I suggest that those same countries that are recycling motherboards make motherboards too.
I don't see a thing wrong with buying those new motherboards from whoever makes them.
Who made the motherboard that is in your PC?? Have you ever bothered to find out if the soldering stations in the plant that made your motherboard is properly ventilated? ( you might have... I'd say it's unlikely though.. )
The more I think about this story, the more I think it's all a bunch of horseshit.
Go back to the original article, I bet This guy, Ted Smith, of the Silicon Valley Toxic's Commission, probably works for some big trash company, or recycling company here in USA. Or probably the entire Toxic's Commision is funded by the same.. His agenda is probably to get some new Regs passed so that HE can make all the money on this stuff instead of the Far Easterners.
As for being a troll, I don't know anything about it. But I do have to scold my 8 year old for name calling once in a while.
In my opinion, a lot of cultures hate Americans because we meddle too much. We always stick our noses into other peoples business.
What right do we have to tell the Chinese or the Indians if they can recycle motherboards or not. Those people that have this work as their only way to make money are probably not going to appreciate what you did for them ( to them ) if they starve to death after they loose their job.
Based on Pop Science, and media sensationalism a bunch of rich americans are going to "help" a poor country by preventing them from engaging in an enterprise at which they can make money.
Who is self-centered?
If someone comes to my house and pays me $1 for a box of junk so they can pick out the good stuff and sell it for a profit, I wouldn't consider myself to have "dumped" anything on them. NO! They pay for the junk. They don't GET anything until they sell what they have scrapped for a profit.
Who is calling who less important. YOU are trying to run their lives, and tell them what is good for them. Do YOU think people loose the right to choose when they are poor?
Get your facts right. They are willfully engaging in a transaction. They WANT this junk. They BUY it. AND they make MONEY on it.
Poverty is what you make of it. I've always had the willingness and the freedom to pull myself up by my own bootstraps. I'm glad you weren't there to keep me down.
blockquote>Let me know when you have kids, so I can give them my leftover
smokes 'n beer.
That is not a good analogy because I don't think kids are to their parents
as China is to USA.
Even so, I do have kids. I don't pretend that their success and
health depends on the goodwill of others ( besides me) preventing
their access to things. I don't agree with our ( American ) popular idea
that we are doing our kids good by preventing access to things until they
are a certain age. They are sure to try both cigarettes and beer.
I hope they don't get addicted to nicotine like I am. My approach
is openess, councilling and education. My opinion is that getting
supervised introduced to alcohol at a young age ( like 16) can prevent
bigger problems later on.
&n bsp;
I think the point is, if China is going to harm their (our) environment
with this stuff, we should stop selling it to
&n bsp;
them.
I'm skeptical. I don't think that circuit boards are so particularly
dangerous. I doubt that they could do much of anything with them
on their side of the planet that would have an impact on our side of the
planet. I don't care if they litter square miles of their countryside
with old motherboards. It's their countryside. They can litter
it if they want. They are an adult nation. They don't need
to be and can't be supervised.
&n bsp;
Your 'buyer beware' argument only works up until that 'buyer' is someone
you care about. Clearly, you don't care
&n bsp;
too much for (the government of, I hope) China, so your argument is likely
biased to begin with, but you have to
&n bsp;
accept an ethical responsibility for providing access to things that certain
societies are not fit or experienced
&n bsp;
enough to handle maturely. (Or lack the proper infrastructure to handle.)
Out of goodwill, I might accept the burden of helping them to realize
the dangers as we see them. But I bear no responsibility. I'm
responsible for me. You're responsible for you. China is responsible
for China.
&n bsp;
Probably the funniest thing is, if you hate the government so much, and
knowledge that its a totalitarian regime,
&n bsp;
and accept that the garbage is indeed hurting the/people/ of China (not
the government), why are you so glib to
&n bsp;
furthur put them at a disadvantage? You're being just as discompassionate
about the citizens of China as you
&n bsp;
claim the totalitarian government is. So why is your stand any more ethical
and righteous than that of the Chinese
&n bsp;
Government?
I don't claim it to be ethical or righteous. I do claim to be
practical, and pragmatic. If they want to do something ( such as
recycle motherboards ) they are going to do it. We can't stop them.
As much as we ( Americans ) like to think it, we actually do not control
the entire world.
&n bsp;
First you bash their government, saying the people don't deserve it, and
then you shrug your shoulders and keep
&n bsp;
feeding the people of China your shit. Your disregard for Chinese citizens
with respect to this issue is just as
&n bsp;
blatent (if on a smaller scale) as that of the Chinese Government according
to you.
I bashed the government as an example of our inability to control them.
I'd rather America focused it's energy on it's own dirty laundry, and
looking out for our own citizens. If Chinese don't mind recycling
motherboards I'm happy to get ride of them. If they see net economic
benefit in an industry that we don't see net benefit in, then that's great.
Your links legitimize my scrutiny of the following statement, which was what I found hard to believe:
> Where do you think the millions of tonnes of waste from WTC bombing is being dumped? They are being dumped in India and China
That statment implies that waste rubble is being loaded on ships and then dumped overseas because we don't want it here. In fact, as your links clearly reveal, thousands of tons of scrap steel are being purchased for over $100/ton, to be recycled in forein steel mills. That is easy for me to believe, and I see nothing wrong with it.
The only controversy in those 3 articles was that some Americans thought the scrap steel should be saved in the unlikely case it might contain some useful forensic information.
> When other people are doing things which we know are harmful to them and their environment we have a responsibility to try and help deter this act
Horse shit.
How do you tell a totalitarian regime that they should stop harming their environment?
Do you realize that China has population control. Is it 1 kid, and then you get clipped? ( maybe 2, can't remember.. )
They arrest people and throw them in jail for decades for doing terrible things like speaking out at political rallys.
Screw them. I think we should sell China every bit of garbage we can. It's a win-win situation. We get to get rid of stuff we don't want. We get to have a nicer environment for us, here, in USA. They get to buy stuff they want to buy ( our garbage).
My gut feeling is that if this old junk is getting shipped over seas it
is probably because someone over there wanted it and paid for it.
I refuse to feel guilty about this. Some enterprising people probably
realized that they could make a few bucks taking apart old computers.
Perhaps that money went to buy food for some starving people.
How is my problem if people in other countries, far, far away, don't
care as much about "preserving their scenic countryside" as they do about
eating?
Re:Oversight rarely works-that's why this is hooey
on
David Brin on Privacy
·
· Score: 1
Your example is not a very good one in my opinion. Yes one terrorist was detected, but we can say anthing was prevented. ( read the story you linked to.. )
Your own example of the kind of oversight you wouldn't like is quite apt. It demonstrates why you can't trust powerful people to do right. Insurance company looking at your credit reciepts would be bad. There is a case in in Britian, I think, where an insurance company raised the rates of a women because they found through DNA testing that she had a gene which might predispose her to cancer.
I believe that case was exposed and went to the courts.
Unfortunately, some people translate that to things like
"Regular common people should have the right to bear arms to prevent their
high school from being integrated."
What does that have to do with anything? Bad people will use what
tools are at hand. They could have used dynamite to prevent integration,
or pitchforks, or swords, and axes like was done over in Rawanda.
The utopia that many 2nd Amendment people espouse is a scary place
for the rest of us, a world where endless Timothy McVeighs feel like they
have the right to blow stuff up whenever any law passes that they don't
like,
McVeigh was in the military. He was trained to use guns by the
US, and would have been regardless of his 2nd ammendment rights.
Furthermore he didn't use a gun to kill all those people, he used a bomb.
( Bombs are not covered under the 2nd ammemdment.
And finally a lot of evidence ( which I'm sorry I don't have at my fingertips,
) suggests that when lots of people carry legal handguns, crime goes down
( cases in Texas) . And when people are strictly prohibited from
having firearms ( London) crime goes up.
I suggest that there is no perfect world. That outlawing guns,
can not, and will never get ride of them. And that a society where
the armed and unarmed bad guys have to worry about encoutering armed victims
is a lot better then the alternatives.
&n bsp;
while the rest of us who just want to play with our computers and see music
and hang out with our friends get caught in the crossfire.
My feeling is that "the crossfire" is often caused by shootouts between
parties, one or more of which are carrying illegal firearms, and that they
often happen in cities where lawabiding citizens are strictly prohibited
from carrying guns. Point being that outlawing guns won't take them
away from people who already carry them illegally. And that making
it easier for citizens to carry guns, will cause the punks, and the hoods,
to think twice before they slap leather and start blasting..
&n bsp;
Where do I draw the line? I'm not sure. People should have the right to
violently resist a government that is trying to kill them.
Here is a question for you. Do you think that the everyday citizens
of Kosovo had or have the right to possess, carry, or use firearms,
before Slobovich started slaughtering people a couple of years ago?
Do you think the genocide would have occured had those folks been armed??
( Maybe it would, or maybe not. One thing is for sure though.
A Jack Boot thug, knocking your door down, might have cause to hesitate
if he thinks you might have a shotgun waiting on the other side..)
Beyond a self-defense of you and/or your loved ones, it's hard for
me to see many reasons why killing is a valid action. When you can make
a case that your life is at stake and you have no other way of redressing
your grievances, then maybe it's time to think about arms. Before that,
you're part of the problem.
Problem is once you know your life is a stake it's too late.
What happens when our Gov't breaks
on
David Brin on Privacy
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
250 Years ago, before the American Revolution, the founding fathers of
America realized that the gov't they were living under was broken.
They found it to be unacceptable. Thus began America.
Our ( America's) new gov't was framed in the idea that gov't can't be
perfect, and that if it gets really screwed up, citizens should have the
power to revolt, and to create a new gov't. This, I believe, is the
root behind the 2nd amendment. Regular common people, it was written,
should have the right to bear arms, form up a non-state controlled militia,
and fight for their rights if they need to. ( Of course they never
dreamed how of the twisted ways liberals would try to interpret the second
amendment. If only they would have been a little more specific.)
I agree with the author. We SHOULD be fighting intensely for rigorous
oversight of the Gov't in the cases where we can't stop them from taking
our freedoms.. But we should NOT embrace the erosion of our freedom.
Freedom is not just "freedom from attack by foreign bad people."
Freedom is also "freedom from your own gov't." As we
let the gov't be more in control, and in the know regarding each of our
lives, we really are setting ourselves up to be citizens of the Big Brother
country of the future, where it will be totally impossible for people to
revolt if the USA runs astray.
At $64 an hour you are probably doing better then many CS types...
If you really like the software, and you don't want to be a manager, supervisor,
or leader, the whole promotion thing doesn't matter to you.
On the other hand, if you really want to be more than just a high paid
VB contractor, you do need more training, and not in CS. You need
to learn business, communications, management, statistics, etc....
The FBI is way too busy with the real bad guys, like Bin Laden. You should
go check out Gibson's story
about the DOS attack that he was subjected to, and the results of his attempt
to get the law involved. Basically, if your damages are less the
$20,000 they don't care, and if the alleged hacker is less the 18, they
probably don't care. It may be very hard to put a value on a webpage
defacement that will hold up in court. Courts don't like to do much
to kids either.
To make a long story short, it only makes sense to
not throw good money after bad by trying to apprehend and prosecute someone.
The effort on behalf of the corporation will be better spent shoring things
up to prevent it from happening again.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't buy it. I don't believe you do either.
I suggest that those same countries that are recycling motherboards make motherboards too.
I don't see a thing wrong with buying those new motherboards from whoever makes them.
Who made the motherboard that is in your PC?? Have you ever bothered to find out if the soldering stations in the plant that made your motherboard is properly ventilated? ( you might have... I'd say it's unlikely though.. )
The more I think about this story, the more I think it's all a bunch of horseshit.
Go back to the original article, I bet This guy, Ted Smith, of the Silicon Valley Toxic's Commission, probably works for some big trash company, or recycling company here in USA. Or probably the entire Toxic's Commision is funded by the same.. His agenda is probably to get some new Regs passed so that HE can make all the money on this stuff instead of the Far Easterners.
As for being a troll, I don't know anything about it. But I do have to scold my 8 year old for name calling once in a while.
In my opinion, a lot of cultures hate Americans because we meddle too much. We always stick our noses into other peoples business.
What right do we have to tell the Chinese or the Indians if they can recycle motherboards or not. Those people that have this work as their only way to make money are probably not going to appreciate what you did for them ( to them ) if they starve to death after they loose their job.
Based on Pop Science, and media sensationalism a bunch of rich americans are going to "help" a poor country by preventing them from engaging in an enterprise at which they can make money.
Who is self-centered?
If someone comes to my house and pays me $1 for a box of junk so they can pick out the good stuff and sell it for a profit, I wouldn't consider myself to have "dumped" anything on them. NO! They pay for the junk. They don't GET anything until they sell what they have scrapped for a profit.
Who is calling who less important. YOU are trying to run their lives, and tell them what is good for them. Do YOU think people loose the right to choose when they are poor?
Get your facts right. They are willfully engaging in a transaction. They WANT this junk. They BUY it. AND they make MONEY on it.
Poverty is what you make of it. I've always had the willingness and the freedom to pull myself up by my own bootstraps. I'm glad you weren't there to keep me down.
Even so, I do have kids. I don't pretend that their success and health depends on the goodwill of others ( besides me) preventing their access to things. I don't agree with our ( American ) popular idea that we are doing our kids good by preventing access to things until they are a certain age. They are sure to try both cigarettes and beer. I hope they don't get addicted to nicotine like I am. My approach is openess, councilling and education. My opinion is that getting supervised introduced to alcohol at a young age ( like 16) can prevent bigger problems later on.
&n bsp; I think the point is, if China is going to harm their (our) environment with this stuff, we should stop selling it to
&n bsp; them.
I'm skeptical. I don't think that circuit boards are so particularly dangerous. I doubt that they could do much of anything with them on their side of the planet that would have an impact on our side of the planet. I don't care if they litter square miles of their countryside with old motherboards. It's their countryside. They can litter it if they want. They are an adult nation. They don't need to be and can't be supervised.
&n bsp; Your 'buyer beware' argument only works up until that 'buyer' is someone you care about. Clearly, you don't care
&n bsp; too much for (the government of, I hope) China, so your argument is likely biased to begin with, but you have to
&n bsp; accept an ethical responsibility for providing access to things that certain societies are not fit or experienced
&n bsp; enough to handle maturely. (Or lack the proper infrastructure to handle.)
Out of goodwill, I might accept the burden of helping them to realize the dangers as we see them. But I bear no responsibility. I'm responsible for me. You're responsible for you. China is responsible for China.
&n bsp; Probably the funniest thing is, if you hate the government so much, and knowledge that its a totalitarian regime, /people/ of China (not
the government), why are you so glib to
&n bsp; and accept that the garbage is indeed hurting the
&n bsp; furthur put them at a disadvantage? You're being just as discompassionate about the citizens of China as you
&n bsp; claim the totalitarian government is. So why is your stand any more ethical and righteous than that of the Chinese
&n bsp; Government?
I don't claim it to be ethical or righteous. I do claim to be practical, and pragmatic. If they want to do something ( such as recycle motherboards ) they are going to do it. We can't stop them. As much as we ( Americans ) like to think it, we actually do not control the entire world.
&n bsp; First you bash their government, saying the people don't deserve it, and then you shrug your shoulders and keep
&n bsp; feeding the people of China your shit. Your disregard for Chinese citizens with respect to this issue is just as
&n bsp; blatent (if on a smaller scale) as that of the Chinese Government according to you.
I bashed the government as an example of our inability to control them.
I'd rather America focused it's energy on it's own dirty laundry, and looking out for our own citizens. If Chinese don't mind recycling motherboards I'm happy to get ride of them. If they see net economic benefit in an industry that we don't see net benefit in, then that's great.
Your links legitimize my scrutiny of the following statement, which was what I found hard to believe:
> Where do you think the millions of tonnes of waste from WTC bombing is being dumped? They are being dumped in India and China
That statment implies that waste rubble is being loaded on ships and then dumped overseas because we don't want it here. In fact, as your links clearly reveal, thousands of tons of scrap steel are being purchased for over $100/ton, to be recycled in forein steel mills. That is easy for me to believe, and I see nothing wrong with it.
The only controversy in those 3 articles was that some Americans thought the scrap steel should be saved in the unlikely case it might contain some useful forensic information.
> When other people are doing things which we know are harmful to them and their environment we have a responsibility to try and help deter this act
Horse shit.
How do you tell a totalitarian regime that they should stop harming their environment?
Do you realize that China has population control.
Is it 1 kid, and then you get clipped? ( maybe 2, can't remember.. )
They arrest people and throw them in jail for decades for doing terrible things like speaking out at political rallys.
Screw them. I think we should sell China every bit of garbage we can. It's a win-win situation. We get to get rid of stuff we don't want. We get to have a nicer environment for us, here, in USA. They get to buy stuff they want to buy ( our garbage).
Do you have any links to back up this story?
How is my problem if people in other countries, far, far away, don't care as much about "preserving their scenic countryside" as they do about eating?
Your example is not a very good one in my opinion. Yes one terrorist was detected, but we can say anthing was prevented. ( read the story you linked to.. )
Your own example of the kind of oversight you wouldn't like is quite apt. It demonstrates why you can't trust powerful people to do right. Insurance company looking at your credit reciepts would be bad. There is a case in in Britian, I think, where an insurance company raised the rates of a women because they found through DNA testing that she had a gene which might predispose her to cancer.
I believe that case was exposed and went to the courts.
Problem is once you know your life is a stake it's too late.
Our ( America's) new gov't was framed in the idea that gov't can't be perfect, and that if it gets really screwed up, citizens should have the power to revolt, and to create a new gov't. This, I believe, is the root behind the 2nd amendment. Regular common people, it was written, should have the right to bear arms, form up a non-state controlled militia, and fight for their rights if they need to. ( Of course they never dreamed how of the twisted ways liberals would try to interpret the second amendment. If only they would have been a little more specific.)
I agree with the author. We SHOULD be fighting intensely for rigorous oversight of the Gov't in the cases where we can't stop them from taking our freedoms.. But we should NOT embrace the erosion of our freedom. Freedom is not just "freedom from attack by foreign bad people." Freedom is also "freedom from your own gov't." As we let the gov't be more in control, and in the know regarding each of our lives, we really are setting ourselves up to be citizens of the Big Brother country of the future, where it will be totally impossible for people to revolt if the USA runs astray.
RMS is an advocate of asking people to send the document in a non MS format that can be read using open software.
I wonder what he thinks of this?
You've gotta get the job first. Gov't doesn't give out clearences to people unless they need them.
Pocket PC never beat palm sales. They are growing, but palm is still the big winner
Say you started at $4/hour..
4
8
16
32
64
At $64 an hour you are probably doing better then many CS types... If you really like the software, and you don't want to be a manager, supervisor, or leader, the whole promotion thing doesn't matter to you.
On the other hand, if you really want to be more than just a high paid VB contractor, you do need more training, and not in CS. You need to learn business, communications, management, statistics, etc....
gs
The FBI is way too busy with the real bad guys, like Bin Laden. You should go check out Gibson's story about the DOS attack that he was subjected to, and the results of his attempt to get the law involved. Basically, if your damages are less the $20,000 they don't care, and if the alleged hacker is less the 18, they probably don't care. It may be very hard to put a value on a webpage defacement that will hold up in court. Courts don't like to do much to kids either.
To make a long story short, it only makes sense to not throw good money after bad by trying to apprehend and prosecute someone. The effort on behalf of the corporation will be better spent shoring things up to prevent it from happening again.
Cheers!
gs