At the risk of going even more off topic, that's so obviously wrong. What manufacturers actuallly do to respectfully reject an order is to send a high estimate during the initial inquiry. To do it your way is to waste time and resources, no company is that dumb.
Is that like saying "piracy is hurting the world of p2p technology"? Is it? And if government cracks down on p2p, should we blame pirates or government?
You are of course implying that a version which is intended for pirates bears any intent to adhere to its design or guarantee performance to those who pirate it. It doesn't.
We're likely on the same side regarding the issue of ethics at Guantanamo, but unless there are Guananamo inmates who are imprisoned for merely the words they've written, it's not an appropriate comparison.
Going even more off-topic: I don't see how skinny jeans are comfortable at all (unless one has some sort of compression fetish I guess). So you follow the fashion dictates of pop culture, while someone else follows the fashion dictates of business culture. What's there to really argue over among the two when we, whether we admit it or not, sacrifice comfort to look presentable and acceptable to some niche group of people? I mean, if we truly value comfort above the opinions of others, I think we'd all be in sarongs/skirts.
Actually, income inequality is higher in China than in the US. We like to poo-poo the USA a lot on this site, which is all well and good when factual, but let's not get carried away with these falsehoods about how well China is doing.
It's contradictory to praise China while criticizing the Tea Party when what China is and what the Tea Party wants is so similar -- since their laissez faire ideals are bit closer to China's current situation than the ideals of other political parties. A well-off lower class will want imports and will shun factory labor, increasing trade deficit and the cost of manufacturing. This is one of the reasons China has boomed for so long -- it has great reserve of cheap labor, and is kept cheap by the yuan peg. In essence the poorest are kept poor (or accurately, the growth of wealth in the lower class is depressed from what it can be) so that Chinese goods can continue to be sold in large quantities.
I'm not sure you want to put forward this type of broad logic, because by this logic, European Slashdotters have no right to complain about the US causing harm to other people since their countries have, for centuries, been the main instigators of genocide and suffering around the world.
Very true on the electric scooters, their wide adoption have definitely helped curb emissions growth in China compared to what it could have been. Many cities have also banned gas motorcycle sales in order to stimulate the electric scooter market. Although, we have to also consider that 99% of these scooters run on lead acid batteries, so some of the positive environmental impact which we may be assuming is merely the illusion of having the negative impacts hidden away in the northern factories, and in the fields and streams around them. Recycling of these batteries by owners is also not very common, so guess where they usually end up. So for emissions reduction, I think it's been quite successful, but for actually cleaning the environment, it's more complicated.
Something else to consider is the relative transparency of government in either country. Chinese government can easily invest large sums without public scrutiny, while the US legislative body is far more constrained in being beholden to other branches as well as to offices of accountability, NGO watchdogs, and the press. This is one of the practical pitfalls of transparency -- because people are generally short-sighted, and with the public scrutiny of government comes great fear, within the polity at large, of not showing action/progress at every moment, whether it is to authorize a temporary "solution" or to cut losses on a "money sink". On the other hand, while Chinese government appears decisive and bold, it is less responsive to inefficiency and graft.
In simpler terms, the US government's trouble is from paralysis of being in the public eye, Chinese government's trouble is from unaccountability of not being in the public eye. Which is less worse depends on whom you mistrust more: individuals or institutions.
The trouble with this simplistic definition is that it fits everyone in some way while fitting no one. With few exceptions, the Republicans want changes to government policies, for example immigration, taxation, education, the role of religion, among others. These changes may be contrary to your own desires, but they are deviations from the status quo nonetheless. They therefor are, by your definition, NOT "conservatives", but "liberals" who merely differ with you in the modes of achieving "progress". On the other hand, there are issues on which Democrats will not budge, for example the current size and growth trend of Medicare and Social security. They therefor are, by your definition, NOT "liberals", but "conservatives" who wish for the status quo.
Today, "liberal" and "conservative" have merely become convenient labels to pigeonhole others and to deepen divisions, especially to those who have fallen to the dualism trap within US politics (which we often see here on/. and unfortunately more often than not from the self-ascribed "open-minded" people)
I have a feeling you were modded down because you were pretty much singing the non-American (probably European) version of "At least we know we're freeee!"
I referred specifically to your blanket statements regarding Libertarians/Republicans/gun owners in the recent past. These too represent ideologies with diverse membership. Your above reply is deflection to a different debate entirely, but nonetheless brings up an appropriate point. Catholics and Muslims as a whole should not shoulder the blame for the extremists among them, and rightly so. My question was whether this means such understanding will also be extended to Libertarians/Republicans/gun owners, because in your past commentary it has not.
I admire your defense of Muslims in the face of prejudiced comments, especially since, by your speech (use of the 3rd person), I assume you are not Muslim. It takes a person of integrity to do this. I am not wholly in the Libertarian camp, nor am I a Republican or a gun owner, and I too have come to their defense in the face of prejudiced comments. It seems you have joined my side, and I wanted to know whether it was permanent change or done out of convenience.
Are the diverse members of an ideology collectively responsible and collectively to blame for the actions of a subset of that group, or are they not? Or is it determined on a case by case basis dependent on our mood and prejudices?
A Chinese dissident imprisoned for 10 years for subversion, whose conviction was supported by evidence from Yahoo, was released early on Friday after completing his term, his wife said. [..] Wang was detained in September 2002 and later sentenced for "incitement to subvert state power", a vaguely defined charge used frequently to punish political critics. Wang distributed pro-democracy writings by email and through Yahoo groups.
Pardon the off-topic post, Basil, but as you seem to be quite comfortable in the recent past in painting with broad brush strokes in other topics (re: Libertarians/Republicans/gun owners for example), it's very strange to see you be so cautious in tiptoeing around group responsibility/group blame in this case. Is this a change towards a more sensible view that we should expect in the future or a continuation of cognitive dissonance?
You're making the assumption that the US's plan rests entirely in closing the "open market" gate. Of course it won't stop unwanted tech transfer, so of course it can't be the whole plan, because there will always be black markets and back channels. However, those routes are places where intelligence agencies thrive, and by limiting the avenues of sale, the US makes it more likely that the Russian company or their proxies stumble across CIA-compromised suppliers. It doesn't stop a determined buyer, but it will make that buyer think twice, use more diligence, and generally expend more time, effort and resources to avoid falling into such traps, which, given enough of these speed bumps, will make their project increasingly cost-prohibitive. That's what I think they're doing -- they know they can't stop it, so making Russia pay out the ass to accomplish their goal is the next best option.
It seems like we can only conclude that scientific literacy helps one to more consistently categorize ethical/unethical behavior. Whether actions follow, especially in times of desperation where ethics are most needed and least cared for, is an entirely different matter altogether. Knowing right is not the same as doing right.
Slashdot Mirror
At the risk of going even more off topic, that's so obviously wrong. What manufacturers actuallly do to respectfully reject an order is to send a high estimate during the initial inquiry. To do it your way is to waste time and resources, no company is that dumb.
Source: past work for export companies
Is that like saying "piracy is hurting the world of p2p technology"? Is it? And if government cracks down on p2p, should we blame pirates or government?
You are of course implying that a version which is intended for pirates bears any intent to adhere to its design or guarantee performance to those who pirate it. It doesn't.
Furthermore the gimmick in the pirated version may in fact drive up the piracy rate.
are you implying spite-piracy? "I hate you so much I'm going to enjoy your game"
We're likely on the same side regarding the issue of ethics at Guantanamo, but unless there are Guananamo inmates who are imprisoned for merely the words they've written , it's not an appropriate comparison.
Going even more off-topic: I don't see how skinny jeans are comfortable at all (unless one has some sort of compression fetish I guess). So you follow the fashion dictates of pop culture, while someone else follows the fashion dictates of business culture. What's there to really argue over among the two when we, whether we admit it or not, sacrifice comfort to look presentable and acceptable to some niche group of people? I mean, if we truly value comfort above the opinions of others, I think we'd all be in sarongs/skirts.
Actually, income inequality is higher in China than in the US. We like to poo-poo the USA a lot on this site, which is all well and good when factual, but let's not get carried away with these falsehoods about how well China is doing.
It's contradictory to praise China while criticizing the Tea Party when what China is and what the Tea Party wants is so similar -- since their laissez faire ideals are bit closer to China's current situation than the ideals of other political parties. A well-off lower class will want imports and will shun factory labor, increasing trade deficit and the cost of manufacturing. This is one of the reasons China has boomed for so long -- it has great reserve of cheap labor, and is kept cheap by the yuan peg. In essence the poorest are kept poor (or accurately, the growth of wealth in the lower class is depressed from what it can be) so that Chinese goods can continue to be sold in large quantities.
I'm not sure you want to put forward this type of broad logic, because by this logic, European Slashdotters have no right to complain about the US causing harm to other people since their countries have, for centuries, been the main instigators of genocide and suffering around the world.
That would make /. a really dead place.
Very true on the electric scooters, their wide adoption have definitely helped curb emissions growth in China compared to what it could have been. Many cities have also banned gas motorcycle sales in order to stimulate the electric scooter market. Although, we have to also consider that 99% of these scooters run on lead acid batteries, so some of the positive environmental impact which we may be assuming is merely the illusion of having the negative impacts hidden away in the northern factories, and in the fields and streams around them. Recycling of these batteries by owners is also not very common, so guess where they usually end up. So for emissions reduction, I think it's been quite successful, but for actually cleaning the environment, it's more complicated.
Something else to consider is the relative transparency of government in either country. Chinese government can easily invest large sums without public scrutiny, while the US legislative body is far more constrained in being beholden to other branches as well as to offices of accountability, NGO watchdogs, and the press. This is one of the practical pitfalls of transparency -- because people are generally short-sighted, and with the public scrutiny of government comes great fear, within the polity at large, of not showing action/progress at every moment, whether it is to authorize a temporary "solution" or to cut losses on a "money sink". On the other hand, while Chinese government appears decisive and bold, it is less responsive to inefficiency and graft.
In simpler terms, the US government's trouble is from paralysis of being in the public eye, Chinese government's trouble is from unaccountability of not being in the public eye. Which is less worse depends on whom you mistrust more: individuals or institutions.
The trouble with this simplistic definition is that it fits everyone in some way while fitting no one. With few exceptions, the Republicans want changes to government policies, for example immigration, taxation, education, the role of religion, among others. These changes may be contrary to your own desires, but they are deviations from the status quo nonetheless. They therefor are, by your definition, NOT "conservatives", but "liberals" who merely differ with you in the modes of achieving "progress". On the other hand, there are issues on which Democrats will not budge, for example the current size and growth trend of Medicare and Social security. They therefor are, by your definition, NOT "liberals", but "conservatives" who wish for the status quo.
Today, "liberal" and "conservative" have merely become convenient labels to pigeonhole others and to deepen divisions, especially to those who have fallen to the dualism trap within US politics (which we often see here on /. and unfortunately more often than not from the self-ascribed "open-minded" people)
oops, I thought I was replying to the Anon. (I take it back if I could!)
I have a feeling you were modded down because you were pretty much singing the non-American (probably European) version of "At least we know we're freeee!"
I referred specifically to your blanket statements regarding Libertarians/Republicans/gun owners in the recent past. These too represent ideologies with diverse membership. Your above reply is deflection to a different debate entirely, but nonetheless brings up an appropriate point. Catholics and Muslims as a whole should not shoulder the blame for the extremists among them, and rightly so. My question was whether this means such understanding will also be extended to Libertarians/Republicans/gun owners, because in your past commentary it has not.
I admire your defense of Muslims in the face of prejudiced comments, especially since, by your speech (use of the 3rd person), I assume you are not Muslim. It takes a person of integrity to do this. I am not wholly in the Libertarian camp, nor am I a Republican or a gun owner, and I too have come to their defense in the face of prejudiced comments. It seems you have joined my side, and I wanted to know whether it was permanent change or done out of convenience.
Are the diverse members of an ideology collectively responsible and collectively to blame for the actions of a subset of that group, or are they not? Or is it determined on a case by case basis dependent on our mood and prejudices?
A Chinese dissident imprisoned for 10 years for subversion, whose conviction was supported by evidence from Yahoo, was released early on Friday after completing his term, his wife said. [..] Wang was detained in September 2002 and later sentenced for "incitement to subvert state power", a vaguely defined charge used frequently to punish political critics. Wang distributed pro-democracy writings by email and through Yahoo groups.
Find a comparable case in the US.
That's implying Europe is the center of the world. East and West are just relative directions.
Pardon the off-topic post, Basil, but as you seem to be quite comfortable in the recent past in painting with broad brush strokes in other topics (re: Libertarians/Republicans/gun owners for example), it's very strange to see you be so cautious in tiptoeing around group responsibility/group blame in this case. Is this a change towards a more sensible view that we should expect in the future or a continuation of cognitive dissonance?
You're making the assumption that the US's plan rests entirely in closing the "open market" gate. Of course it won't stop unwanted tech transfer, so of course it can't be the whole plan, because there will always be black markets and back channels. However, those routes are places where intelligence agencies thrive, and by limiting the avenues of sale, the US makes it more likely that the Russian company or their proxies stumble across CIA-compromised suppliers. It doesn't stop a determined buyer, but it will make that buyer think twice, use more diligence, and generally expend more time, effort and resources to avoid falling into such traps, which, given enough of these speed bumps, will make their project increasingly cost-prohibitive. That's what I think they're doing -- they know they can't stop it, so making Russia pay out the ass to accomplish their goal is the next best option.
Your naivete presumptions are easy to dismiss with a simple 5 minute task:
Look at what happens to ACLU lawyers in USA
Look at what happens to civil rights lawyers in China
What if a surge takes both of them out? Wouldn't it be safer to leave one drive completely disconnected and only turned on for syncing to the other?
It seems like we can only conclude that scientific literacy helps one to more consistently categorize ethical/unethical behavior. Whether actions follow, especially in times of desperation where ethics are most needed and least cared for, is an entirely different matter altogether. Knowing right is not the same as doing right.
No story mentions that. He certainly doesn't have 26.8B dollars. Is it a bluff to get the dividends he wanted?
Aren't Congressional sessions open to the public anyway? They can still get together physically for backroom deals or whatever.