Time and again it has been demonstrated that trade benefits both parties, yet still fools decry job outsourcing. It's as if they want to maximize inefficiency.
If you can't make shoes as cheaply as a chinaman, then
you might not be working as effectively as you should
you're being paid too much
you should look for a different job at which you're worth more
you shouldn't try to deprive the chinaman of an opportunity to make an honest living
Foreign trade, unfettered by government meddling, is part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Unfortunately I think you're being serious.
Without government meddling you end up with companies controlling the lives of the workers, paying the minimum that they can get away with paying and stripping benefits until there is nothing left. This is true in Asia and it's true in every western country - the difference being that because western governments 'meddle' people can continue to have a decent level of living although this bar is dropping all the time thanks to idiots like you.
Let me take your points one by one: "you might not be working as effectively as you should"
This is irrelevant due to the fact that the overseas low cost worker will be making a salary relevant to his environment, say one dollar per month, against which a western worker cannot compete even at an imaginary 100% efficiency.
"you're being paid too much"
This is such a general statement as to be useless. To much in what context? Too much compared to someone who can actually live (although with no shoes, no medicine, no benefits of any sort, no education, 15 people per room, etc, etc) on one dollar a month? If you want to live like that then I agree, it's too much for you to earn and you should accept one dollar a month and no benefits. Enjoy that life because it won't last long.
On top of the unrealistic idea that a western worker can afford to live on what a Bangladeshi can make is that employers always think their employees are being paid too much and will do everything possible to drop salaries to the lowest level they can get away with.
"you should look for a different job at which you're worth more"
When a large percent of the jobs that exist have been rapidly shipped overseas to lower business costs, or have been lost to automation, the competition for the remaining jobs is so fierce that wages drop to the point where people can no longer afford to live on what they are paid. I will make the perhaps false assumption that you understand supply and demand, which is what will drive salaries down when the supply of labor exceeds the demand for that labor.
"you shouldn't try to deprive the chinaman of an opportunity to make an honest living"
I am not opposed to outsourcing - at a sane rate that both economies can adjust to without collapsing. The current outsourcing of everything as fast as possible just to drive costs down benefits only corporations and the rich who benefit from the profits they make on the cost labor differences and couldn't care less if most people end up not being able to afford a decent standard of living.
What job do you have, may I ask, that you do not care if it gets outsourced or if your earnings and benefits are cut and eliminated to the point where you are forced to live on the same earnings and with the same lack of benefits as that overseas shoemaker?
We need to address the root causes that so many Americans need financial assistance to the point where they require food stamps to start with.
Until the root causes are identified and dealt with the cost of such programs will only continue to go up.
Of course dealing with the root causes will be too painful or politically inexpedient (ie. the decline of K-12 education and the outsourcing of every job that can be outsourced overseas) so the politicians and Americans will focus on the symptoms instead of the cures.
Weapons Systems That Kill According To Algorithms Are Coming
I don't get this... Aren't human soldiers killing based on something other than algorithms? Or is it that the implementations are coded in vague human languages, that makes them feel somehow warm and fuzzy? Well, Pentagon's Ada may be considered similar, but only in jest...
I'd say, whether such systems are bad or good is still up to the algorithms, not the hardware (nor pinkware), that executes them.
For me the big difference is that if you activate the military to suppress their own populace when it demonstrates that the soldiers can at least choose not to follow orders.
The idea of the US (for example) with the ever increasing trend of the suppression of constitutional rights having robots that kill whoever they're activated against is terrifying.
Well, to be the devil's advocate, in fact fewer and fewer soldiers are dying in wars the more advanced the weaponry gets.
I realize this is a very minority position on this page. But it's pretty easy to take a position against defense weaponry and feel on a moral high ground, and pretty easy to adapt a fearful / risk-averse position to unknown change and new developments. It's harder to present a risk-benefit analysis that says electronics wars are hurting more people. It's not impossible to imagine that the robots will do a better job, and we'd have fewer headlines like "US Marine Sargent Kills 16 in Kandahar, 9 of them children". [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandahar_massacre]
FTFY
For example: "Daniel L. Byman of the Brookings Institution stated that although accurate data on the results of drone strikes is difficult to obtain, it seemed that ten civilians had died in the drone attacks for every militant killed." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan#Civilian_casualties
I didn't say that western nations don't have reverse engineering - just that China does and considers that to be a form of R&D, relevant to the discussion at hand.
Is it just me or are the given values borderline meaningless. The given values are percent relative to GDP, so they basically indicate the willingness to spend a higher portion of their cash flow for R&D. On an absolute scale this meaningless, a small country could spend 50% of their GDP on R&D and still have less output than a huge nation spending 1%. Then again, raw money value also does not translate to actual scientific progress.
Not to mention that costs are much higher in Europe and the west than in China making actual money value comparison equally irrelevant.
If you think China is better at treating its workers, I have land on the Moon to sell you.
And we're talking research here, not employment. And in that regard, GP is correct - spending does not equal results. China needs some time to develop the proper R&D culture, as it's simply not there yet. It has the spending power, but it lacks efficiency.
Depends on your definition of R&D. Certainly China already has a reverse-engineering culture which passes for R&D.
This is interesting in light of the recent story stating that the FEC Will Not Allow Bitcoin Campaign Contributions. Maybe the candidate doesn't read Slashdot. I look forward to hearing the FEC respond, and how much of a fuss this guy is ready to make.
What happens to contributions that cannot be used, and cannot be refunded (due to anonymity)? Do they become the property of the candidate?
There might be a difference in that the banks that are rolling over have a presence in the US that can be leaned on.
On top of that I'm not sure how the US thinks it has the ability to levy and collect penalties against Swiss banks located in Switzerland that don't have a presence in the US to start with.
If the databanks have no business in the US that can be leaned on, perhaps they will be outside the US' legal pressure. Of course they will remain high profile targets for the NSA and any other criminal organization.
> It would not. The compartment is not being used for drugs. That seems to be what everyone is glazing over.
As someone else pointed out, the law reads in part ""No person shall knowingly operate, possess, or use a vehicle with a hidden compartment with knowledge that the hidden compartment is used or intended to be used to facilitate the unlawful concealment or transportation of a controlled substance." (Emphasis mine.) How does one gauge the intention of such a compartment?
Because they saw the compartment full of cocaine (or whatever) before they emptied it and arrested him?
What percentage of police do you suppose are criminals?
I don't know about all UAVs but the U.S. military ones are programmed to fly home if they get confused. Dunno how they find home if they lose GPS but at least they thought about the issue.
Or they thought about how to market the product. Doesn't mean there's actually any functionality there.
A few really simple reasons the government would be in favor of Bitcoin: 1) Gain control early. 2) Every transaction leaves a trace. The idea that Bitcoin is anonymous is a bit of bullshit. Yes, right now the exchanges keep one hand from knowing the other. This is easily changed. 3) In aggregate, it's impossible to trace for a non-government entity. This means slush fund spending woohoo time. 4) Politicians have figured out that the extreme anti-social end of the internet from which Bitcoin has gained its popularity are a bunch of socially inept jack offs. They know these people have poor impulse control and too much intellect, but are easily swayed by marginal amounts of lip service.
0) They want to be able to accept anonymous, untrackable 'donations' to themselves using bitcoins.
Yes. It's "government to the rescue" after the free market has already sorted things out already. Just enforce sane and useful labeling but otherwise butt the f*ck out.
Define useful labeling?
Is that working well for cigarettes where there is no strong anti-tobacco legislation?
How do you think that would have worked for the original coke recipe?
The free market does not 'sort things out' when it comes to choosing between making money and selling safe product.
Next phone call to encryption expert: "Yes, thank you NSA. I will gleefully accept your money and write whatever you tell me to write in my published audit."
Let's not forget the probable stick that would come along with the carrot. 'National security...open your mouth about what you find and (insert threats here).
Start with an intense desire to building your own private empire that you control. Hiding information from others to gain a competitive advantage. Populating other groups with spys to see what progress they are making. Eventually giving rational people no choice but to join your team or be crushed.
I propose to call this the middle manager attack.
Thought you were talking about America and the NSA until that last sentence...
You realize that the last major threats on aircraft that got by TSA were all stopped by the passengers? That any major event that a shooter has gone nuts and started killing people within an armed area were a maximum 1 to 2 people? That shooters have specifically targeted areas with limited access to firearms to maximize the amount of damage they can do before being stopped?
Have you ever heard of a shootout at an NRA convention? Mass killing in a gun store? A hijacking of a military transport?
You are joking right? You're not just being ignorant or stupid?
It's not the TSA, it's the union representing the TSA screeners.
Who do you think make up the union if not the TSA screeners? I am sick and tired of the overreaction to these random events whether it be aircraft crashing into a building, a workplace shooting, a bomb detonation at a public event, etc. I do not feel safe with roaming machine-gun-toting police officers or military in any venue.
I live in Europe where it's perfectly normal to see a few soldiers with automatic weapons roaming around airports and large train stations.
And frankly, when I compare the inconvenience of having six or twelve soldiers wandering around (none) to the arrogant attitude, invasive groping or scanning and general annoyance level of the TSA punks...I'll take the soldiers any day.
Slashdot Mirror
Time and again it has been demonstrated that trade benefits both parties, yet still fools decry job outsourcing. It's as if they want to maximize inefficiency.
If you can't make shoes as cheaply as a chinaman, then
Foreign trade, unfettered by government meddling, is part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Unfortunately I think you're being serious.
Without government meddling you end up with companies controlling the lives of the workers, paying the minimum that they can get away with paying and stripping benefits until there is nothing left. This is true in Asia and it's true in every western country - the difference being that because western governments 'meddle' people can continue to have a decent level of living although this bar is dropping all the time thanks to idiots like you.
Let me take your points one by one:
"you might not be working as effectively as you should"
This is irrelevant due to the fact that the overseas low cost worker will be making a salary relevant to his environment, say one dollar per month, against which a western worker cannot compete even at an imaginary 100% efficiency.
"you're being paid too much"
This is such a general statement as to be useless. To much in what context? Too much compared to someone who can actually live (although with no shoes, no medicine, no benefits of any sort, no education, 15 people per room, etc, etc) on one dollar a month? If you want to live like that then I agree, it's too much for you to earn and you should accept one dollar a month and no benefits. Enjoy that life because it won't last long.
On top of the unrealistic idea that a western worker can afford to live on what a Bangladeshi can make is that employers always think their employees are being paid too much and will do everything possible to drop salaries to the lowest level they can get away with.
"you should look for a different job at which you're worth more"
When a large percent of the jobs that exist have been rapidly shipped overseas to lower business costs, or have been lost to automation, the competition for the remaining jobs is so fierce that wages drop to the point where people can no longer afford to live on what they are paid. I will make the perhaps false assumption that you understand supply and demand, which is what will drive salaries down when the supply of labor exceeds the demand for that labor.
"you shouldn't try to deprive the chinaman of an opportunity to make an honest living"
I am not opposed to outsourcing - at a sane rate that both economies can adjust to without collapsing. The current outsourcing of everything as fast as possible just to drive costs down benefits only corporations and the rich who benefit from the profits they make on the cost labor differences and couldn't care less if most people end up not being able to afford a decent standard of living.
What job do you have, may I ask, that you do not care if it gets outsourced or if your earnings and benefits are cut and eliminated to the point where you are forced to live on the same earnings and with the same lack of benefits as that overseas shoemaker?
"Food stamps feed 1 in 7 Americans"
We need to address the root causes that so many Americans need financial assistance to the point where they require food stamps to start with.
Until the root causes are identified and dealt with the cost of such programs will only continue to go up.
Of course dealing with the root causes will be too painful or politically inexpedient (ie. the decline of K-12 education and the outsourcing of every job that can be outsourced overseas) so the politicians and Americans will focus on the symptoms instead of the cures.
I don't get this... Aren't human soldiers killing based on something other than algorithms? Or is it that the implementations are coded in vague human languages, that makes them feel somehow warm and fuzzy? Well, Pentagon's Ada may be considered similar, but only in jest...
I'd say, whether such systems are bad or good is still up to the algorithms, not the hardware (nor pinkware), that executes them.
For me the big difference is that if you activate the military to suppress their own populace when it demonstrates that the soldiers can at least choose not to follow orders.
The idea of the US (for example) with the ever increasing trend of the suppression of constitutional rights having robots that kill whoever they're activated against is terrifying.
Well, to be the devil's advocate, in fact fewer and fewer soldiers are dying in wars the more advanced the weaponry gets.
I realize this is a very minority position on this page. But it's pretty easy to take a position against defense weaponry and feel on a moral high ground, and pretty easy to adapt a fearful / risk-averse position to unknown change and new developments. It's harder to present a risk-benefit analysis that says electronics wars are hurting more people. It's not impossible to imagine that the robots will do a better job, and we'd have fewer headlines like "US Marine Sargent Kills 16 in Kandahar, 9 of them children". [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandahar_massacre]
FTFY
For example:
"Daniel L. Byman of the Brookings Institution stated that although accurate data on the results of drone strikes is difficult to obtain, it seemed that ten civilians had died in the drone attacks for every militant killed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan#Civilian_casualties
and:
"In Yemen, Human Rights Watch investigated six selected airstrikes since 2009 and concluded that at least 57 of the 82 people killed were civilians, including a pregnant woman and three children who perished in a September 2012 attack."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/drone-strikes-killing-more-civilians-than-us-admits-human-rights-groups-say/2013/10/21/a99cbe78-3a81-11e3-b7ba-503fb5822c3e_story.html
I didn't say that western nations don't have reverse engineering - just that China does and considers that to be a form of R&D, relevant to the discussion at hand.
Is it just me or are the given values borderline meaningless. The given values are percent relative to GDP, so they basically indicate the willingness to spend a higher portion of their cash flow for R&D. On an absolute scale this meaningless, a small country could spend 50% of their GDP on R&D and still have less output than a huge nation spending 1%. Then again, raw money value also does not translate to actual scientific progress.
Not to mention that costs are much higher in Europe and the west than in China making actual money value comparison equally irrelevant.
If you think China is better at treating its workers, I have land on the Moon to sell you.
And we're talking research here, not employment. And in that regard, GP is correct - spending does not equal results. China needs some time to develop the proper R&D culture, as it's simply not there yet. It has the spending power, but it lacks efficiency.
Depends on your definition of R&D. Certainly China already has a reverse-engineering culture which passes for R&D.
This is interesting in light of the recent story stating that the FEC Will Not Allow Bitcoin Campaign Contributions. Maybe the candidate doesn't read Slashdot. I look forward to hearing the FEC respond, and how much of a fuss this guy is ready to make.
What happens to contributions that cannot be used, and cannot be refunded (due to anonymity)? Do they become the property of the candidate?
Three more Swiss banks join US tax deal - Reuters - 12 hours ago.
Swiss banks are supposedly the safest place to store money, If the Swiss are willing to share customer data with the US, what else can't they share?
Just another tentacle of the Nothing is beyond our reach motto.
There might be a difference in that the banks that are rolling over have a presence in the US that can be leaned on.
On top of that I'm not sure how the US thinks it has the ability to levy and collect penalties against Swiss banks located in Switzerland that don't have a presence in the US to start with.
If the databanks have no business in the US that can be leaned on, perhaps they will be outside the US' legal pressure. Of course they will remain high profile targets for the NSA and any other criminal organization.
...drug deliveries by drone.
Can't imagine that would motivate anyone to start shooting down drones just to see what they're carrying.
What would it take to shoot down one of these things? Would a 1000 fps air rifle be enough?
And no, I'm not suggesting it.
"...the technology could have a wide variety of low-light imaging applications from military to biological use."
As if the first thought in most /.ers minds wasn't naked pictures of someone...
So...they couldn't reproduce the reproducibility problem...?
> It would not. The compartment is not being used for drugs. That seems to be what everyone is glazing over.
As someone else pointed out, the law reads in part ""No person shall knowingly operate, possess, or use a vehicle with a hidden compartment with knowledge that the hidden compartment is used or intended to be used to facilitate the unlawful concealment or transportation of a controlled substance." (Emphasis mine.) How does one gauge the intention of such a compartment?
Because they saw the compartment full of cocaine (or whatever) before they emptied it and arrested him?
What percentage of police do you suppose are criminals?
You could probably take a low-flying one down with a trebuchet.
Or have a hell of a time trying - sounds like fun!
I don't know about all UAVs but the U.S. military ones are programmed to fly home if they get confused. Dunno how they find home if they lose GPS but at least they thought about the issue.
Or they thought about how to market the product. Doesn't mean there's actually any functionality there.
A few really simple reasons the government would be in favor of Bitcoin:
1) Gain control early.
2) Every transaction leaves a trace. The idea that Bitcoin is anonymous is a bit of bullshit. Yes, right now the exchanges keep one hand from knowing the other. This is easily changed.
3) In aggregate, it's impossible to trace for a non-government entity. This means slush fund spending woohoo time.
4) Politicians have figured out that the extreme anti-social end of the internet from which Bitcoin has gained its popularity are a bunch of socially inept jack offs. They know these people have poor impulse control and too much intellect, but are easily swayed by marginal amounts of lip service.
0) They want to be able to accept anonymous, untrackable 'donations' to themselves using bitcoins.
Presumably the data collected could also be used by insurance companies to find reasons not to pay in the event of an accident.
Congress will take bribes from anyone.
Especially relatively untraceable anonymous bribes like bitcoin would be.
Fucking scumbags.
Yes. It's "government to the rescue" after the free market has already sorted things out already. Just enforce sane and useful labeling but otherwise butt the f*ck out.
Define useful labeling?
Is that working well for cigarettes where there is no strong anti-tobacco legislation?
How do you think that would have worked for the original coke recipe?
The free market does not 'sort things out' when it comes to choosing between making money and selling safe product.
Next phone call to encryption expert: "Yes, thank you NSA. I will gleefully accept your money and write whatever you tell me to write in my published audit."
Let's not forget the probable stick that would come along with the carrot. 'National security...open your mouth about what you find and (insert threats here).
I know this is a complicated solution but....don't shop at Tesco?
With a face like mine, I don't expect to see adverts for condoms.
Paper bag, sir?
Start with an intense desire to building your own private empire that you control.
Hiding information from others to gain a competitive advantage.
Populating other groups with spys to see what progress they are making.
Eventually giving rational people no choice but to join your team or be crushed.
I propose to call this the middle manager attack.
Thought you were talking about America and the NSA until that last sentence...
You realize that the last major threats on aircraft that got by TSA were all stopped by the passengers? That any major event that a shooter has gone nuts and started killing people within an armed area were a maximum 1 to 2 people? That shooters have specifically targeted areas with limited access to firearms to maximize the amount of damage they can do before being stopped?
Have you ever heard of a shootout at an NRA convention? Mass killing in a gun store? A hijacking of a military transport?
You are joking right? You're not just being ignorant or stupid?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Navy_Yard_shooting
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/24/21119400-two-wounded-in-shooting-at-tennessee-armory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting
http://edition.cnn.com/US/9510/sniper/am/
It's not the TSA, it's the union representing the TSA screeners.
Who do you think make up the union if not the TSA screeners? I am sick and tired of the overreaction to these random events whether it be aircraft crashing into a building, a workplace shooting, a bomb detonation at a public event, etc. I do not feel safe with roaming machine-gun-toting police officers or military in any venue.
I live in Europe where it's perfectly normal to see a few soldiers with automatic weapons roaming around airports and large train stations.
And frankly, when I compare the inconvenience of having six or twelve soldiers wandering around (none) to the arrogant attitude, invasive groping or scanning and general annoyance level of the TSA punks...I'll take the soldiers any day.