised that in the US. Its taking things to an entirely new level.
That one example is not an outlier. Such actions are part of a national plan of action and common. The US auto bailout was a one off event, unlike the Chinese actions with respect to this one Foxconn plant.
Plus we haven't event gone near the forced partnerships, the forced technology transfers, the state owned enterprises, etc. Your assertion the US is similar in operations is ludicrous. China takes things to a higher level. The US Congress giving their contributors in the oil industry tax breaks is something far different. Get back to me when the US gov't builds the oil platforms, staffs the private company that will operate the platform, directly monitor operations, set production quotas and reward/punish as quotas are met or missed.
That is just one example and it demonstrate that China is going far beyond tax breaks and is involved in ongoing operations and is assigning production quotas to meet a larger national goal. This is a scale and a level of coordination far beyond anything going on in the US.
The scale of the practices involved?? Are you shitting me? The scale of US subsidies for its industries vastly exceeds the scale of subsidies in China (and every other country in the world).
You are woefully ignorant.
"The local government has proved instrumental, doling out more than $1.5 billion to Foxconn to build large sections of the factory and nearby employee housing. It paved roads and built power plants. It helps cover continuing energy and transportation costs for the operation. It recruits workers for the assembly line. It pays bonuses to the factory for meeting export targets. All of it in support of iPhone production." https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1...
You listed a bunch of things you said were "unfair trading practices"; now you appear to be describing China's use of them as unfair, but America's as fair because you do it less, and they did it first.
Nope. I'm saying that a checklist perspective is a naive and inadequate perspective. The magnitude also needs to be gauged when considering whether a "predatory" line has been crossed of not.
How many gen ed (or whatever you call them, we don't have them) courses are you going to take? Fewer than the number of departments, I'd suspect.
You can't predict departments. Say general ed requires a four unit biology class, some qualifying classes will come from departments other than biology. For example a geology class that focuses on paleontology. Much of general ed works this way, specifying an area of study not a department.
...but why exactly would I want one of these? I can already sit at my pc which I am almost always in front of at home, or whip out my phone, to order stuff on Amazon. I don't understand what value these speakers add to my life.
Think of the quadraphonic stereo early adopters of the 60s/70s. Everyone will have these soon they said.
Setting aside the microphone privacy problem, these speakers are also self configuring for stereo and/or quad. Just plop them down in somewhat arbitrary convenient locations and they will self configure themselves to properly "flood" the room with sound. Its not a bad idea and it is something quite separate from "gizmo, order milk from amazon".
This list is an excellent example of how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. At least five of those practices are not only not unfair trade practices per se, they are also practised extensively by the US, which understandably regards the ability to do these things as the rightful exercise of power by a sovereign nation.
Yes, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, as you just demonstrated by failing to consider the scale of the practices involved. Plus you also fail to consider that the sovereign nature of China's actions do not justify keeping our policies open, and that we are talking about a reciprocal response not bombing them.
Reciprocity is at the core of Trump's approach. If you are open to us we will be open to you, if you erect barriers we will erect barriers.
The simplest solution is to allow professors to host only students of different majors so that it's very unlikely they will ever be in a class together.
The UC system is not a trade school, it is a university, you will be taking classes outside of your major so that you acquire a broad and more complete education.
The "meadow" may be legally off limits due to the agreement by which the land was donated to the UC system. Other UC and CSU campuses have such provisions/restrictions, perhaps here too?
Santa Cruz is not Silicon Valley. It is a coastal community with hills and forests and mountains between it and Silicon Valley. The UC campus is semi secluded and borders forest and fields that are preserves or otherwise legally not developable. Its not like other UC campuses that were literally built on the edge of town and were quickly surrounded by apartments within walking distance of campus.
There must be an exception for students who live locally. Myself and friends who applied to our local (local as living in the same town as the campus) UC campus and no others had no problems getting in. 3 CS, 2 EE, decades ago.
No problem a decade ago with a different UC campus that was local to home and work, again, all three in the same town. Grad school this time.
Decades ago the most economical housing solution was getting together with three others you knew and trust and the four of you rent a four bedroom house near campus. Not sure how practical this is today.
I wonder how this trade war will end, given that the US borrows a trillion dollars a year from China and others every year just to function.
China needs to buy those US Bonds to manage its currency exchange rate. China is awash in dollars due to the trade imbalance. This would normally depress the value of the dollar in China and increase the value of the yuan. That would increase the price of their services and exports, decrease the price of US imports. Keep in mind, the savings experienced by manufacturing in China is not simply labor costs. It is basically everything is on sale due to the currency manipulations, raw materials, services, etc. A weaker yuan is needed to support this export friendly situation.
To keep the yuan low compared to the dollar China needs to get their dollars "of their books". Buying US Bonds does this. Its an accounting gimmick, but a legal and long established one.
Santa Cruz is part of the University of California system. It doesn't need to move. There are other UC campuses across the state. As well as numerous California State University system campuses as well.
Santa Cruz's draw is that it is in low density coastal forested hilly region. It is not like San Francisco nor Silicon Valley.
Define "quickly" and "slowly". Both are just a few seconds, right? Because if someone thought slowly meant over an hour for payment transaction, I would disregard their opinion.
You seem unfamiliar with the bitcoin system. New blocks in the blockchain take about 10 minutes to create. Confirmation of a transaction is often 6 verifying blocks so that is about an hour. So "quickly" is about an hour. You could go with less than 6 confirmations but then one is acting more on faith and less on verification. During the recently crisis where a lack of capacity caused fees to skyrocket, offering only a modest fee rather than the highly inflated fee could cause verification to take many hours, double digit hour, sometime a day or more.
Solutions to increase transaction capacity are being tested.
The fee is not flat as in predefined and relatively constant, it is flat in the sense that it doesn't matter what the amount being transferred is, as you say not a percentage. However that fee is based on bidding. When the system is overloaded one can offer a higher fee to make sure one's transaction gets processed quickly. This can create a bidding war and drive the fees up.
Also when bitcoin prices experience one of those occasional exponential increases the fees do not necessarily decline proportionally to the bitcoin/fiat exchange (ex. dollar price) increase, as you indicate the fee is denominated in a fractional bitcoin not in fiat. So such exponential price increases effectively drive up the fee from the perspective of fiat prices (USD, EUR, etc).
The transaction fees spiked upwards when the volume of transactions was overloading the system but that was temporary. And the capacity of the system is being addressed.
And the high fees were not required unless you wanted a transaction to go through quickly. Offer a lower fee and it will likely still get processed more slowly, the lower the fee the more time required. During this past "fee crisis" many people simply waited for a day or time of day when the load on the system was not that great.
You should never have gone with payment in Bitcoin in the first place.
That is untrue, I did some work for a mining operation. Coins were a convenient option for them and a fast payment method for me. I submitted an invoice in US dollars. When they were ready to pay they emailed or phoned, we agreed on an exchange rate and in minutes the USD equivalent in coins was sent. I immediately exchanged those coins upon receipt for USD.
I received an IRS 1099 from them using my billed USD amounts. I filed my IRS 1040 with my billed USD amounts as income (basis for coins) plus a gain/loss on an asset that represented whatever minor deviation of USD I received from exchanging the coins (realized) compared to the basis (billed) amount. So coins (assets) accounted for on my taxes, no fear on my part when the IRS gathers data from exchanges.
And there is no risk in losing $10K if you simply buy and transfer bitcoins as needed rather than holding for years. And you are assured of having saved $35K rather than $25K or less. Recall that your three years of salary quickly turned into one year of salary so you will have to buy more coins to pay for years two and three. Hopefully you will have learned to buy as needed or we might get deep in "less".
Actually, I understood your comment and the direction you were coming from. And the conversation is still over your head. Focus on errors and unintended consequences of genetic engineering and a potential catastrophe occurring in the species. Then perhaps you will see the connection you are missing. Again, my fault for making such an obscure and subtle comment. But lets not pretend you are getting anything yet, your "bridge" does nothing more that demonstrate you are not getting it.
I get it worked out well but my point was that buying $15,000 in bitcoin could just as easily left the company with $4,000. Its not like a 75% drop and plateauing at that "corrected" level for several years in unprecedented. There must have been an interesting "risk analysis" for that decision.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Segregating would be a good compromise. Let all the DXVK players mingle with each other.
The two or three that are logged in at the same time? :-)
And now that China has external supply lines they are reorganizing and rebuilding their military so that they can defend those supply lines. Plus they are engaging in quite a bit of neocolonialism in the acquisition of those resources.
The fact that you have to conflate such national security interests with trade policy is a great example of how vacuous your position on trade is. Yes, a fruitless conversation with respect to convincing you, but in case another is reading there is value in not letting your misrepresentations stand.
The ongoing Chinese involvement in operations and the participation in a national plan of action is far grander, more integrated (govt/priv), and more supervised that in the US. Its taking things to an entirely new level.
That one example is not an outlier. Such actions are part of a national plan of action and common. The US auto bailout was a one off event, unlike the Chinese actions with respect to this one Foxconn plant.
Plus we haven't event gone near the forced partnerships, the forced technology transfers, the state owned enterprises, etc. Your assertion the US is similar in operations is ludicrous. China takes things to a higher level. The US Congress giving their contributors in the oil industry tax breaks is something far different. Get back to me when the US gov't builds the oil platforms, staffs the private company that will operate the platform, directly monitor operations, set production quotas and reward/punish as quotas are met or missed.
That is just one example and it demonstrate that China is going far beyond tax breaks and is involved in ongoing operations and is assigning production quotas to meet a larger national goal. This is a scale and a level of coordination far beyond anything going on in the US.
The scale of the practices involved?? Are you shitting me? The scale of US subsidies for its industries vastly exceeds the scale of subsidies in China (and every other country in the world).
You are woefully ignorant.
"The local government has proved instrumental, doling out more than $1.5 billion to Foxconn to build large sections of the factory and nearby employee housing. It paved roads and built power plants. It helps cover continuing energy and transportation costs for the operation. It recruits workers for the assembly line. It pays bonuses to the factory for meeting export targets. All of it in support of iPhone production."
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1...
You listed a bunch of things you said were "unfair trading practices"; now you appear to be describing China's use of them as unfair, but America's as fair because you do it less, and they did it first.
Nope. I'm saying that a checklist perspective is a naive and inadequate perspective. The magnitude also needs to be gauged when considering whether a "predatory" line has been crossed of not.
My understanding is that they are not so bound in this instance.
Meaning specifically this meadow? I'm somewhat confident some of the land around UCSC consists of some type of preserves.
How many gen ed (or whatever you call them, we don't have them) courses are you going to take? Fewer than the number of departments, I'd suspect.
You can't predict departments. Say general ed requires a four unit biology class, some qualifying classes will come from departments other than biology. For example a geology class that focuses on paleontology. Much of general ed works this way, specifying an area of study not a department.
...but why exactly would I want one of these? I can already sit at my pc which I am almost always in front of at home, or whip out my phone, to order stuff on Amazon. I don't understand what value these speakers add to my life.
Think of the quadraphonic stereo early adopters of the 60s/70s. Everyone will have these soon they said.
Setting aside the microphone privacy problem, these speakers are also self configuring for stereo and/or quad. Just plop them down in somewhat arbitrary convenient locations and they will self configure themselves to properly "flood" the room with sound. Its not a bad idea and it is something quite separate from "gizmo, order milk from amazon".
This list is an excellent example of how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. At least five of those practices are not only not unfair trade practices per se, they are also practised extensively by the US, which understandably regards the ability to do these things as the rightful exercise of power by a sovereign nation.
Yes, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, as you just demonstrated by failing to consider the scale of the practices involved. Plus you also fail to consider that the sovereign nature of China's actions do not justify keeping our policies open, and that we are talking about a reciprocal response not bombing them.
Reciprocity is at the core of Trump's approach. If you are open to us we will be open to you, if you erect barriers we will erect barriers.
The simplest solution is to allow professors to host only students of different majors so that it's very unlikely they will ever be in a class together.
The UC system is not a trade school, it is a university, you will be taking classes outside of your major so that you acquire a broad and more complete education.
The "meadow" may be legally off limits due to the agreement by which the land was donated to the UC system. Other UC and CSU campuses have such provisions/restrictions, perhaps here too?
Santa Cruz is not Silicon Valley. It is a coastal community with hills and forests and mountains between it and Silicon Valley. The UC campus is semi secluded and borders forest and fields that are preserves or otherwise legally not developable. Its not like other UC campuses that were literally built on the edge of town and were quickly surrounded by apartments within walking distance of campus.
There must be an exception for students who live locally. Myself and friends who applied to our local (local as living in the same town as the campus) UC campus and no others had no problems getting in. 3 CS, 2 EE, decades ago.
No problem a decade ago with a different UC campus that was local to home and work, again, all three in the same town. Grad school this time.
Decades ago the most economical housing solution was getting together with three others you knew and trust and the four of you rent a four bedroom house near campus. Not sure how practical this is today.
I wonder how this trade war will end, given that the US borrows a trillion dollars a year from China and others every year just to function.
China needs to buy those US Bonds to manage its currency exchange rate. China is awash in dollars due to the trade imbalance. This would normally depress the value of the dollar in China and increase the value of the yuan. That would increase the price of their services and exports, decrease the price of US imports. Keep in mind, the savings experienced by manufacturing in China is not simply labor costs. It is basically everything is on sale due to the currency manipulations, raw materials, services, etc. A weaker yuan is needed to support this export friendly situation.
To keep the yuan low compared to the dollar China needs to get their dollars "of their books". Buying US Bonds does this. Its an accounting gimmick, but a legal and long established one.
A short list:
Currency manipulation.
Forced technology transfers.
Forced local partnerships.
Predatory pricing.
IP theft.
Industrial espionage.
Subsidized state-owned enterprises.
Export subsidies.
Regulations designed to bar foreign products.
etc...
People will still buy them at the same rate they do now.
Imagine the horror if they did not, upgrading their iPhone every three years instead of two.
Santa Cruz is part of the University of California system. It doesn't need to move. There are other UC campuses across the state. As well as numerous California State University system campuses as well.
Santa Cruz's draw is that it is in low density coastal forested hilly region. It is not like San Francisco nor Silicon Valley.
He's following the example of Steve Wozniak of Apple fame who left Apple and became a school teacher.
Define "quickly" and "slowly". Both are just a few seconds, right? Because if someone thought slowly meant over an hour for payment transaction, I would disregard their opinion.
You seem unfamiliar with the bitcoin system. New blocks in the blockchain take about 10 minutes to create. Confirmation of a transaction is often 6 verifying blocks so that is about an hour. So "quickly" is about an hour. You could go with less than 6 confirmations but then one is acting more on faith and less on verification. During the recently crisis where a lack of capacity caused fees to skyrocket, offering only a modest fee rather than the highly inflated fee could cause verification to take many hours, double digit hour, sometime a day or more.
Solutions to increase transaction capacity are being tested.
The fee is not flat as in predefined and relatively constant, it is flat in the sense that it doesn't matter what the amount being transferred is, as you say not a percentage. However that fee is based on bidding. When the system is overloaded one can offer a higher fee to make sure one's transaction gets processed quickly. This can create a bidding war and drive the fees up.
Also when bitcoin prices experience one of those occasional exponential increases the fees do not necessarily decline proportionally to the bitcoin/fiat exchange (ex. dollar price) increase, as you indicate the fee is denominated in a fractional bitcoin not in fiat. So such exponential price increases effectively drive up the fee from the perspective of fiat prices (USD, EUR, etc).
The transaction fees spiked upwards when the volume of transactions was overloading the system but that was temporary. And the capacity of the system is being addressed.
And the high fees were not required unless you wanted a transaction to go through quickly. Offer a lower fee and it will likely still get processed more slowly, the lower the fee the more time required. During this past "fee crisis" many people simply waited for a day or time of day when the load on the system was not that great.
You should never have gone with payment in Bitcoin in the first place.
That is untrue, I did some work for a mining operation. Coins were a convenient option for them and a fast payment method for me. I submitted an invoice in US dollars. When they were ready to pay they emailed or phoned, we agreed on an exchange rate and in minutes the USD equivalent in coins was sent. I immediately exchanged those coins upon receipt for USD.
I received an IRS 1099 from them using my billed USD amounts. I filed my IRS 1040 with my billed USD amounts as income (basis for coins) plus a gain/loss on an asset that represented whatever minor deviation of USD I received from exchanging the coins (realized) compared to the basis (billed) amount. So coins (assets) accounted for on my taxes, no fear on my part when the IRS gathers data from exchanges.
And there is no risk in losing $10K if you simply buy and transfer bitcoins as needed rather than holding for years. And you are assured of having saved $35K rather than $25K or less. Recall that your three years of salary quickly turned into one year of salary so you will have to buy more coins to pay for years two and three. Hopefully you will have learned to buy as needed or we might get deep in "less".
Actually, I understood your comment and the direction you were coming from. And the conversation is still over your head. Focus on errors and unintended consequences of genetic engineering and a potential catastrophe occurring in the species. Then perhaps you will see the connection you are missing. Again, my fault for making such an obscure and subtle comment. But lets not pretend you are getting anything yet, your "bridge" does nothing more that demonstrate you are not getting it.
I get it worked out well but my point was that buying $15,000 in bitcoin could just as easily left the company with $4,000. Its not like a 75% drop and plateauing at that "corrected" level for several years in unprecedented. There must have been an interesting "risk analysis" for that decision. :-)