Yes...it's pretty. So freaking what - it's YAGC, and I'm sorely unimpressed by it. I'm in the market for a calculator, and I'd like to see one with a high-res color screen (so I can tell where and which plots are which), the ability to transfer graphs in jpg or gif format to my computer, and some basic pda functions so maybe I can store notes on it. Hell, a touch-screen would be nice too. Am I asking too much?
This economy is seeing the strongest growth in nearly two decades, and most of the numbers are the same as when Bush took office (by which time the economy was already spiralling downward - the dot-com bust is like what Black Thursday was to the Great Depression). The bottom line for this kid - and most people in the IT industry - is that employers are getting wise to where their IT dollars are going, and they're expecting more for their money than some hack.
In the latest attempt by a big corporation with a failing business model to win by legislation and not in the marketplace...
Okay, wait a minute...so which is it people. Either (a) Clearchannel is a monopoly which controls the majority of what we see and hear or (b) Clearchannel is a failing business that can't compete with all the competition out there. Look, we all know you're a bunch of anti-corporate CP-USA members, but at least be genuine and put some logic behind your criticisms.
You could also glue feathers to your chest and cluck, but that doesn't make you chicken - just like your plattitudes don't make you right.
You have made claims, but not backed it with anything but a single article...
Try two articles...and really, this is like explaining why the sky is blue when it is in fact blue.
And as to showing proof, I have tried to justify my assertions.
No. You haven't. You've simply repeated yourself. My two little reference is still two more references than you've ever provided. The bottom line is your assertions are wrong - dead wrong - and nobody even moderately literate in economics would ever assert that insourcing takes more away from the American economy than it puts in. I'm sorry if you're not convinced, but you werent' asking to be convinced - you were making an assertion.
Does it really make sense that they ship the componants over here to assemble them at higher labor prices? No. For instance, the Toyota Avalon consists of 70% US-made parts.
I assume there is a typo there, but I am not sure where.
Believe what you want to believe - it's rather obvious that's what you're intent on doing anyway. Three times you've asked me to show proof backing my assertions, but you have yet to even logically justify your assertions. All you've offered is plattitudes and assumptions. I'm going to ask you once and once finally - how can you justify your assertion that a foreign company who creates jobs in the US is taking more away from our economy than it contributes. Anything but a direct, factual, and justified response to that will be ignored.
A rather safe assumption, since you're speaking out against free trade.
My point is that, using your example above, they took in that entire 126bn. Yes, they spent a good bit of it to make the products to sell, and were left with 6bn in profits, but they took in 126bn.
Your assertion was that Toyota takes that $126 Bn "out" of the economy. But then you admit that they spend it to make the products - please, how is that taking money from the economy? When they're paying US workers, taxes to US governments, purchasing US intermediate products (steel, plastic, aluminum, leather, vinyl, clothe), that money is not only staying in the economy, its encouraging US production in other sectors. That is in no way "taking money out of an economy". It an even be argued that a good portion of their $6 bn in profits stay in the economy. They use profits to pay dividends to their investors, many of whom are in the US. They also use profits to fund new capital expenditures - such as the new Lexus plant in Mississippi which will employ some 800 workers.
Getting back to the meat of the matter, outsourcing also has additional economic benefits. If you insist on the notion that FDI is subtracted from our economy (its not, you may be thinkging of Net Foreign Factor Income - that $6 Bn number, not the $126 bn one), then consider this. By shifting production facilities overseas, US software companies created 516,000 new jobs over 5 years, 244,000 domestically and 272,000 in the US. Without outsourcing, us labor costs would mean only 490,000 jobs could be created - and while the argument might be "yeah, those 246,000 more American jobs", it also means more expensive products that most American consumners can't or won't afford, and lower salaries for our workers. Protectionist policies alway run correlary to economic decline (look at the decimation of US exports for decades following the depression era Hawley-Smoot Tariff act in the 30's).
EETimes has an article about outsourcing on the front page of this months edition. It's really time to decide if America wants to compete with the world (and win), or just sit back on our laurels and wait for everyone to catch up with or without us.
The vast majority of money that goes into an economy goes in in the form of capital expenditures, or purchases of resources and intermediate goods. On a product which has a 10% profit margin, that means 90% of the money spent in making that product goes into acquiring intermediate goods, raw materials, or labor. To put this in perspective, if you look back at Toyota, their SEC filings for 2003 state $126 Bn USD in gross revenue, but after they pay the bills they only had $6 Bn in profits. That $120 Bn stayed in the respective economies (or simply, the global economy).
What you and other critics of free trade seem to miss is that participation in a global economy ultimately benefits everyone. The US may export some jobs and capital, but they also export goods. At the same time, we import jobs and capitalj, and those imports (Foreign Direct Investment) benefit us - particularly in times like these when the low dollar gives foreign investors more purchasing power.
How is this not a zero sum game? That goes back to resources - human kind still hasn't come close to exploiting all the natural resources of this planet, and by some estimates we never will. New technologies, unfound reserves of raw materials, and more efficient production methods (not to mention new products) cause economies to grow. Your assertion that a company like toyota simply takes money out of our economy ignores the idea that toyotas domestic production increases the output of mining (raw materials), farming (gotta feed workers, gotta produce grain alcohol for gasoline additives), and ranching (Lexuses require leather).
You still haven't shown in any demonstrable way how Toyota could possible take more out of the economy than they put in. THAT notion would require domestic resources and intermediate goods to have a very low market clearing price, or toyotas goods to have outlandishly high margins (average new car margins are 5 to 10 percent).
I don't see how it is NOT an improper reference. These are foreign companies who are putting billions into the US economy. I don't care when the plants were built - they're still here now. Not to mention that Toyota has expanded their plant capacity, number of shifts, and number of employees in the last two years. Guess whose making a significant number of new GMs?
With all the talk about how jobs go overseas, most Americans equate offshoring to job losses. No such documentary could be complete without mentioning that on balance, foreign companies created 6.4 million jobs in the US. Exports of US goods to foreign countries made by foreign owned businesses comprise 22% of all us exports. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) has increased by $82 Bn USD in FY2003, creating 400,000 new jobs. The weak US Dollar combined with our lower taxes is encouraging economic growth so much that companies like Honda and Toyota now make cars for the US market in California and Tennessee - NOT Japan. The EU's OECD is threatening trade sanctions, claiming our lower costs of doing business are a "tax subsidy" (i.e., not overtaxing business is the same as paying their taxes for them...wonderful circular logic).
Actually, a "Republican" would do this if they thought it'd get them reelected. A Conservative wouldn't do this. Keep in mind that near-centrist left wing elements have come into the Republican party since the Democrats fell out of power, and don't forget that not all Republicans are Conservative Libertarian types.
You bloody americans!@! First you go and do all the absurd stuff you do
We bloody Americans aren't banning all religious practice like you bloody Europeans. If you want to see an agregious encroachment of civil liberties, look at actual legislation going around the EU that is directly and blatently limiting the personal freedoms of its citizens. Kudo's to Spain for rolling over and giving it up to Al Qaeda. This mornings discovery of a bomb in Spain proves once again that appeasing terrorists just encourages them.
it's funny but it's also funnier that I thought this was true.
That's not funny. Your delusional perceptions are just sad.
the aim of helping developing nations develop low-cost missile defense systems
It's funny how "defense" weaponry is usually offensive. To my mind, the ONLY weapons ever designed for defense is the Patriot AMS, the old SDI satellites, and the current ABL/ABM programs. Even these could be easily modified (an airborne laser for shooting down missiles? what if we pretend Kim Jong Il is a missile? Stir fry, that's what).
I feel I may be walking into a bit of a minefield regarding the legalities of such a project
No shit. Exporting weapons technology. Exporting weapons software. Providing aid to non-State actors (it IS open source - do you honestly thing Al Qaeda, Hamas, or Hezballah won't want to apply this technology - they don't all live in mud huts you know). Selling weapons. Just posting this is probably good for 20 years in the hoosgow with a big black man named rock as your dancing partner.
I admire your goals. But you're dabbling in dangerous territory. I highly suggest you scale this down to a more civil use. You'll never get a federal license to even buy the srb engines to test such a device, and the first time you intercept an airliner by accident (even if you don't break the law by putting a warhead on the device), you're going to jail.
...it has to be 4/1 when you see a tagline at thinkgeek on this product that states "endorsed by PeTA". It's got to be a joke. If it's not, it's a pathetic statement about PeTA who would lend their name to the commercialization of something which is clearly not an ethical treatment of hamsters. Think of all the heat. A hamster would die in days if it were in my box. Even without that heat, the noise (95 dBA inside the box) is horrendous, and sure to drive the little rat nuts.
Does anyone remember a slashdot before michael,when we got news about shit that was actually cool? Now we get two-day old bits that are politically slanted to push michael left-wing kook politics.
It's true. It's very true. I remember high school, I could take automechanics and electronics because those were considered "trades", and had no academic restrictions. But in the year I graduated - 1994 - my high school would not let you touch a computer outside of the LRC unless you had taken at least algebra. What sense does that make? I used Algebra in electronics and automechanics every day, but most people who are proficient at using and troubleshooting computers barely need to know how to do basic arithmetic.
Now the latest thing in schools is to "push the arts", under the assumption that arts encourage academic excellence. What these people don't get is challenging students encourages academic excellence. Providing opportunity encourages academics.
The current education system is learning oriented. It's a production line that shuffles children around with little regard as to whether they can or do achieve. The education kids were given 40 years ago is equivalent to what sophmores in college are getting today.
Believe it or not, Dell has sanctioned retail "outlets" of sorts. A number of malls have kiosks with limited stocks of computer equipment at their disposal. You can also check out some of the rent-to-own stores who stock Dell computers, but they'll probably overcharge, which is self defeating.
BTW, there's no reason you can't have it delivered to your hotel address. It's just a slight pain in the ass.
First Volvo proposes a car with the hood welded shut, and that rarely needs an oil change. Now Epson proposes a printer that is "easier for women to use". Why don't they just say "breasts lower IQ's" or "that's okay little lady, we know you can't read an owners manual".
The nuclear material was inside lead-lined caskets in the warheads at the top of the missiles inside the concrete silos which are hundreds of feet from the power and control domes. Radiation risk is right around 0.0%. Even then, risk factors are based on populations, and our modern paranoia over radiation is the result of anti-nuke activist scare tactics. Some people are completely unaffected by low-levels of radiation, others are simply genetically predisposed to develop cancers and radiation triggers it. Madame Curie probably has more exposure to radiation than any other person in history. Sure she died of cancer...in her 80's, after nearly five decades of handling radioactive isotopes. Women who suffered cancer as a result of radium paint used on the clocks they built ingested radium when they licked their brushes, and many of them didn't develop cancer for years. Nobody is ever believed to have developed cancer or illness as a result of secondary exposure to radiation. (And before anyone brings up chernobyl, that's not secondary exposure: the reactor explosion seeded the entire area with very small very hot particles of nuclear fuel and coolant.)
...but the question is, if Griffiths committed no crime in his home country, should the US be allowed to hijack.au laws?
Extradition treaties are mutual agreements which extend the law of one country into the territory of another country by that countries consent. If Australian officials find cause to believe that Griffith used Australia as a safe haven to wantonly commit crimes in another country - even if they aren't considered crimes in Australia - they can then make the decision to extradite him. However, there is nothing to compel Australia to extradite this guy. The decision is completely arbitrary. Incidentally, the poster is wrong. Griffith did commit a crime in Australia if the allegations are true. His lawyers arguments are that because the transactions took place in America, but that Griffith was never physically in American territory, that he has not in fact "committed" a crime. It's a lawyers typical circular logic. The fact of the matter is Australia is beholden to the same International anti-piracy law as any other country who is a signatory to it. Simply because Australia doesn't have the evidence to bring him to trial.
All of this could have been avoided if this guy put his efforts toward free software.
...and he sure as hell isn't an accountant. I've not seen a serious scientist yet advocate a direct trajectory mission to mars with a straight face. The cost getting enough fuel and payload off the ground is enormous (and will remain so until the space elevator gets erected). A moon base is a practical first step and fuel generation point (mmm, He3 fusion rockets).
Hello...genius...this was a car designed by women for women. Of course the hood is welded shut. Most women don't want to tinker with the engine - they don't even want to know what and where it is. They just want to get in and drive. How the hell did you ignore that fact and frame this story as a matter of OSS!?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes...it's pretty. So freaking what - it's YAGC, and I'm sorely unimpressed by it. I'm in the market for a calculator, and I'd like to see one with a high-res color screen (so I can tell where and which plots are which), the ability to transfer graphs in jpg or gif format to my computer, and some basic pda functions so maybe I can store notes on it. Hell, a touch-screen would be nice too. Am I asking too much?
This economy is seeing the strongest growth in nearly two decades, and most of the numbers are the same as when Bush took office (by which time the economy was already spiralling downward - the dot-com bust is like what Black Thursday was to the Great Depression). The bottom line for this kid - and most people in the IT industry - is that employers are getting wise to where their IT dollars are going, and they're expecting more for their money than some hack.
Okay, wait a minute...so which is it people. Either (a) Clearchannel is a monopoly which controls the majority of what we see and hear or (b) Clearchannel is a failing business that can't compete with all the competition out there. Look, we all know you're a bunch of anti-corporate CP-USA members, but at least be genuine and put some logic behind your criticisms.
You could also glue feathers to your chest and cluck, but that doesn't make you chicken - just like your plattitudes don't make you right.
Try two articles...and really, this is like explaining why the sky is blue when it is in fact blue.
No. You haven't. You've simply repeated yourself. My two little reference is still two more references than you've ever provided. The bottom line is your assertions are wrong - dead wrong - and nobody even moderately literate in economics would ever assert that insourcing takes more away from the American economy than it puts in. I'm sorry if you're not convinced, but you werent' asking to be convinced - you were making an assertion.
Does it really make sense that they ship the componants over here to assemble them at higher labor prices? No. For instance, the Toyota Avalon consists of 70% US-made parts.
The EE Times article I referenced.
Believe what you want to believe - it's rather obvious that's what you're intent on doing anyway. Three times you've asked me to show proof backing my assertions, but you have yet to even logically justify your assertions. All you've offered is plattitudes and assumptions. I'm going to ask you once and once finally - how can you justify your assertion that a foreign company who creates jobs in the US is taking more away from our economy than it contributes. Anything but a direct, factual, and justified response to that will be ignored.
A rather safe assumption, since you're speaking out against free trade.
Your assertion was that Toyota takes that $126 Bn "out" of the economy. But then you admit that they spend it to make the products - please, how is that taking money from the economy? When they're paying US workers, taxes to US governments, purchasing US intermediate products (steel, plastic, aluminum, leather, vinyl, clothe), that money is not only staying in the economy, its encouraging US production in other sectors. That is in no way "taking money out of an economy". It an even be argued that a good portion of their $6 bn in profits stay in the economy. They use profits to pay dividends to their investors, many of whom are in the US. They also use profits to fund new capital expenditures - such as the new Lexus plant in Mississippi which will employ some 800 workers.
Getting back to the meat of the matter, outsourcing also has additional economic benefits. If you insist on the notion that FDI is subtracted from our economy (its not, you may be thinkging of Net Foreign Factor Income - that $6 Bn number, not the $126 bn one), then consider this. By shifting production facilities overseas, US software companies created 516,000 new jobs over 5 years, 244,000 domestically and 272,000 in the US. Without outsourcing, us labor costs would mean only 490,000 jobs could be created - and while the argument might be "yeah, those 246,000 more American jobs", it also means more expensive products that most American consumners can't or won't afford, and lower salaries for our workers. Protectionist policies alway run correlary to economic decline (look at the decimation of US exports for decades following the depression era Hawley-Smoot Tariff act in the 30's).
EETimes has an article about outsourcing on the front page of this months edition. It's really time to decide if America wants to compete with the world (and win), or just sit back on our laurels and wait for everyone to catch up with or without us.
The vast majority of money that goes into an economy goes in in the form of capital expenditures, or purchases of resources and intermediate goods. On a product which has a 10% profit margin, that means 90% of the money spent in making that product goes into acquiring intermediate goods, raw materials, or labor. To put this in perspective, if you look back at Toyota, their SEC filings for 2003 state $126 Bn USD in gross revenue, but after they pay the bills they only had $6 Bn in profits. That $120 Bn stayed in the respective economies (or simply, the global economy).
What you and other critics of free trade seem to miss is that participation in a global economy ultimately benefits everyone. The US may export some jobs and capital, but they also export goods. At the same time, we import jobs and capitalj, and those imports (Foreign Direct Investment) benefit us - particularly in times like these when the low dollar gives foreign investors more purchasing power.
How is this not a zero sum game? That goes back to resources - human kind still hasn't come close to exploiting all the natural resources of this planet, and by some estimates we never will. New technologies, unfound reserves of raw materials, and more efficient production methods (not to mention new products) cause economies to grow. Your assertion that a company like toyota simply takes money out of our economy ignores the idea that toyotas domestic production increases the output of mining (raw materials), farming (gotta feed workers, gotta produce grain alcohol for gasoline additives), and ranching (Lexuses require leather).
You still haven't shown in any demonstrable way how Toyota could possible take more out of the economy than they put in. THAT notion would require domestic resources and intermediate goods to have a very low market clearing price, or toyotas goods to have outlandishly high margins (average new car margins are 5 to 10 percent).
If this is true (and its not), then perhaps you explain how its possible to take more out of an economy than you put into it.
I don't see how it is NOT an improper reference. These are foreign companies who are putting billions into the US economy. I don't care when the plants were built - they're still here now. Not to mention that Toyota has expanded their plant capacity, number of shifts, and number of employees in the last two years. Guess whose making a significant number of new GMs?
With all the talk about how jobs go overseas, most Americans equate offshoring to job losses. No such documentary could be complete without mentioning that on balance, foreign companies created 6.4 million jobs in the US. Exports of US goods to foreign countries made by foreign owned businesses comprise 22% of all us exports. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) has increased by $82 Bn USD in FY2003, creating 400,000 new jobs. The weak US Dollar combined with our lower taxes is encouraging economic growth so much that companies like Honda and Toyota now make cars for the US market in California and Tennessee - NOT Japan. The EU's OECD is threatening trade sanctions, claiming our lower costs of doing business are a "tax subsidy" (i.e., not overtaxing business is the same as paying their taxes for them...wonderful circular logic).
Source: http://www.ofii.org/insourcing/
Actually, a "Republican" would do this if they thought it'd get them reelected. A Conservative wouldn't do this. Keep in mind that near-centrist left wing elements have come into the Republican party since the Democrats fell out of power, and don't forget that not all Republicans are Conservative Libertarian types.
But I agree...Democrats sUx0r.
We bloody Americans aren't banning all religious practice like you bloody Europeans. If you want to see an agregious encroachment of civil liberties, look at actual legislation going around the EU that is directly and blatently limiting the personal freedoms of its citizens. Kudo's to Spain for rolling over and giving it up to Al Qaeda. This mornings discovery of a bomb in Spain proves once again that appeasing terrorists just encourages them.
That's not funny. Your delusional perceptions are just sad.
It's funny how "defense" weaponry is usually offensive. To my mind, the ONLY weapons ever designed for defense is the Patriot AMS, the old SDI satellites, and the current ABL/ABM programs. Even these could be easily modified (an airborne laser for shooting down missiles? what if we pretend Kim Jong Il is a missile? Stir fry, that's what).
No shit. Exporting weapons technology. Exporting weapons software. Providing aid to non-State actors (it IS open source - do you honestly thing Al Qaeda, Hamas, or Hezballah won't want to apply this technology - they don't all live in mud huts you know). Selling weapons. Just posting this is probably good for 20 years in the hoosgow with a big black man named rock as your dancing partner.
I admire your goals. But you're dabbling in dangerous territory. I highly suggest you scale this down to a more civil use. You'll never get a federal license to even buy the srb engines to test such a device, and the first time you intercept an airliner by accident (even if you don't break the law by putting a warhead on the device), you're going to jail.
...it has to be 4/1 when you see a tagline at thinkgeek on this product that states "endorsed by PeTA". It's got to be a joke. If it's not, it's a pathetic statement about PeTA who would lend their name to the commercialization of something which is clearly not an ethical treatment of hamsters. Think of all the heat. A hamster would die in days if it were in my box. Even without that heat, the noise (95 dBA inside the box) is horrendous, and sure to drive the little rat nuts.
The mind boggles...
...I mean other than michael to push his wing-nut politics on people?
Does anyone remember a slashdot before michael,when we got news about shit that was actually cool? Now we get two-day old bits that are politically slanted to push michael left-wing kook politics.
It's true. It's very true. I remember high school, I could take automechanics and electronics because those were considered "trades", and had no academic restrictions. But in the year I graduated - 1994 - my high school would not let you touch a computer outside of the LRC unless you had taken at least algebra. What sense does that make? I used Algebra in electronics and automechanics every day, but most people who are proficient at using and troubleshooting computers barely need to know how to do basic arithmetic.
Now the latest thing in schools is to "push the arts", under the assumption that arts encourage academic excellence. What these people don't get is challenging students encourages academic excellence. Providing opportunity encourages academics.
The current education system is learning oriented. It's a production line that shuffles children around with little regard as to whether they can or do achieve. The education kids were given 40 years ago is equivalent to what sophmores in college are getting today.
Believe it or not, Dell has sanctioned retail "outlets" of sorts. A number of malls have kiosks with limited stocks of computer equipment at their disposal. You can also check out some of the rent-to-own stores who stock Dell computers, but they'll probably overcharge, which is self defeating.
BTW, there's no reason you can't have it delivered to your hotel address. It's just a slight pain in the ass.
First Volvo proposes a car with the hood welded shut, and that rarely needs an oil change. Now Epson proposes a printer that is "easier for women to use". Why don't they just say "breasts lower IQ's" or "that's okay little lady, we know you can't read an owners manual".
In a survey of 50 6th grade students, one rightly recognized that DHMO is water. Of hundreds of city officials, how many had to be told this fact?
Yes. Trust government, indeed.
..."Post As Anonymous Coward". Please remember to do this until /. developers enable the "I'm a Troll" option.
The nuclear material was inside lead-lined caskets in the warheads at the top of the missiles inside the concrete silos which are hundreds of feet from the power and control domes. Radiation risk is right around 0.0%. Even then, risk factors are based on populations, and our modern paranoia over radiation is the result of anti-nuke activist scare tactics. Some people are completely unaffected by low-levels of radiation, others are simply genetically predisposed to develop cancers and radiation triggers it. Madame Curie probably has more exposure to radiation than any other person in history. Sure she died of cancer...in her 80's, after nearly five decades of handling radioactive isotopes. Women who suffered cancer as a result of radium paint used on the clocks they built ingested radium when they licked their brushes, and many of them didn't develop cancer for years. Nobody is ever believed to have developed cancer or illness as a result of secondary exposure to radiation. (And before anyone brings up chernobyl, that's not secondary exposure: the reactor explosion seeded the entire area with very small very hot particles of nuclear fuel and coolant.)
Extradition treaties are mutual agreements which extend the law of one country into the territory of another country by that countries consent. If Australian officials find cause to believe that Griffith used Australia as a safe haven to wantonly commit crimes in another country - even if they aren't considered crimes in Australia - they can then make the decision to extradite him. However, there is nothing to compel Australia to extradite this guy. The decision is completely arbitrary. Incidentally, the poster is wrong. Griffith did commit a crime in Australia if the allegations are true. His lawyers arguments are that because the transactions took place in America, but that Griffith was never physically in American territory, that he has not in fact "committed" a crime. It's a lawyers typical circular logic. The fact of the matter is Australia is beholden to the same International anti-piracy law as any other country who is a signatory to it. Simply because Australia doesn't have the evidence to bring him to trial.
All of this could have been avoided if this guy put his efforts toward free software.
...and he sure as hell isn't an accountant. I've not seen a serious scientist yet advocate a direct trajectory mission to mars with a straight face. The cost getting enough fuel and payload off the ground is enormous (and will remain so until the space elevator gets erected). A moon base is a practical first step and fuel generation point (mmm, He3 fusion rockets).
Hello...genius...this was a car designed by women for women. Of course the hood is welded shut. Most women don't want to tinker with the engine - they don't even want to know what and where it is. They just want to get in and drive. How the hell did you ignore that fact and frame this story as a matter of OSS!?