I think that overall this is a good point, but I've seen many people who make their living doing hard science who, once they open their mouths, start putting their personal credibility where it does not yet belong.
Although I don't do it for a living, I'm dedicated to science and it's progress and I have a real love for both the process and the results. But I'm afraid that one of the biggest factors that has made science vulnerable to inroads by fundamentalists is that scientists have, of late, embrace three (admittedly hastily constructed) levels of credibility on scientific subjects:
1) We very strongly believe this is true because it has been repeatedly verified through controlled experimentation.
2) We very strongly believe this is true because it can be strongly inferred from existing verified data.
3) We understand that we don't have all the facts, but we are critical thinkers for a living and our theories are worthier than your theories.
Number 1 is where scientists should be, but in debates, articles, and various other discussions on the battle between religion a science I have seen prominent and credible scientists arguing 2 and sadly, much more often 3. I understand it, but many scientist should reign themselves in.
Understand, I'm not saying don't fight, just that we should fight from our position of greatest strength, which is being "fundamentalist" about the scientific method. If we can teach kids, or anyone, how it works and why we're devoted to it, all the while showing by example how to be scientific in thought, then we win.
There's plenty of room for religion in the world even with hard science, and there's plenty of amazement and wonder to be had in science too. I just don't want to see scientists try to expand their own role in human exploration way beyond the data.
"...in the unlikely event of power loss or a RoboDoor(tm) failure, you have also been supplied with a RoboKey(tm), which is based on a time-tested RoboCylinder(tm) technology. It is suggested that you hide the RoboKey in a secure yet accessible location, such as a magnetic case under the bumper of your car or a plastic rock in your garden."
Wow, a robot that detects snipers after they've fired their first shot.
Maybe they could use this technology in other applications, like detecting suicide bombers from the sound of the blasting cap that sets off the dynamite. Or maybe a robot that catches serial killers by counting the victims -- once they reach eight it sets off an alarm.
But I'd assert that late entry is exactly their model.
They have a huge war chest of pure cash, so they let other companies (even large and agressive ones like Google) do their market testing for them. They watch how the market responds, watch what goes right and wrong, and then only after it makes sense do they enter the market using overwhelming amounts of money and market position. If all else fails, they end up buying companies that own technology or experience flat out, but there's never any question that they should be in the market, because someone like Google tested it (and took the risks) on their own dime.
Being an innovator is cool and it's why we all love Google, but I wouldn't underestimate how much greater is the advantage of an informed and tested market entry over the first-mover advantage, and from the late adoption of the Internet on forward Microsoft has shown that they understand this too.
Also because most people will probably start reading their mission reports with enthusiasm and good intentions, but then about halfway through decided they've had enough and go read People magazine.
I'd like to propose a new game here on Slashdot, called "Six Degrees of Microsoft." The objective is to relate *any* story, from browser exploits, to RFID tags, to new features on Google maps back to some oversight, corruption, or other evil perpetrated by Microsoft.
Understand, I'm not even saying I necessarily disagree with the parent post, I just think that every Slashdot post in the future should have at least one response titled "Six Degrees of Microsoft." Firefox/IE posts are easy, but "GBA SP Updated with Brighter Backlit Screen" might be a bit more of a challenge.
On behalf of the entire Slashdot Community, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to so carefully craft responses to our questions. It's thoughtful respondents like you that make our workday such a pleasure.
It's with some dismay, however, that I can anticipate that certain members of our community may choose not to respect some simple guidelines that we have established to make this board a fun and informative place for everyone. They are likely to accuse you of being a "marketing droid" or a "PR hack" or a "community-college intern" or having "screwed your way to the middle" or being "functionally retarded" or having "your head up your ass" or your "hand down your pants" or having "your other hand up your boss's ass" or various other unpleasant and discourteous phrases for implying that your responses were less than substantive.
Please be assured that our Moderation System(tm) is designed to specifically addresses many of these users, and simply because you may see a few of these discourteous posts with "+5 Insightful" does not mean we are not working very hard behind the scenes to make sure that this is a fair and objective forum for all involved.
Again, thank you so much for taking the time to respond. We look forward to hearing from you again in the future.
Well I'm not an engineer, but let's at least agree that the goal here is to make something cold in an environment with few available resources. For purposes of this discussion I will admit that his idea is not yet fully baked, although that's why I believe the focus was on potential applications if the problems could be solved, rather than "we're rolling this out next week. That is not the problem, however, with what you and your bandwagon-mate were advocating, which was, as the title says, "Why not just make electricity?"
So, for the purposes of this discussion, why don't I give you your solution -- all the electricity you want by way of special magic crystals that generate household current when mixed with water. These are absolutely free and something you can take to individual villages. Even better than generator turbines in a million RPM vortex tube.
But now that you have all you want, what are you going to connect your electricity to? An air conditioner? A refrigerator? An electric ice maker? How much do those cost? How complicated are they to repair? Are you going to drop one off in a village with some magic crystals and say 'This all works great, but you're on your own when the compressor fails, because that's going to mean $300 and a trip into The City..."
This thing is just a tube, that when you blow air into it colder air comes out. No infrastructure, no wiring, no ball-bearings, nothing to fail. It's a cool little thing waiting for someone to hack a solution to the inbound pressure problem. It's not the solution to everything, it is a small potential solution to a specific problem. If you find or design a range of gas pressure sources that fit its use, that are simpler and/or cheaper and/or just better suited than a generator and a refrigerator, even if it isn't as efficient, then you've made a step forward.
So please understand, I was not trying to suggest that he, or anyone, be immune from scrutiny. Instead I was scrutinizing, criticizing, and as a result mocking your particular contribution which was shallow in a way that was independent of the merits of his project.
---------- "I couldn't help but notice that loom you were using yesterday was horribly inefficient. So, as a gift to your village, I stayed up all night and converted it into an electric generator!"
"Our loom? A generator? What would we do with a generator?"
"Oh, so many things. I, for example, use electricity to run my refrigerator and a rotisserie grill I bought from the television, and let me say that with the amount of game you guys eat, you might look into that grill...
"But how will we clothe our children now?"
"Well there are electric looms available, I'll send you a catalog. Anyway, gotta catch a plane -- remember, red is positive and black is negative, see ya!"
Or, we have found First and Second Prize winners in the "Talk out your ass without knowing anything" game.
If either one of you had bothered to look into this device for even a moment, oh I don't know, maybe here for example, you'd know that they aren't spinning anything at a million RPM. It is a device that has no moving parts. Basically, and I'll boil it down for you, you blow in one end and two streams come out, one hotter and one colder. It's the vortex inside that can reach a million RPM.
If you can find a way (and this, I assume, is what he's still working on) to get enough air through it then you can get the cold stream very cold indeed, which is useful.
I've never been to anywhere that qualifies as Third-World, but I assume that simple is better. With no moving parts this is as simple as it gets, if a way can be found to get enough gas through it. Perhaps it's wind, or volcanic gases, or storing composting gas, or simply the hot air generated by your armchair engineering, the point is that he's looking into it to try to help people, and you didn't look into it and are helping no one.
Well clearly Tanqueray is fronting the cash, and as long as it costs less than fifteen locals on Gilligan generator bikes hooked to a Sub-Zero, they're going ahead with it.
...and at least one or two others, like Frito Lay, Coke, Nickelodeon, MTV, etc...
Russia, like any country with its history and economy has its requisite share of the thug culture, but it's like a schoolyard, if you truly have no desire to play with those kids then you'll probably only see them on the street as they're pulling other people out of their car. Many, *many* of the people who have been victims of the organized crime subculture have been involved with them in some way, whether in direct business or financial transactions, partying at their clubs, or through buying the drugs/women they offer. Same recipe for getting whacked as anywhere else in the world.
Is it reasonable then to say that I'm not doing business with organized crime? Certainly not. I know they're in the supply chains we use, I know they're controlling the import/export clearing and shipping process, but Donald Trump knows that about his supply chains too even though neither one of us has any contact with them. It's built into the business and just like Las Vegas, when legitimate money comes in they'll be displaced to new areas.
I'm not saying it's rosy over there, Russia has a very high crime rate and a high murder rate, especially if you're more conspicuous than the average Russian (which every American is) so you have to keep your wits about you, but that's because it's a culture trying to right itself, not specifically because of organized crime.
So the recipe for staying away from organized crime in Russia is the same as anywhere else -- don't screw prostitutes, don't buy drugs, don't run up gambling debts, don't borrow money, and don't think that you can "grab a little advantage" through a small business relationship with someone involved with OC and think you can slip away.
You handle your business in an ethical way to everyone, OC or not, even if it costs you a little in the short term, they will look for easier marks.
I have actually been to Shenzhen and toured factories there. Just as there are in other parts of the world, there are a range of factories and a range of working conditions that highly depend on the needs and sense of responsibility of their manangement. Some are better because they have progressive management. Some are better because management has noticed higher productivity from happier workers. Some are better because they are in a product category (like this article) that is in a competitive labor market, and need more than unskilled labor.
Most importantly, however, some are better because they are part of a supply chain that works for a client that requires it. The ultimate destination of the goods is a client that does regular audits of their facilities, and the manufacturing owners know what side their bread is buttered on.
The dormitories in and of themselves are not evidence of a captive workforce. They exist simply because they rely on a highly transient workforce. As with all the other factors, the qualities of these facilities vary considerably as well.
Now for just a few of the points as I see them. "Fat and bloated" do get thrown around a lot in front of "American," but it obscures the main point - we *are* very wealthy by global standards. That wealth has enabled some incredible local excess and some incredible global charity over the years. But as someone who buys from China, my suggestion to people who would like to make a difference in the lives of these Chinese (or Vietnamese, which has been the site of some of the latest incredibly abusive working conditions) is that you at least consider these points:
1. Spare working conditions are not the same as abusive working conditions. Both exist.
2. Low pay for unskilled labor (or low pay in general) is not the same as slavery or even economic slavery. Low pay is widespread, actual slavery is uncommon if not unknown in actual manufacturing, economic slavery is less common in China, more common in other countries.
3. Jobs that suck are better than not eating, and I'm talking about really not eating, where you and your family get thinner and thinner until you die, and your neighbors can't help you because then they'll die, and the goverment can't help you because there are millions more like you.
But most of all:
4. If you want to help, use your biggest asset: your wealth. Who's buying goods manufactured in China? Almost everyone. Do a little research online (you're reading Slashdot, so I know you can) and find out who are taking ethical approaches to their supply chain and who aren't. Do not buy product from companies that divorce themselves from the realities of their manufacturers. Write to them and tell them that you'd pay 5% more in retail price if you knew they were working with their suppliers in China to ensure the long-term improvement of their workforce. Write e-mails to companies who have even minimal standards programs (and they enforce them) and offer words of support.
The reality is that they're all doing it for you. How you buy and how much you're willing to pay guides the whole supply chain, and you can undo it by buying in an ethical manner, making a big noise when you do it, and encouraging others to do it to. The retailers, and then by default the wholesalers, importers, and distributors will have no choice but to listen. And lets face it, isn't the whole point of being fat, bloated, and rich to be able to order people around?
China feels like far away, and sometimes it feels like "them" rather than "us," but once you've been there it's different. Understanding that you can help some people get out of grinding poverty simply by paying 5% more for socks is worth considering.
Great and thoughtful response, thanks very much for taking the time.
I really, honestly wasn't trying to be chicken-little-y about this, I was sincerely asking these as questions hoping for answers and more information, which you've provided terrifically.
I'm not a polymer chemist, but a search on Google and some reading, which I actually did before I posted, showed me that there is an entire field devoted to biodegradable polymers and that various polymers fall along a spectrum of how they degrade. If you'll re-read the post I merely ask whether it is a biodegradable polymer.
But thanks for assuming I'm lazy, I've been around people who respect me for so long that it was a nice change.
"The drug delivery vehicle used by U-M scientists is a manmade polymer molecule called a dendrimer."
Is this a biodegradable polymer?
Dendrimers have a tree-like structure with many branches where scientists can attach a variety of molecules, including drugs.
How hard is it to attach molecules to these tree-like structures? If these polymer dendrimer are exposed to various other molecules will some bond naturally, or do they have to be tailored to a specific molecule?
...scientists injected dendrimers with fluorescent tags into the bloodstream of laboratory mice to determine where they would be retained in the body. The results showed that the kidneys quickly filtered free nanoparticles from blood and eliminated them in urine.
Does that mean that in potential future patients, any free/unabsorbed nanoparticles will be excreted into the public sewage systems, and being (I assume) unfilterable, thereby enter the earths water cycle?
So when you put those together, will these nanoparticles be able to float freely in our oceans and rivers, their dendrimers bonding with molecules found in nature, and then if conditions are right potentially take those molecules inside our cell walls?
I know - the actual number of these things for cancer patients will be really small, but workable techniques tend to get expanded, and if they don't break down they'll just pile up over time. I'm not qualified to do anything but ask these questions, I'm just wondering whether there's any reasonable risk that once these hit the outside world they could turn around and be just as effective at delivering cancer-causing agents they pick up randomly from the environment.
At this rate, three and four-hundred mph cars will be just over the horizon.
Literally, because that only as far as current battery technology will take them.
(Enters Radio Shack, throws white scarf behind him and pulls off driving gloves. "Hello chap, sixteen-thousand of your best button batteries - just put them in the trunk.")
This is the exact reason that I write all my passwords on post-it notes and stick them to my monitor.
I have a 21-inch tube monitor and it weighs like 80 pounds, so nobody could even get it out the door much less steal it, so my passwords are going nowhere.
"...requires technical know-how and configuration hassles that most consumers don't want to deal with."
Yup, the 'technical know-how and configuration hassles' of many broadband connections are currently being 'dealt with' by the nice folks at the cable company, which has allowed many Slashdot readers to use their neighbor's Internet for the last year.
So now we're a year away from being able to use their long distance service too, I guess.
Vonage's tag line should be "Get your neighbor to sign up!"
With Moore's Law still holding up, isn't it a little early to be using up names like "Extreme Edition?" So, I'd like to propose my own corollary to Moore's Law:
"The microprocessor industry will run out of hyperbole long before they run out of transistors."
How long has Google Groups been labelled Beta now, two years maybe? How many users does it have?
If a wide number of even adventurous, risk-taking users could be exposed to a potentially significant security hole, then word should get out more widely than just Google's "thanks for the feedback" e-mail addresses.
Beta is not the Greek word for "without responsibility." As much as we criticize Microsoft for making the idea of a "release date" (or "security") meaningless, I think Google's well on it's way to making the idea of the "Beta Release" meaningless.
They act like a small, groovy coding lab with Beta releases and all, but seemingly aren't simultaneously recognizing that because of their prominence in consumer's minds, *anything* they do has widespread impact on ordinary Net consumers. So a true, uncontrolled Beta release? That's fine for me when I just coded a little midi tool and want to run it past my friends, but there's really no such thing when you're Google.
I think that the number of users that adopt even their least publicized tools takes them out of the realm of the real intent of a Beta release, especially when security issues are involved.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that overall this is a good point, but I've seen many people who make their living doing hard science who, once they open their mouths, start putting their personal credibility where it does not yet belong.
Although I don't do it for a living, I'm dedicated to science and it's progress and I have a real love for both the process and the results. But I'm afraid that one of the biggest factors that has made science vulnerable to inroads by fundamentalists is that scientists have, of late, embrace three (admittedly hastily constructed) levels of credibility on scientific subjects:
1) We very strongly believe this is true because it has been repeatedly verified through controlled experimentation.
2) We very strongly believe this is true because it can be strongly inferred from existing verified data.
3) We understand that we don't have all the facts, but we are critical thinkers for a living and our theories are worthier than your theories.
Number 1 is where scientists should be, but in debates, articles, and various other discussions on the battle between religion a science I have seen prominent and credible scientists arguing 2 and sadly, much more often 3. I understand it, but many scientist should reign themselves in.
Understand, I'm not saying don't fight, just that we should fight from our position of greatest strength, which is being "fundamentalist" about the scientific method. If we can teach kids, or anyone, how it works and why we're devoted to it, all the while showing by example how to be scientific in thought, then we win. There's plenty of room for religion in the world even with hard science, and there's plenty of amazement and wonder to be had in science too. I just don't want to see scientists try to expand their own role in human exploration way beyond the data.
"...in the unlikely event of power loss or a RoboDoor(tm) failure, you have also been supplied with a RoboKey(tm), which is based on a time-tested RoboCylinder(tm) technology. It is suggested that you hide the RoboKey in a secure yet accessible location, such as a magnetic case under the bumper of your car or a plastic rock in your garden."
Wow, a robot that detects snipers after they've fired their first shot.
Maybe they could use this technology in other applications, like detecting suicide bombers from the sound of the blasting cap that sets off the dynamite. Or maybe a robot that catches serial killers by counting the victims -- once they reach eight it sets off an alarm.
But I'd assert that late entry is exactly their model.
They have a huge war chest of pure cash, so they let other companies (even large and agressive ones like Google) do their market testing for them. They watch how the market responds, watch what goes right and wrong, and then only after it makes sense do they enter the market using overwhelming amounts of money and market position. If all else fails, they end up buying companies that own technology or experience flat out, but there's never any question that they should be in the market, because someone like Google tested it (and took the risks) on their own dime.
Being an innovator is cool and it's why we all love Google, but I wouldn't underestimate how much greater is the advantage of an informed and tested market entry over the first-mover advantage, and from the late adoption of the Internet on forward Microsoft has shown that they understand this too.
Finally, click fraud victim we can all feel good about. .
Also because most people will probably start reading their mission reports with enthusiasm and good intentions, but then about halfway through decided they've had enough and go read People magazine.
I'd like to propose a new game here on Slashdot, called "Six Degrees of Microsoft." The objective is to relate *any* story, from browser exploits, to RFID tags, to new features on Google maps back to some oversight, corruption, or other evil perpetrated by Microsoft.
Understand, I'm not even saying I necessarily disagree with the parent post, I just think that every Slashdot post in the future should have at least one response titled "Six Degrees of Microsoft." Firefox/IE posts are easy, but "GBA SP Updated with Brighter Backlit Screen" might be a bit more of a challenge.
Good luck...
Dear WOW "Development Team" --
On behalf of the entire Slashdot Community, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to so carefully craft responses to our questions. It's thoughtful respondents like you that make our workday such a pleasure.
It's with some dismay, however, that I can anticipate that certain members of our community may choose not to respect some simple guidelines that we have established to make this board a fun and informative place for everyone. They are likely to accuse you of being a "marketing droid" or a "PR hack" or a "community-college intern" or having "screwed your way to the middle" or being "functionally retarded" or having "your head up your ass" or your "hand down your pants" or having "your other hand up your boss's ass" or various other unpleasant and discourteous phrases for implying that your responses were less than substantive.
Please be assured that our Moderation System(tm) is designed to specifically addresses many of these users, and simply because you may see a few of these discourteous posts with "+5 Insightful" does not mean we are not working very hard behind the scenes to make sure that this is a fair and objective forum for all involved.
Again, thank you so much for taking the time to respond. We look forward to hearing from you again in the future.
-- The Slashdot "Developer Team"
Well I'm not an engineer, but let's at least agree that the goal here is to make something cold in an environment with few available resources. For purposes of this discussion I will admit that his idea is not yet fully baked, although that's why I believe the focus was on potential applications if the problems could be solved, rather than "we're rolling this out next week. That is not the problem, however, with what you and your bandwagon-mate were advocating, which was, as the title says, "Why not just make electricity?"
So, for the purposes of this discussion, why don't I give you your solution -- all the electricity you want by way of special magic crystals that generate household current when mixed with water. These are absolutely free and something you can take to individual villages. Even better than generator turbines in a million RPM vortex tube.
But now that you have all you want, what are you going to connect your electricity to? An air conditioner? A refrigerator? An electric ice maker? How much do those cost? How complicated are they to repair? Are you going to drop one off in a village with some magic crystals and say 'This all works great, but you're on your own when the compressor fails, because that's going to mean $300 and a trip into The City..."
This thing is just a tube, that when you blow air into it colder air comes out. No infrastructure, no wiring, no ball-bearings, nothing to fail. It's a cool little thing waiting for someone to hack a solution to the inbound pressure problem. It's not the solution to everything, it is a small potential solution to a specific problem. If you find or design a range of gas pressure sources that fit its use, that are simpler and/or cheaper and/or just better suited than a generator and a refrigerator, even if it isn't as efficient, then you've made a step forward.
So please understand, I was not trying to suggest that he, or anyone, be immune from scrutiny. Instead I was scrutinizing, criticizing, and as a result mocking your particular contribution which was shallow in a way that was independent of the merits of his project.
----------
"I couldn't help but notice that loom you were using yesterday was horribly inefficient. So, as a gift to your village, I stayed up all night and converted it into an electric generator!"
"Our loom? A generator? What would we do with a generator?"
"Oh, so many things. I, for example, use electricity to run my refrigerator and a rotisserie grill I bought from the television, and let me say that with the amount of game you guys eat, you might look into that grill...
"But how will we clothe our children now?"
"Well there are electric looms available, I'll send you a catalog. Anyway, gotta catch a plane -- remember, red is positive and black is negative, see ya!"
Or, we have found First and Second Prize winners in the "Talk out your ass without knowing anything" game.
If either one of you had bothered to look into this device for even a moment, oh I don't know, maybe here for example, you'd know that they aren't spinning anything at a million RPM. It is a device that has no moving parts. Basically, and I'll boil it down for you, you blow in one end and two streams come out, one hotter and one colder. It's the vortex inside that can reach a million RPM.
If you can find a way (and this, I assume, is what he's still working on) to get enough air through it then you can get the cold stream very cold indeed, which is useful.
I've never been to anywhere that qualifies as Third-World, but I assume that simple is better. With no moving parts this is as simple as it gets, if a way can be found to get enough gas through it. Perhaps it's wind, or volcanic gases, or storing composting gas, or simply the hot air generated by your armchair engineering, the point is that he's looking into it to try to help people, and you didn't look into it and are helping no one.
Well clearly Tanqueray is fronting the cash, and as long as it costs less than fifteen locals on Gilligan generator bikes hooked to a Sub-Zero, they're going ahead with it.
It was not scheduled to launch for another four months, it was in its hanger, and no one was aboard at the time.
Russia, like any country with its history and economy has its requisite share of the thug culture, but it's like a schoolyard, if you truly have no desire to play with those kids then you'll probably only see them on the street as they're pulling other people out of their car. Many, *many* of the people who have been victims of the organized crime subculture have been involved with them in some way, whether in direct business or financial transactions, partying at their clubs, or through buying the drugs/women they offer. Same recipe for getting whacked as anywhere else in the world.
Is it reasonable then to say that I'm not doing business with organized crime? Certainly not. I know they're in the supply chains we use, I know they're controlling the import/export clearing and shipping process, but Donald Trump knows that about his supply chains too even though neither one of us has any contact with them. It's built into the business and just like Las Vegas, when legitimate money comes in they'll be displaced to new areas.
I'm not saying it's rosy over there, Russia has a very high crime rate and a high murder rate, especially if you're more conspicuous than the average Russian (which every American is) so you have to keep your wits about you, but that's because it's a culture trying to right itself, not specifically because of organized crime.
So the recipe for staying away from organized crime in Russia is the same as anywhere else -- don't screw prostitutes, don't buy drugs, don't run up gambling debts, don't borrow money, and don't think that you can "grab a little advantage" through a small business relationship with someone involved with OC and think you can slip away.
You handle your business in an ethical way to everyone, OC or not, even if it costs you a little in the short term, they will look for easier marks.
If we're going to express our support for getting this research funded do we all have to wear little paper umbrellas on our lapels?
I have actually been to Shenzhen and toured factories there. Just as there are in other parts of the world, there are a range of factories and a range of working conditions that highly depend on the needs and sense of responsibility of their manangement. Some are better because they have progressive management. Some are better because management has noticed higher productivity from happier workers. Some are better because they are in a product category (like this article) that is in a competitive labor market, and need more than unskilled labor.
Most importantly, however, some are better because they are part of a supply chain that works for a client that requires it. The ultimate destination of the goods is a client that does regular audits of their facilities, and the manufacturing owners know what side their bread is buttered on.
The dormitories in and of themselves are not evidence of a captive workforce. They exist simply because they rely on a highly transient workforce. As with all the other factors, the qualities of these facilities vary considerably as well.
Now for just a few of the points as I see them. "Fat and bloated" do get thrown around a lot in front of "American," but it obscures the main point - we *are* very wealthy by global standards. That wealth has enabled some incredible local excess and some incredible global charity over the years. But as someone who buys from China, my suggestion to people who would like to make a difference in the lives of these Chinese (or Vietnamese, which has been the site of some of the latest incredibly abusive working conditions) is that you at least consider these points:
1. Spare working conditions are not the same as abusive working conditions. Both exist.
2. Low pay for unskilled labor (or low pay in general) is not the same as slavery or even economic slavery. Low pay is widespread, actual slavery is uncommon if not unknown in actual manufacturing, economic slavery is less common in China, more common in other countries.
3. Jobs that suck are better than not eating, and I'm talking about really not eating, where you and your family get thinner and thinner until you die, and your neighbors can't help you because then they'll die, and the goverment can't help you because there are millions more like you.
But most of all:
4. If you want to help, use your biggest asset: your wealth. Who's buying goods manufactured in China? Almost everyone. Do a little research online (you're reading Slashdot, so I know you can) and find out who are taking ethical approaches to their supply chain and who aren't. Do not buy product from companies that divorce themselves from the realities of their manufacturers. Write to them and tell them that you'd pay 5% more in retail price if you knew they were working with their suppliers in China to ensure the long-term improvement of their workforce. Write e-mails to companies who have even minimal standards programs (and they enforce them) and offer words of support.
The reality is that they're all doing it for you. How you buy and how much you're willing to pay guides the whole supply chain, and you can undo it by buying in an ethical manner, making a big noise when you do it, and encouraging others to do it to. The retailers, and then by default the wholesalers, importers, and distributors will have no choice but to listen. And lets face it, isn't the whole point of being fat, bloated, and rich to be able to order people around?
China feels like far away, and sometimes it feels like "them" rather than "us," but once you've been there it's different. Understanding that you can help some people get out of grinding poverty simply by paying 5% more for socks is worth considering.
Great and thoughtful response, thanks very much for taking the time.
I really, honestly wasn't trying to be chicken-little-y about this, I was sincerely asking these as questions hoping for answers and more information, which you've provided terrifically.
As for how I draw conclusions, see my sig :-)
Again, thanks very much!
Oh please, give me half a break will you?
I'm not a polymer chemist, but a search on Google and some reading, which I actually did before I posted, showed me that there is an entire field devoted to biodegradable polymers and that various polymers fall along a spectrum of how they degrade. If you'll re-read the post I merely ask whether it is a biodegradable polymer.
But thanks for assuming I'm lazy, I've been around people who respect me for so long that it was a nice change.
Is this a biodegradable polymer?
How hard is it to attach molecules to these tree-like structures? If these polymer dendrimer are exposed to various other molecules will some bond naturally, or do they have to be tailored to a specific molecule?
Does that mean that in potential future patients, any free/unabsorbed nanoparticles will be excreted into the public sewage systems, and being (I assume) unfilterable, thereby enter the earths water cycle?
So when you put those together, will these nanoparticles be able to float freely in our oceans and rivers, their dendrimers bonding with molecules found in nature, and then if conditions are right potentially take those molecules inside our cell walls?
I know - the actual number of these things for cancer patients will be really small, but workable techniques tend to get expanded, and if they don't break down they'll just pile up over time. I'm not qualified to do anything but ask these questions, I'm just wondering whether there's any reasonable risk that once these hit the outside world they could turn around and be just as effective at delivering cancer-causing agents they pick up randomly from the environment.
Want to share it with a friend, no probl...
Oh, right.
At this rate, three and four-hundred mph cars will be just over the horizon.
Literally, because that only as far as current battery technology will take them.
(Enters Radio Shack, throws white scarf behind him and pulls off driving gloves. "Hello chap, sixteen-thousand of your best button batteries - just put them in the trunk.")
This is the exact reason that I write all my passwords on post-it notes and stick them to my monitor.
I have a 21-inch tube monitor and it weighs like 80 pounds, so nobody could even get it out the door much less steal it, so my passwords are going nowhere.
"...requires technical know-how and configuration hassles that most consumers don't want to deal with."
Yup, the 'technical know-how and configuration hassles' of many broadband connections are currently being 'dealt with' by the nice folks at the cable company, which has allowed many Slashdot readers to use their neighbor's Internet for the last year.
So now we're a year away from being able to use their long distance service too, I guess.
Vonage's tag line should be "Get your neighbor to sign up!"
With Moore's Law still holding up, isn't it a little early to be using up names like "Extreme Edition?" So, I'd like to propose my own corollary to Moore's Law:
"The microprocessor industry will run out of hyperbole long before they run out of transistors."
How long has Google Groups been labelled Beta now, two years maybe? How many users does it have?
If a wide number of even adventurous, risk-taking users could be exposed to a potentially significant security hole, then word should get out more widely than just Google's "thanks for the feedback" e-mail addresses.
Beta is not the Greek word for "without responsibility." As much as we criticize Microsoft for making the idea of a "release date" (or "security") meaningless, I think Google's well on it's way to making the idea of the "Beta Release" meaningless.
They act like a small, groovy coding lab with Beta releases and all, but seemingly aren't simultaneously recognizing that because of their prominence in consumer's minds, *anything* they do has widespread impact on ordinary Net consumers. So a true, uncontrolled Beta release? That's fine for me when I just coded a little midi tool and want to run it past my friends, but there's really no such thing when you're Google.
I think that the number of users that adopt even their least publicized tools takes them out of the realm of the real intent of a Beta release, especially when security issues are involved.
It seems like somebody's discovering cold fusion just about every day now. .