I don't want to pay for quality in electronics. I want them to break just as I am ready to upgrade\replace them. There's a local computer store in my area that is on the radio constantly with advertisements about how they sell quality computers that last a long time. Who wants that? I only want my computer to last 3 years, then it can melt, and I'll get a new one. I don't want to pay an extra $500 for something that will last 5 years; it will be obsolete. Cordless phones are so cheap now that I usually just buy a new one when it stops working (usually the battery dies or the kids break it). Do I want to spend $50 on a phone that lasts 15 years? No, I want to buy cheap ones and get the new features (like built-in message taker or headphone jack).
This all has nothing to do with the economy or companies trying to cut corners. Electronic gizmos change very fast so no one (smart) wants to have their gizmos very long, and no one (smart) wants to pay extra to have their gizmos last a long time. I have a VGA monitor that is 8 years old and will probably never die. Great quality, it'll last forever. Do I hear $100?
The debt is bad, but the tax burden is the problem. The way to get rid of the debt is to curb spending, but military spending only accounts for about 11%, and let the economy grow out of the debt. Per capita income has been skyrocketting, but so have expenditures and consequently taxes. But you can't blame military spending. Someone has fed you bull and you ate it. I can tell when someone has never taken an economics class, or been in the military.
By the way, if you pay income tax, you are by definition "rich", since the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of the income tax. Futhermore, ANY reduction in income taxes now by rule will disportionately affect the rich since the rich so disportionately carry the burden.
>> If the government was to let the free market allocate the spectrum,
>Yeah. Free market will solve everything. Bandwidth ? Free market. Energy ? Free market. IP laws ? Free market. Pollution ? Free market. World hunger ? Free market. Greed ? Free market.
Yeah. Goevernment will solve everything. Bandwidth? Government. Energy? Government. IP laws? Government (hey they can right all the laws they want) Pollution? Government. World Hunger? Government. Greed? Government (ever actually read a porked bill?)
I have two phones with two different providers. No problems. I don't think the author knows very much about the cell phone business. Can't switch providers? Won't invest in new infrastructure? Overloading their networks? Whatever. A few weeks ago my little city just approved the lease of a cell tower from one provider to another. We got to see a little of how they are handling the spectrum. They are doing a pretty good job here. I doubt the author's area is much different. Probably he and a couple of his friends have a lot of dropped calls and they dreamed up all the "supposed" problems with cell phone providers.
The little mrs. wants to do picture scanning and photo editing. Almost all the user-friendly apps are on windows, as well as the drivers. The desktop makes no difference to her, but if she can't run the scrapbook program which uses the scanner, printer, and digital camera on a particular OS, there's no way she would use it. So I can spend all my time finding Linux compatible everythings, or just go buy Windows (and reboot all the time). Hence...Windows.
Annan says: Too often, state monopolies charge exorbitant prices for the use of bandwidth.
I'd say Qwest in my area fits this description. What's ol' Kofi going to do for me?
Re:Go enroll in Economics 101
on
Mr Anti-Google
·
· Score: 1
I am still convinced that you never went to econ 101. And your assessment about the most important conference, the World Summit, tells me all I need to know about where you are coming from.
Free markets are useless without regulation... it's not a paradox, something some people find hard to acknowledge.
Then it's not a free market. It's a regulated market.
What conference is going on at the moment that is probably the most important conference in the last 10 years? The World Summit. And what is it all about? Equitable distribution of wealth generated by sustainable development without environmental damage. And why is it required? Because left to their own devices, companies and governments have done an awful job of this, and so we need a framework to ensure this does happen.
This is called a planned economy. They have this in North Korea, China to some degree, and the former Soviet Union.
I'd love to see the faces in the Shell boardroom if you went in and told them in a very stern face to be honest...
Where did you get this attitude? Corporations are evil and dishonest? Anyway, the best "check and balances" against dishonest corporations is competition, not government. Did you ever think of the government as an evil Monopoly? Who regulates them? But that's not the point.
Here are some action items you probably agree with:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. - from the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx
More:
"Where is the justice of a society that has such extremes of luxury for some, misery for others?...To say that people have an equal right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, means that if, in fact, there is inequality in those things, society has a responsibility to correct the situation and to ensure that equality." - Prof. Howard Zinn, self-proclamed communist.
I think you are a Marxist whether you realize it or not. I think that is a shame. I hope you study some economics (study Marx and then Adam Smith) and look at the application of their ideas in the world.
Try reading New Ideas from Dead Economists. It covers all the major economic thinkers. Please, the World Summit is a joke. They are not interested in the environment, but they are interested in the equalization of wealth.
Go enroll in Economics 101
on
Mr Anti-Google
·
· Score: 1
Everything you wrote is a crock. I was going to quote the ridiculous parts but I would have including your whole post.
You are confusing criticism with perfect information in the marketplace. Criticism is of an opinion, information is just information. When consumers have perfect information, they make market decisions based on correct assessments of cost and benefit. Criticism does not necessarily provide correct information and can cause consumers to incorrectly calculate costs and\or benefits to using a service.
If Honda start making a car that almost everyone buys, should I criticize it in order to keep Honda honest, not "abuse" the consumers, and promote a "civil" society? IF there is something wrong with the car that is not known, bringing that info to light is beneficial to the consumer. But once consumers learn the new info, and then continue to buy the car, what, should we continue to bask Honda until their sale go down?
Google can do whatever they want within legal means. They can't make you do anything, and you can't make them do anything.
What "corruption" could Google be doing? Do you not realize that every site you visit could track you? Do you not realize that your personal information is bought and sold all the time? Yet you keep consuming goods and services from companies that you know might be doing this. Why the assumption that Google and other coporations must be kept honest by criticism?
This is how the free market and freedom of speech work. You can always choose from whom you are going to purchase goods and services, and you can choose who you are going to listen to. But "criticism" is not necessary for a free market, or for keeping companies honest.
I'll bet you never took an economics class, or if you did, I'll bet you didn't pass it.
I was waiting for the crystal example.
Sure nature produces order. But isn't it the overall "order" that does not increase?
About the genetic algorithms: the reason I don't see that as being a valid test of evoution is because there is already some logic to begin with. Someone had to create the algorithm. The system may perfect or expand the alogrithm, but it didn't create itself. What we need is a computer sitting idly that evolves over time, with no initial logic to do such. The only logic the universe can have are physical and chemical laws. Even then, where did they come from?
Given that I already exist on the earth, it is only a matter of time that I increase the order around me to whatever degree. I also don't think that modern computing power is sufficient to produce a good simulation of evolution. There are just too many calculations.
Some things I have been thinking about:
1) What if humans became so knowledgeable and so powerful that they could basically control the universe? Would that be a violation of the 2nd law? Then the universe, in essence, would have evolved into a sentient being.
2) Some people propose that evolution on earth does not violate the 2nd law because it is not a closed system. Is the universe then a closed system? If so, then number 1 couldn't happen (if it does violate the 2nd). Otherwise the universe would have to be an open system.
3) So far earth is the only planet we know of that can foster life as we define it. So far, this is the only place in the universe that has "things" which are self-aware. We make decisions based on things other than reaction to physical laws. We have things like "pleasure", "ambition" and "love". We send some people to explore the moon. Why doesn't any other planet send something to explore its moon? Why is intelligence confined to this planet? Humans (life) do not behave randomly or only in reaction to physical events around them. Everywhere else does. So even if we want to accept that life can be found on worlds that don't have the atmosphere, liquid water, and solar radiation that we do, why don;t we see intelligence anywhere else?
4) Why DNA? Couldn't complex life have evolved in some way other than by the use of DNA? Were there other types of life beaten out by DNA-based life?
5) If we are the result of evolution, then every aspect of life is the result of evolution. Every plant, every characteristic of every animal, every organ and cell of the human body is the result of a change from the simple to the more advance? Evolution produced the genius of human DNA?
I know, I sound more like a bored philosophy student. I get the evidence of evolution, I just don't get the "why".
Quote: Don't confuse "theory" with "unproven idea".
I think they are the same thing. Gravity is the description of an observed phenomenon. You can't prove gravity exists. It is "unproven". You can prove that two objects are attracted to each other, but you can't explain why. You also can't very well have a control and a test group.
Evolutionism vs Creationism is facinating to me. Both are hampered by the fact that neither has been proven. Evolutionists have demonstrated that there seems to be a correlation in physiological features of organisms over time, but they can't prove the cause-effect relationship (where's the control and test groups?). Correlation does not prove causation. The entropy argument I think is valid. Why would order increase in organisms? If evolution is real, then every single attribute about every single origanism is the result of an increase in order (for one reason or another) over time, and multiple times. If any one attribute could be proven to not be the result of evolution over time, then there would be a problem.
The creationists can only go on faith. They acknowledge the mountain of evidence for evolution but cannot accept the proposed explanation to be valid. This is not unusual. Do we only accept facts because we observe them? Do we accept all facts even if our direct observations show otherwise? Some creationists try to find some middle ground by trying to accept evolution but not deny the hand of God, which can result in either redefining creation, or redefining evolution. Creationists will never be able to prove creationism (well, unless...), so they are always on the definsive in the scientific community.
I'd like to see some tests. Can we create a digital world and see what happens over time?
I think the best logical argument against evolution is Microsoft (no, really!). I mean, given all the copies of Windows running around the world, how many of them have improved themselves or had their entropy decreased, excluding direct human input? Would there need to a minimum level of intelligence for the computers to start improving themselves? What is the reason for evolution?
You generate trash by sitting still doing nothing. You have to exhale, you have to take a crap. Where're you going to put your crap? It is not environmentally friendly in most places.
Here's some info that may cheer you up. Rainforests are not used for paper. Go to a paper mill sometime and see how they make their paper (they grow special trees for it, cut them down, make the paper, then plant new trees!). Go to a landfill sometime and dig up some paper. What happened to it?!
Go to a wind power station and tally up what it takes to build it, and take a look at what energy it produces. Then go to a coal mine, then a coal power station and figure out what resources it takes to produce the energy it outputs. Which has the greater environmental impact per unit of energy?
Go to your local fishing hole and find out how the fish population has changed over time. Go to an actual "hog farm" and assess the environmental impact.
You can have a garden. Get a big pot and plant one vegetable. Or go rent a garden space somewhere (they have those you know). I am growing a bunch of carrots, fennel, and radishes in a 2x2 ft area.
There are plenty of places you can go to become more one with nature (as you see it). Drop out of school and go. Give it a shot. I am serious.
At least take an economics course. Go sit in on the meetings of your city Planning Commission over awhile (like a year).
There are some legitamte environmental concerns in my opinion, but they are not any you have mentioned.
The problem with pollution is that it's costs are not internalized, that is, the polluter pushes the cost of the pollution onto other people involuntarily. Dumping electronics in China is not the same as the US polluting China if China 1) is not being forced to accept the garbage (ie it is voluntary) and 2) if China has correct information about the cost of accepting the garbage (health risks etc). From the BBC article it appears that the Chinese people did wilfully accept the garbage and the are aware of the dangers, yet they still opt to engage in the activity. That's their decision. If there are others around them (perhaps children) that are not voluntarily enganing in the activity and they are taking on some of the costs, then that is a sad situation, but not our fault.
If these people, regardless of their economic circumstance, choose to engage in this voluntary work then it still must be a worthwhile endeavor for them. People still mine ore, work on nuclear reactors, go skydiving, eat fast food, take their kids skiing, go rock climbing, etc. while knowing the risks. Who's to say they cannot engage in these behaviors?
These people do not have to accept the garbage. They are indicating that the benefits of doing such are greater than the costs. (If you try to make the argument that they are so poor that this is all they can do, try to figure out how the world economy survived the past 5000 years without cleaning electronics).
My trash goes in a landfill about 2 miles from where I live. Everything but tires go there. We internalize all the costs to our waste disposal.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't want to pay for quality in electronics. I want them to break just as I am ready to upgrade\replace them. There's a local computer store in my area that is on the radio constantly with advertisements about how they sell quality computers that last a long time. Who wants that? I only want my computer to last 3 years, then it can melt, and I'll get a new one. I don't want to pay an extra $500 for something that will last 5 years; it will be obsolete. Cordless phones are so cheap now that I usually just buy a new one when it stops working (usually the battery dies or the kids break it). Do I want to spend $50 on a phone that lasts 15 years? No, I want to buy cheap ones and get the new features (like built-in message taker or headphone jack).
This all has nothing to do with the economy or companies trying to cut corners. Electronic gizmos change very fast so no one (smart) wants to have their gizmos very long, and no one (smart) wants to pay extra to have their gizmos last a long time. I have a VGA monitor that is 8 years old and will probably never die. Great quality, it'll last forever. Do I hear $100?
Boy is it obvious when the economically-challenged open their mouths.
First, I don't know where this number of $19 million dollars came from, the BEA says that we spent $204.5 billion from 1982-2001 on space.
How much did the government spend on national defense from 1982-2001? $5.773 trillion.
How much did the government spend on interest payments from 1982-2001? $4.09 trillion
How much did the government spend on "income securities" (welfare, diability, etc.) from 1982-2001? $9 trillion.
We have been continuously been in deficit spending since 1979.
The government now spends more per capita per year than what per capita yearly income was in 1978.
In the year 2000, expenditures on national defense was 11.6% of total expenditures, which was $2.77 trillion Income securites was 23.2%.
Currently the effective tax rate (the average per capita tax) is about 33%. In 1913 it was 5%.
Median income for a 4-person family in 2000 was $62,228. In 1982 it was $27,619.
The debt is bad, but the tax burden is the problem. The way to get rid of the debt is to curb spending, but military spending only accounts for about 11%, and let the economy grow out of the debt. Per capita income has been skyrocketting, but so have expenditures and consequently taxes. But you can't blame military spending. Someone has fed you bull and you ate it. I can tell when someone has never taken an economics class, or been in the military.
By the way, if you pay income tax, you are by definition "rich", since the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of the income tax. Futhermore, ANY reduction in income taxes now by rule will disportionately affect the rich since the rich so disportionately carry the burden.
>> If the government was to let the free market allocate the spectrum,
>Yeah. Free market will solve everything. Bandwidth ? Free market. Energy ? Free market. IP laws ? Free market. Pollution ? Free market. World hunger ? Free market. Greed ? Free market.
Yeah. Goevernment will solve everything. Bandwidth? Government. Energy? Government. IP laws? Government (hey they can right all the laws they want) Pollution? Government. World Hunger? Government. Greed? Government (ever actually read a porked bill?)
I have two phones with two different providers. No problems. I don't think the author knows very much about the cell phone business. Can't switch providers? Won't invest in new infrastructure? Overloading their networks? Whatever. A few weeks ago my little city just approved the lease of a cell tower from one provider to another. We got to see a little of how they are handling the spectrum. They are doing a pretty good job here. I doubt the author's area is much different. Probably he and a couple of his friends have a lot of dropped calls and they dreamed up all the "supposed" problems with cell phone providers.
The little mrs. wants to do picture scanning and photo editing. Almost all the user-friendly apps are on windows, as well as the drivers. The desktop makes no difference to her, but if she can't run the scrapbook program which uses the scanner, printer, and digital camera on a particular OS, there's no way she would use it. So I can spend all my time finding Linux compatible everythings, or just go buy Windows (and reboot all the time). Hence...Windows.
Annan says: Too often, state monopolies charge exorbitant prices for the use of bandwidth.
I'd say Qwest in my area fits this description. What's ol' Kofi going to do for me?
I am still convinced that you never went to econ 101. And your assessment about the most important conference, the World Summit, tells me all I need to know about where you are coming from.
Free markets are useless without regulation... it's not a paradox, something some people find hard to acknowledge.
Then it's not a free market. It's a regulated market.
What conference is going on at the moment that is probably the most important conference in the last 10 years? The World Summit. And what is it all about? Equitable distribution of wealth generated by sustainable development without environmental damage. And why is it required? Because left to their own devices, companies and governments have done an awful job of this, and so we need a framework to ensure this does happen.
This is called a planned economy. They have this in North Korea, China to some degree, and the former Soviet Union.
I'd love to see the faces in the Shell boardroom if you went in and told them in a very stern face to be honest...
Where did you get this attitude? Corporations are evil and dishonest? Anyway, the best "check and balances" against dishonest corporations is competition, not government. Did you ever think of the government as an evil Monopoly? Who regulates them? But that's not the point.
Here are some action items you probably agree with:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
- from the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx
More:
"Where is the justice of a society that has such extremes of luxury for some, misery for others?...To say that people have an equal right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, means that if, in fact, there is inequality in those things, society has a responsibility to correct the situation and to ensure that equality." - Prof. Howard Zinn, self-proclamed communist.
I think you are a Marxist whether you realize it or not. I think that is a shame. I hope you study some economics (study Marx and then Adam Smith) and look at the application of their ideas in the world.
Try reading New Ideas from Dead Economists. It covers all the major economic thinkers. Please, the World Summit is a joke. They are not interested in the environment, but they are interested in the equalization of wealth.
Everything you wrote is a crock. I was going to quote the ridiculous parts but I would have including your whole post.
You are confusing criticism with perfect information in the marketplace. Criticism is of an opinion, information is just information. When consumers have perfect information, they make market decisions based on correct assessments of cost and benefit. Criticism does not necessarily provide correct information and can cause consumers to incorrectly calculate costs and\or benefits to using a service.
If Honda start making a car that almost everyone buys, should I criticize it in order to keep Honda honest, not "abuse" the consumers, and promote a "civil" society? IF there is something wrong with the car that is not known, bringing that info to light is beneficial to the consumer. But once consumers learn the new info, and then continue to buy the car, what, should we continue to bask Honda until their sale go down?
Google can do whatever they want within legal means. They can't make you do anything, and you can't make them do anything. What "corruption" could Google be doing? Do you not realize that every site you visit could track you? Do you not realize that your personal information is bought and sold all the time? Yet you keep consuming goods and services from companies that you know might be doing this. Why the assumption that Google and other coporations must be kept honest by criticism?
This is how the free market and freedom of speech work. You can always choose from whom you are going to purchase goods and services, and you can choose who you are going to listen to. But "criticism" is not necessary for a free market, or for keeping companies honest.
I'll bet you never took an economics class, or if you did, I'll bet you didn't pass it.
You can set Mozilla to block images from sites. That will block the web bugs that are images.
I was waiting for the crystal example. Sure nature produces order. But isn't it the overall "order" that does not increase?
About the genetic algorithms: the reason I don't see that as being a valid test of evoution is because there is already some logic to begin with. Someone had to create the algorithm. The system may perfect or expand the alogrithm, but it didn't create itself. What we need is a computer sitting idly that evolves over time, with no initial logic to do such. The only logic the universe can have are physical and chemical laws. Even then, where did they come from?
Given that I already exist on the earth, it is only a matter of time that I increase the order around me to whatever degree. I also don't think that modern computing power is sufficient to produce a good simulation of evolution. There are just too many calculations.
Some things I have been thinking about:
1) What if humans became so knowledgeable and so powerful that they could basically control the universe? Would that be a violation of the 2nd law? Then the universe, in essence, would have evolved into a sentient being.
2) Some people propose that evolution on earth does not violate the 2nd law because it is not a closed system. Is the universe then a closed system? If so, then number 1 couldn't happen (if it does violate the 2nd). Otherwise the universe would have to be an open system.
3) So far earth is the only planet we know of that can foster life as we define it. So far, this is the only place in the universe that has "things" which are self-aware. We make decisions based on things other than reaction to physical laws. We have things like "pleasure", "ambition" and "love". We send some people to explore the moon. Why doesn't any other planet send something to explore its moon? Why is intelligence confined to this planet? Humans (life) do not behave randomly or only in reaction to physical events around them. Everywhere else does. So even if we want to accept that life can be found on worlds that don't have the atmosphere, liquid water, and solar radiation that we do, why don;t we see intelligence anywhere else?
4) Why DNA? Couldn't complex life have evolved in some way other than by the use of DNA? Were there other types of life beaten out by DNA-based life?
5) If we are the result of evolution, then every aspect of life is the result of evolution. Every plant, every characteristic of every animal, every organ and cell of the human body is the result of a change from the simple to the more advance? Evolution produced the genius of human DNA?
I know, I sound more like a bored philosophy student. I get the evidence of evolution, I just don't get the "why".
Quote: Don't confuse "theory" with "unproven idea".
I think they are the same thing. Gravity is the description of an observed phenomenon. You can't prove gravity exists. It is "unproven". You can prove that two objects are attracted to each other, but you can't explain why. You also can't very well have a control and a test group.
Evolutionism vs Creationism is facinating to me. Both are hampered by the fact that neither has been proven. Evolutionists have demonstrated that there seems to be a correlation in physiological features of organisms over time, but they can't prove the cause-effect relationship (where's the control and test groups?). Correlation does not prove causation. The entropy argument I think is valid. Why would order increase in organisms? If evolution is real, then every single attribute about every single origanism is the result of an increase in order (for one reason or another) over time, and multiple times. If any one attribute could be proven to not be the result of evolution over time, then there would be a problem.
The creationists can only go on faith. They acknowledge the mountain of evidence for evolution but cannot accept the proposed explanation to be valid. This is not unusual. Do we only accept facts because we observe them? Do we accept all facts even if our direct observations show otherwise? Some creationists try to find some middle ground by trying to accept evolution but not deny the hand of God, which can result in either redefining creation, or redefining evolution. Creationists will never be able to prove creationism (well, unless...), so they are always on the definsive in the scientific community.
I'd like to see some tests. Can we create a digital world and see what happens over time?
I think the best logical argument against evolution is Microsoft (no, really!). I mean, given all the copies of Windows running around the world, how many of them have improved themselves or had their entropy decreased, excluding direct human input? Would there need to a minimum level of intelligence for the computers to start improving themselves? What is the reason for evolution?
You generate trash by sitting still doing nothing. You have to exhale, you have to take a crap. Where're you going to put your crap? It is not environmentally friendly in most places.
Here's some info that may cheer you up. Rainforests are not used for paper. Go to a paper mill sometime and see how they make their paper (they grow special trees for it, cut them down, make the paper, then plant new trees!). Go to a landfill sometime and dig up some paper. What happened to it?!
Go to a wind power station and tally up what it takes to build it, and take a look at what energy it produces. Then go to a coal mine, then a coal power station and figure out what resources it takes to produce the energy it outputs. Which has the greater environmental impact per unit of energy?
Go to your local fishing hole and find out how the fish population has changed over time. Go to an actual "hog farm" and assess the environmental impact.
You can have a garden. Get a big pot and plant one vegetable. Or go rent a garden space somewhere (they have those you know). I am growing a bunch of carrots, fennel, and radishes in a 2x2 ft area.
There are plenty of places you can go to become more one with nature (as you see it). Drop out of school and go. Give it a shot. I am serious.
At least take an economics course. Go sit in on the meetings of your city Planning Commission over awhile (like a year).
There are some legitamte environmental concerns in my opinion, but they are not any you have mentioned.
The problem with pollution is that it's costs are not internalized, that is, the polluter pushes the cost of the pollution onto other people involuntarily. Dumping electronics in China is not the same as the US polluting China if China 1) is not being forced to accept the garbage (ie it is voluntary) and 2) if China has correct information about the cost of accepting the garbage (health risks etc). From the BBC article it appears that the Chinese people did wilfully accept the garbage and the are aware of the dangers, yet they still opt to engage in the activity. That's their decision. If there are others around them (perhaps children) that are not voluntarily enganing in the activity and they are taking on some of the costs, then that is a sad situation, but not our fault.
If these people, regardless of their economic circumstance, choose to engage in this voluntary work then it still must be a worthwhile endeavor for them. People still mine ore, work on nuclear reactors, go skydiving, eat fast food, take their kids skiing, go rock climbing, etc. while knowing the risks. Who's to say they cannot engage in these behaviors?
These people do not have to accept the garbage. They are indicating that the benefits of doing such are greater than the costs. (If you try to make the argument that they are so poor that this is all they can do, try to figure out how the world economy survived the past 5000 years without cleaning electronics).
My trash goes in a landfill about 2 miles from where I live. Everything but tires go there. We internalize all the costs to our waste disposal.