As others have already pointed out, Mono makes C# and.NET available on Android. There are probably C# compilers for iOS too. However, even if there weren't do you think that every developer on the planet needs or even wants to be a tablet or phone developer? Tablets and phones get lots of hype, but in terms of paid developer jobs and total value of software produced they are niche markets compared to the proprietary server side software market. Meanwhile, the 'App Stores' that cater to tablets and phones are full of dinky apps that have all been done N+1 times so that nobody makes much money. A single hit historically isn't enough to launch a music career and it turns out that it isn't enough to launch a software company either; as many independent developers are now learning the hard way.
The victims family likely want to see "justice" but what is justice? Taking 5+ years of another mans life over an accident is just revenge.
That's all that people care about anymore. Remember that we live in a post-forgiveness society now; one felony and you are forever shut out of the middle class unless you are lucky enough to find an employer willing to take a chance on you again (good luck with that) or found the next big company. The prison industrial complex is creating an expanding underclass in our society of people who are shut out of any chance at redemption or equal opportunities.
playing with mutual funds, 401ks, etc that have large numbers of people's saving in them.
Most mutual funds are either indexes or run by a management team with specific strategies, goals and investment styles; all of which are spelled out in the prospectus. Even the large public pension funds, which have dabbled in private equity and derivatives in an attempt to juice returns without much success, have still been used human experts; not algorithms which both decide what is to be traded and make trades autonomously. From what I've heard, the algorithmic trading platforms are mostly the preserve of specialized hedge funds and their wealthy clients, not average investors attempting to save for their retirement.
It's the companies that the insurance companies pay. They're robbing us all blind.
Call it what you will, but it makes perfect economic sense. Overcharging and lack of transparency in pricing of goods and services is the inevitable result of any payment arrangement in which you pay someone else to pay the bill for you; especially when you cannot easily see what the price would otherwise be if you bought directly from the seller in the open marketplace. For a full explanation of the "Third Party Payer Problem" as it relates to healthcare, I recommend the following article. Third party pay isn't the only thing wrong with health care in the United States but it is a large part of it and perhaps the largest single part.
Precisely. That is why the chose him. It was a logical choice for Sony. They want someone with the political and law enforcement connections to make "examples" out of targets chosen by Sony in response to future attacks.
Sony should be hiring from within the hacker community.
After the rootkit fiasco and the GeoHot affair, very few in the hacker community would willingly become Judas for thirty pieces of Sony silver.
The fact that they selected this guy shows me they are focused on arresting them and are going to treat it as a low enforcement problem rather than as a technical and cultural problem.
This surprises you? Remember, this is Sony we're talking about here, they're like no other, remember?
This lack of respect for the culture of those who buy the product is the main part of the problem.
I would say that it's a lack of respect for the hacker culture, the people who still buy their products are clueless and have no culture.
This guy is going to be seen as an outsider, a government suit and the hackers are going to attack Sony harder.
That was inevitable. Sony has long since crossed the Rubicon with the hacker community; there's no turning back now.
It's been obvious how politics really works for a long while now.
Perhaps even longer than you might think. Take for example In Verrem (full text of oration), a series of speeches made by Cicero in 70 BC during the corruption and extortion trial of Gaius Verres; the former governor of Sicily. Organized government and corruption of those in power go together hand in glove; they are like action and reaction, cause and effect.
Incidentally, there actually is a for-profit school offering a "Jack Welch" branded MBA. The irony surely cannot be lost on their "students" or then again maybe it can.
Jobs is arguably the best business leader of our era.
Perhaps, but I would have to vote for Jack Welch of GE fame for best business leader. Steve Jobs was a visionary and a titan of tech to be sure, but business in general includes more than just tech. Jack was the kind of executive that could have run almost any corporation well. Indeed, his management strategies and methods have been and continue to be used with great success by many other companies. Whether you admire or hate Jack you had to admit that he was good and that he knew how to run a Fortune 500 company better than just about anyone else.
It was a friggen television show people. Sometimes, the producers and writers did things a certain way because that is what looked best visually on television, not because that was how real people living in the 24th century would actually do things. The Start Trek analogy only goes so far because, at the end of the day, it was a weekly television program with time, budget and visual constraints. The technology was often subservient to these visual and story needs, not the other way around.
Similarly, the fact that the Libyan rebels would have been summarily crushed if Qaddafi had been able to deploy his armor and air force with impunity doesn't diminish their accomplishments against a better equipped and better trained opponent.
What diminishes their success was the need for NATO to provide the airstrikes that made that success possible.
The NATO airstrikes made success possible, but by no means did it guarantee it. The rebels still had to follow through with the ground fighting. If this means the end of Gadaffi, then it was well worth the investment for NATO; especially considering all of the trouble that Gadaffi has caused Europe over the decades. Good riddance.
Winning a civil war may be a success, having someone else win it for you, not so much.
The NATO airstrikes evened the odds for the rebels, eliminating Gadaffi's air force and much of his heavy weapons, but the rebels still had to fight Gadaffi's forces who, in spite of the NATO airstrikes, were still somewhat better armed and trained than the rebels; some of whom had never handled small arms before this fight began. I still maintain that the rebels deserve credit for going up against a better armed and trained force and even with NATO's help they still took serious risks that shouldn't be minimized.
Did we actually supply them with many weapons? It would seem that most of the rebel armaments consist of ex-Soviet and Russian equipment captured from stockpiles built up by Gadaffi in the decades following the US airstrikes of 1986. Indeed, the Libyan rebels shown on CNN appear to be using AK-47s, RPGs, DShKs, ZU-23-2s (mounted on pickup trucks to create "Technicals"), and a few ZSU-23s and T-54/55/72 tanks; not exactly standard NATO equipment. It seems that NATO contributions were mostly in the areas of airstrikes against Gadaffi's heavy weapons and command/control networks, tactical advice and strategic intelligence to support the rebel advances. NATO helped make the rebel advances possible, giving them a fighting chance, but it was the rebels themselves who took the opportunity and seized it using locally sourced and captured weapons.
Revolutions are messy and bloody affairs and they sometimes make for strange bedfellows. In the case of Libya there wasn't any other viable option; four decades of Gaddafi proved that. Are some of these revolutionaries unsavory? Almost certainly, but that doesn't diminish their success. Libya is not the same as Iraq, the people in charge aren't about to hand the reigns of power to the Taliban-style Islamists; especially not after four decades of Gaddafi and his "Islamic Jamahiriya" nonsense.
Short sighted people want immediate gratification and respect, and fuck you if you don't give it to them.
Robert E. Howard, a writer of serial pulp fantasy and creator of Conan the Barbarian, once said, "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." The irony of course is that by limiting the exposure of our school age children to fights, bullies and other hard knocks learning experiences we are actually creating a ruder, cruder and less civilized society.
Technically, that's not exactly correct, but the effect would be the same. You can sue anyone for anything by filling out the paperwork, paying the filing fees and finding a process server to serve the papers. However, as you point out, the police enjoy broad immunity from civil liability and criminal prosecution; especially when acting in their official capacity. The case would probably not even be put on the docket or if it is, then it will only be given a few minutes; long enough for the judge to enter a default judgment in favor of the police and order you to pay the city attorney fees for bringing a frivolous lawsuit. Needless to say, you won't be getting your filing fees back and I suppose that the judge could also hold you in contempt if he was feeling especially vindictive that day or your argument was really stupid. Judges generally take a dim view of people who waste the court's time and any accusation made against the police has to be a pretty serious breech of the public trust to stick. The use of "hands on" during an arrest doesn't count; extreme examples such as the BART platform shooting not withstanding.
You can mind your own business, strictly not take sides, and still get killed.
At the signing of a charter establishing the German Peace Corps in Bonn, West Germany on June 24 1963, John F Kennedy referenced Dante's Inferno when he remarked that, "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in periods of moral crisis, maintained their neutrality." The people of Libya and especially the youth, who with neither training nor experience and at great personal risk, took up arms to liberate themselves from decades of brutal oppression deserve the highest praise for their actions. Although, revolution is and always should be a last resort, it's refreshing to see that there are still some people left who are willing to stake everything they have, including their lives, for a real chance at freedom and a brighter future for themselves and their children. That was the same sort of spirit that got America started 235 years ago and we could all stand to be reminded of that by the courageous example of the Libyan people. I salute them.
Any sane general / commander when retreating destroys anything that can help the enemy.
Take for example the First Gulf War. Saddam did indeed destroy some fraction of the oil reserves of Kuwait, but that didn't mean the end of Kuwait as an oil producing nation once Iraq was defeated, the wells repaired and order once again restored; in that case by force of arms. So yes, scorched earth is always a possibility, but if the enemy is pursued and destroyed in detail quickly, as is often the case in modern set piece battles, there is little time for destruction of property, looting or pillaging by the losing side.
Secondly will a war increase the rate of usage or decrease it?
Short run increase followed by long run decrease after competition for remaining resources is eliminated.
so you will end up with less at the end of the war and even in times of peace you have the tragedy of the commons at work which will inevitably lead to another war. As scarcity enters a market it inevitably leads to conflict.
I completely agree. My point was that barring a major technological miracle that provides a serious drop-in replacement for fossil fuels such scenarios are inevitable. Those who choose not to participate in these wars, either out of inability to fight or moral compunction against doing so, will ultimately starve to death or be killed anyway by those doing the fighting. We have already committed to a changed planet by the end of the 21st century, it's too late to turn back now. The resource wars may not occur within my remaining lifetime, but they will almost certainly be upon us before the 21st century is out unless we develop Star Trek like technology to save us from ourselves. I'm not an optimist, in case you hadn't noticed, so I tend to believe that humanity will go down the dwindling resource wars path rather than the enlightened technological utopian fantasy; but hey, I've been wrong before.
It's not for nothing that China had been considered a superpower.
Superpower status is conferred by relative military might confirmed by a major victory in a major war (ala WWII). The Chinese were on the winning side of WWII, but only the United States and the former Soviet Union (of which Russia is heir), emerged as "superpowers". The European nations for example, while having access to advanced military equipment and training, were not considered to be superpowers. Even France and the UK, which eventually became nuclear powers in their own rights as did China, were not in the same class as either the United States or Russia. China has long aspired to superpower status, and may yet attain it one day, but it's not there yet.
and had one of the 5 permanent seats in the UN throughout its history
Almost every nation on the planet has a seat in the General Assembly. No doubt you were referring to the Security Council, of which the 5 permanent members represented the major powers left standing at the end of WWII. The United States and the Soviet Union were clearly the captains of their respective teams when the Security Council began meeting in 1946 and had the greatest ability to sway world opinion or attract attention when sabers were rattled.
China is a country that defeated India in 1962 and seized some of its territory
India in 1962 was a third rate military power. Hell, even Pakistan gave them a run for their money and although things have improved somewhat since then, India remains a limited regional power; albeit one with the nuclear trump-card to play against any would be aggressor. It's true that the Chinese, poorly equipped as they were in 1962, were still better trained and equipped than Indian forces at that time and they also outnumbered them, which didn't hurt.
its power has only grown since
As was already mentioned, the United States has a larger annual budget and a very substantial head starts in technology, experience, expertise and equipment. China has grown militarily since 1962 yes, but it has a long ways to go before it can seriously challenge the military might of the United States.
They have the full power to retake Taiwan if they wanted, and any of the islands in the South China Sea that are currently in dispute b/w China, Vietnam, Malaysia & the Philippines.
There is no way that enough manpower could be mobilized for a full scale invasion across the Formosa Straight without immediately alerting the United States, which would invariably respond by increasing the submarine presence, above normal patrol levels, to discourage any seaborne invasion. There is also the 7th fleet based in Japan and other naval forces, including carriers, based in Hawaii and San Diego, that would be able to respond quickly if needed. The United States is obligated by treaty to defend Taiwan and the Chinese know this. It would not be possible for China to hold onto Taiwan or any other short run gains in the face of a determined US counter attack and siege of the islands in question.
Mongolia voluntarily put itself in the Soviet orbit b'cos they were scared of China overrunning them
Not since the time of the great Khans, who ruled China during the Yuan Dynasty, has Mongolia been a major military power. The Mongolians did as many other nations, including ironically China, did during the Cold War. They cast their lot with the Soviets while the Chinese, who by then had fallen out with their Soviet friends, moved towards the United States beginning with Nixon's visit in 1972.
On the above topic, China is discovering Pakistan to be a double-edged sword as an ally
The Americans have also had a long off and on again relationship with Pakistan. First when India was moving into the Soviet sphere of influence and later during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan a
wars break out that wipe out a major part of the planets population, bringing us back down to a population that can survive
with the remaining fossil fuels. There, fixed that for you.
pretty much back to the pre-industrial revolution days, hopefully wiser of what not to do.
No, there will be much fewer people living on much degraded planet; one where fewer people have access to fossil fuels, except in emergencies or on special occasions, and only the wealthy still live as if hydrocarbon energy is cheap and abundant. However, the relative level of technology is unlikely to change much short of an asteroid impact or a nuclear war.
The result is the new Chinese stealth fighter that scared the Washington post some months ago.
It didn't scare anybody in the know and least of all the US Military. They were just posturing to win increases in the defense budget (Oh noes! China!) or at least forestall any cuts. The truth is that the Chinese armed forces are no match for the United States armed forces and that's not likely to change any time soon. Indeed, the Chinese, recognizing their lack of carrier based air power and poor anti-submarine capability, are attempting to compensate on the cheap with lots and lots of missile boats. This despite the abysmal combat record of small fast attack craft whether the torpedo speedboats of WWII or the more recent fast missile boat attacks launched by the Iranians during the Iran Iraq war (BTW: the score on that one was 40 Iranian missile boats destroyed for ZERO US casualties; no US warships sunk or even damaged). Fast attack small boats suck against regular warships. They are the poor man's answer to a blue water navy and a poor answer at that. Finally, this isn't just a matter of money either. The United States has decades of experience operating large and varied military forces in many wars across the globe whereas the last time the Chinese military faced a serious threat, during WWII, they were soundly beaten; at least until the US started helping them fight the Japanese. Even if the Chinese wanted to multiply their military spending to compete with ours, they lack the expertise and experience necessary to build and operate the sorts of forces that would be needed to seriously challenge the United States and it would take decades for them to acquire it. The military brass here in the US is just playing up the China angle to maintain their budgetary allocation; they are watching the Chinese, of course, but I doubt they're really as alarmed as they claim to be in those budgetary hearings.
It's highly doubtful that Steve Jobs would be amenable to a buyout in any case, even if someone had cash. In any case, the Apple board will follow Steve's lead and any attempt at a hostile takeover would almost certainly fail or else destroy the value of Apple in the process. Like it or not Apple is Steve Jobs and he is Apple. Without Steve, Apple would be just another me-too tech company; long since acquired by the likes of HP, IBM or even Microsoft.
I prefer that to a company whose business is making the planet inevitably inhabitable.
Your modern lifestyle and that of almost every other person currently living on this planet is made possible by relatively cheap access to hydrocarbons. If nothing else, remember this:
1. Be careful what you wish for, lest you actually receive it.
Slashdot Mirror
As others have already pointed out, Mono makes C# and .NET available on Android. There are probably C# compilers for iOS too. However, even if there weren't do you think that every developer on the planet needs or even wants to be a tablet or phone developer? Tablets and phones get lots of hype, but in terms of paid developer jobs and total value of software produced they are niche markets compared to the proprietary server side software market. Meanwhile, the 'App Stores' that cater to tablets and phones are full of dinky apps that have all been done N+1 times so that nobody makes much money. A single hit historically isn't enough to launch a music career and it turns out that it isn't enough to launch a software company either; as many independent developers are now learning the hard way.
The victims family likely want to see "justice" but what is justice? Taking 5+ years of another mans life over an accident is just revenge.
That's all that people care about anymore. Remember that we live in a post-forgiveness society now; one felony and you are forever shut out of the middle class unless you are lucky enough to find an employer willing to take a chance on you again (good luck with that) or found the next big company. The prison industrial complex is creating an expanding underclass in our society of people who are shut out of any chance at redemption or equal opportunities.
playing with mutual funds, 401ks, etc that have large numbers of people's saving in them.
Most mutual funds are either indexes or run by a management team with specific strategies, goals and investment styles; all of which are spelled out in the prospectus. Even the large public pension funds, which have dabbled in private equity and derivatives in an attempt to juice returns without much success, have still been used human experts; not algorithms which both decide what is to be traded and make trades autonomously. From what I've heard, the algorithmic trading platforms are mostly the preserve of specialized hedge funds and their wealthy clients, not average investors attempting to save for their retirement.
It's the companies that the insurance companies pay. They're robbing us all blind.
Call it what you will, but it makes perfect economic sense. Overcharging and lack of transparency in pricing of goods and services is the inevitable result of any payment arrangement in which you pay someone else to pay the bill for you; especially when you cannot easily see what the price would otherwise be if you bought directly from the seller in the open marketplace. For a full explanation of the "Third Party Payer Problem" as it relates to healthcare, I recommend the following article. Third party pay isn't the only thing wrong with health care in the United States but it is a large part of it and perhaps the largest single part.
which goes to show what Sony's priorities are.
Precisely. That is why the chose him. It was a logical choice for Sony. They want someone with the political and law enforcement connections to make "examples" out of targets chosen by Sony in response to future attacks.
Sony should be hiring from within the hacker community.
After the rootkit fiasco and the GeoHot affair, very few in the hacker community would willingly become Judas for thirty pieces of Sony silver.
The fact that they selected this guy shows me they are focused on arresting them and are going to treat it as a low enforcement problem rather than as a technical and cultural problem.
This surprises you? Remember, this is Sony we're talking about here, they're like no other, remember?
This lack of respect for the culture of those who buy the product is the main part of the problem.
I would say that it's a lack of respect for the hacker culture, the people who still buy their products are clueless and have no culture.
This guy is going to be seen as an outsider, a government suit and the hackers are going to attack Sony harder.
That was inevitable. Sony has long since crossed the Rubicon with the hacker community; there's no turning back now.
It's been obvious how politics really works for a long while now.
Perhaps even longer than you might think. Take for example In Verrem (full text of oration), a series of speeches made by Cicero in 70 BC during the corruption and extortion trial of Gaius Verres; the former governor of Sicily. Organized government and corruption of those in power go together hand in glove; they are like action and reaction, cause and effect.
so they forked him over to the feds to look like they don't Do That Sort of Thing...
The lesson: If you have nothing to offer but yourself, maybe you should keep it to yourself.
Incidentally, there actually is a for-profit school offering a "Jack Welch" branded MBA. The irony surely cannot be lost on their "students" or then again maybe it can.
Jobs is arguably the best business leader of our era.
Perhaps, but I would have to vote for Jack Welch of GE fame for best business leader. Steve Jobs was a visionary and a titan of tech to be sure, but business in general includes more than just tech. Jack was the kind of executive that could have run almost any corporation well. Indeed, his management strategies and methods have been and continue to be used with great success by many other companies. Whether you admire or hate Jack you had to admit that he was good and that he knew how to run a Fortune 500 company better than just about anyone else.
It was a friggen television show people. Sometimes, the producers and writers did things a certain way because that is what looked best visually on television, not because that was how real people living in the 24th century would actually do things. The Start Trek analogy only goes so far because, at the end of the day, it was a weekly television program with time, budget and visual constraints. The technology was often subservient to these visual and story needs, not the other way around.
Similarly, the fact that the Libyan rebels would have been summarily crushed if Qaddafi had been able to deploy his armor and air force with impunity doesn't diminish their accomplishments against a better equipped and better trained opponent.
Amen.
What diminishes their success was the need for NATO to provide the airstrikes that made that success possible.
The NATO airstrikes made success possible, but by no means did it guarantee it. The rebels still had to follow through with the ground fighting. If this means the end of Gadaffi, then it was well worth the investment for NATO; especially considering all of the trouble that Gadaffi has caused Europe over the decades. Good riddance.
Winning a civil war may be a success, having someone else win it for you, not so much.
The NATO airstrikes evened the odds for the rebels, eliminating Gadaffi's air force and much of his heavy weapons, but the rebels still had to fight Gadaffi's forces who, in spite of the NATO airstrikes, were still somewhat better armed and trained than the rebels; some of whom had never handled small arms before this fight began. I still maintain that the rebels deserve credit for going up against a better armed and trained force and even with NATO's help they still took serious risks that shouldn't be minimized.
Did we actually supply them with many weapons? It would seem that most of the rebel armaments consist of ex-Soviet and Russian equipment captured from stockpiles built up by Gadaffi in the decades following the US airstrikes of 1986. Indeed, the Libyan rebels shown on CNN appear to be using AK-47s, RPGs, DShKs, ZU-23-2s (mounted on pickup trucks to create "Technicals"), and a few ZSU-23s and T-54/55/72 tanks; not exactly standard NATO equipment. It seems that NATO contributions were mostly in the areas of airstrikes against Gadaffi's heavy weapons and command/control networks, tactical advice and strategic intelligence to support the rebel advances. NATO helped make the rebel advances possible, giving them a fighting chance, but it was the rebels themselves who took the opportunity and seized it using locally sourced and captured weapons.
Revolutions are messy and bloody affairs and they sometimes make for strange bedfellows. In the case of Libya there wasn't any other viable option; four decades of Gaddafi proved that. Are some of these revolutionaries unsavory? Almost certainly, but that doesn't diminish their success. Libya is not the same as Iraq, the people in charge aren't about to hand the reigns of power to the Taliban-style Islamists; especially not after four decades of Gaddafi and his "Islamic Jamahiriya" nonsense.
you could write a PhD thesis on this question.
I would be surprised if this topic hasn't already been thoroughly addressed ad nauseum in any number of similar sociology dissertations.
Short sighted people want immediate gratification and respect, and fuck you if you don't give it to them.
Robert E. Howard, a writer of serial pulp fantasy and creator of Conan the Barbarian, once said, "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." The irony of course is that by limiting the exposure of our school age children to fights, bullies and other hard knocks learning experiences we are actually creating a ruder, cruder and less civilized society.
Technically, that's not exactly correct, but the effect would be the same. You can sue anyone for anything by filling out the paperwork, paying the filing fees and finding a process server to serve the papers. However, as you point out, the police enjoy broad immunity from civil liability and criminal prosecution; especially when acting in their official capacity. The case would probably not even be put on the docket or if it is, then it will only be given a few minutes; long enough for the judge to enter a default judgment in favor of the police and order you to pay the city attorney fees for bringing a frivolous lawsuit. Needless to say, you won't be getting your filing fees back and I suppose that the judge could also hold you in contempt if he was feeling especially vindictive that day or your argument was really stupid. Judges generally take a dim view of people who waste the court's time and any accusation made against the police has to be a pretty serious breech of the public trust to stick. The use of "hands on" during an arrest doesn't count; extreme examples such as the BART platform shooting not withstanding.
You can mind your own business, strictly not take sides, and still get killed.
At the signing of a charter establishing the German Peace Corps in Bonn, West Germany on June 24 1963, John F Kennedy referenced Dante's Inferno when he remarked that, "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in periods of moral crisis, maintained their neutrality." The people of Libya and especially the youth, who with neither training nor experience and at great personal risk, took up arms to liberate themselves from decades of brutal oppression deserve the highest praise for their actions. Although, revolution is and always should be a last resort, it's refreshing to see that there are still some people left who are willing to stake everything they have, including their lives, for a real chance at freedom and a brighter future for themselves and their children. That was the same sort of spirit that got America started 235 years ago and we could all stand to be reminded of that by the courageous example of the Libyan people. I salute them.
Any sane general / commander when retreating destroys anything that can help the enemy.
Take for example the First Gulf War. Saddam did indeed destroy some fraction of the oil reserves of Kuwait, but that didn't mean the end of Kuwait as an oil producing nation once Iraq was defeated, the wells repaired and order once again restored; in that case by force of arms. So yes, scorched earth is always a possibility, but if the enemy is pursued and destroyed in detail quickly, as is often the case in modern set piece battles, there is little time for destruction of property, looting or pillaging by the losing side.
Secondly will a war increase the rate of usage or decrease it?
Short run increase followed by long run decrease after competition for remaining resources is eliminated.
so you will end up with less at the end of the war and even in times of peace you have the tragedy of the commons at work which will inevitably lead to another war. As scarcity enters a market it inevitably leads to conflict.
I completely agree. My point was that barring a major technological miracle that provides a serious drop-in replacement for fossil fuels such scenarios are inevitable . Those who choose not to participate in these wars, either out of inability to fight or moral compunction against doing so, will ultimately starve to death or be killed anyway by those doing the fighting. We have already committed to a changed planet by the end of the 21st century, it's too late to turn back now. The resource wars may not occur within my remaining lifetime, but they will almost certainly be upon us before the 21st century is out unless we develop Star Trek like technology to save us from ourselves. I'm not an optimist, in case you hadn't noticed, so I tend to believe that humanity will go down the dwindling resource wars path rather than the enlightened technological utopian fantasy; but hey, I've been wrong before.
It's not for nothing that China had been considered a superpower.
Superpower status is conferred by relative military might confirmed by a major victory in a major war (ala WWII). The Chinese were on the winning side of WWII, but only the United States and the former Soviet Union (of which Russia is heir), emerged as "superpowers". The European nations for example, while having access to advanced military equipment and training, were not considered to be superpowers. Even France and the UK, which eventually became nuclear powers in their own rights as did China, were not in the same class as either the United States or Russia. China has long aspired to superpower status, and may yet attain it one day, but it's not there yet.
and had one of the 5 permanent seats in the UN throughout its history
Almost every nation on the planet has a seat in the General Assembly. No doubt you were referring to the Security Council, of which the 5 permanent members represented the major powers left standing at the end of WWII. The United States and the Soviet Union were clearly the captains of their respective teams when the Security Council began meeting in 1946 and had the greatest ability to sway world opinion or attract attention when sabers were rattled.
China is a country that defeated India in 1962 and seized some of its territory
India in 1962 was a third rate military power. Hell, even Pakistan gave them a run for their money and although things have improved somewhat since then, India remains a limited regional power; albeit one with the nuclear trump-card to play against any would be aggressor. It's true that the Chinese, poorly equipped as they were in 1962, were still better trained and equipped than Indian forces at that time and they also outnumbered them, which didn't hurt.
its power has only grown since
As was already mentioned, the United States has a larger annual budget and a very substantial head starts in technology, experience, expertise and equipment. China has grown militarily since 1962 yes, but it has a long ways to go before it can seriously challenge the military might of the United States.
They have the full power to retake Taiwan if they wanted, and any of the islands in the South China Sea that are currently in dispute b/w China, Vietnam, Malaysia & the Philippines.
There is no way that enough manpower could be mobilized for a full scale invasion across the Formosa Straight without immediately alerting the United States, which would invariably respond by increasing the submarine presence, above normal patrol levels, to discourage any seaborne invasion. There is also the 7th fleet based in Japan and other naval forces, including carriers, based in Hawaii and San Diego, that would be able to respond quickly if needed. The United States is obligated by treaty to defend Taiwan and the Chinese know this. It would not be possible for China to hold onto Taiwan or any other short run gains in the face of a determined US counter attack and siege of the islands in question.
Mongolia voluntarily put itself in the Soviet orbit b'cos they were scared of China overrunning them
Not since the time of the great Khans, who ruled China during the Yuan Dynasty, has Mongolia been a major military power. The Mongolians did as many other nations, including ironically China, did during the Cold War. They cast their lot with the Soviets while the Chinese, who by then had fallen out with their Soviet friends, moved towards the United States beginning with Nixon's visit in 1972.
On the above topic, China is discovering Pakistan to be a double-edged sword as an ally
The Americans have also had a long off and on again relationship with Pakistan. First when India was moving into the Soviet sphere of influence and later during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan a
wars break out that wipe out a major part of the planets population, bringing us back down to a population that can survive
with the remaining fossil fuels. There, fixed that for you.
pretty much back to the pre-industrial revolution days, hopefully wiser of what not to do.
No, there will be much fewer people living on much degraded planet; one where fewer people have access to fossil fuels, except in emergencies or on special occasions, and only the wealthy still live as if hydrocarbon energy is cheap and abundant. However, the relative level of technology is unlikely to change much short of an asteroid impact or a nuclear war.
The result is the new Chinese stealth fighter that scared the Washington post some months ago.
It didn't scare anybody in the know and least of all the US Military. They were just posturing to win increases in the defense budget (Oh noes! China!) or at least forestall any cuts. The truth is that the Chinese armed forces are no match for the United States armed forces and that's not likely to change any time soon. Indeed, the Chinese, recognizing their lack of carrier based air power and poor anti-submarine capability, are attempting to compensate on the cheap with lots and lots of missile boats. This despite the abysmal combat record of small fast attack craft whether the torpedo speedboats of WWII or the more recent fast missile boat attacks launched by the Iranians during the Iran Iraq war (BTW: the score on that one was 40 Iranian missile boats destroyed for ZERO US casualties; no US warships sunk or even damaged). Fast attack small boats suck against regular warships. They are the poor man's answer to a blue water navy and a poor answer at that. Finally, this isn't just a matter of money either. The United States has decades of experience operating large and varied military forces in many wars across the globe whereas the last time the Chinese military faced a serious threat, during WWII, they were soundly beaten; at least until the US started helping them fight the Japanese. Even if the Chinese wanted to multiply their military spending to compete with ours, they lack the expertise and experience necessary to build and operate the sorts of forces that would be needed to seriously challenge the United States and it would take decades for them to acquire it. The military brass here in the US is just playing up the China angle to maintain their budgetary allocation; they are watching the Chinese, of course, but I doubt they're really as alarmed as they claim to be in those budgetary hearings.
It's highly doubtful that Steve Jobs would be amenable to a buyout in any case, even if someone had cash. In any case, the Apple board will follow Steve's lead and any attempt at a hostile takeover would almost certainly fail or else destroy the value of Apple in the process. Like it or not Apple is Steve Jobs and he is Apple. Without Steve, Apple would be just another me-too tech company; long since acquired by the likes of HP, IBM or even Microsoft.
I prefer that to a company whose business is making the planet inevitably inhabitable.
Your modern lifestyle and that of almost every other person currently living on this planet is made possible by relatively cheap access to hydrocarbons. If nothing else, remember this:
1. Be careful what you wish for, lest you actually receive it.
2. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Not even the Nazis can resist a good alliteration.
Except that in German, Ihre Papiere bitte , it's not an alliteration: