I've worked for both public service and private companies. If you love to code and don't want to be a manager, public service is a great way to go. It's fairly secure compared to the private sector (except when the legislature starts messing with pension plans).
Gee, are you in Oregon by any chance? I'm currently contracting with ODOT, hoping to go permanent in the next few months (a retirement created an opening, for which they interviewed 4 people- and 3 of those 4 were already permanent employees looking for a raise. If I don't get it, one of those will create another opening that I'm almost a shoe-in for.)
Maybe not for you, but there are for lots of others. A good coder (one who understands the "why" instead of just the "how") is still in demand. I turn down good opportunities a lot because I'm too busy with what I'm doing today.
I can't even find the opportunities- prior to working in the public sector, I put out a hundred resumes a month for two years and two months. The majority of those were never heard from again. I'm to the point that I've simply stopped looking- except at permanent positions with the agency for which I am currently contracting. Near as I can tell, that's the only stability this industry has to offer- and most of the coders I'm working with right now are over 40.
An experienced programmer will always be more productive in the long run- because instead of rushing in and coding to meet deadlines, he'll argue for deadlines that actually meet the problems given, which lead to solutions that require far less maintenance down the road.
American private sector businesses can't stand that answer though- for them any project that takes more than 4 months to finish is a failure, because the stockholders expect that money spent in one quarter should result in sales or cost reductions in the next quarter. Government can afford to take a longer view.
Agreed with everything except that last clause there. Do you really know what you are talking about or are you just randomly talkin' out your ass? Whether you are a 'yes man' or not, is completely based on your own personality and not where you go to college. I think what you meant to say is that 'preferably IIT, which has typically churned out excellent graduates' (note: I am at UCB not IIT, so this is by no means a biased statement).
As a 30-something programmer who went to a good American school, it's something I've noticed in the newest generation of H-1bs hired from India. Most of them are from IIT, and most of them know the language that they were hired to work in- but NONE know when to tell managment off when they need telling off. Managment likes this, and this is the reason I got laid off, moved to contracting for a state agency, and am in the process of interviewing for a permanent position with the same agency. It's more a function of age than where you graduate from I think- though there does seem to be something in the Eastern cultures that lends itself to working on teams and not rocking the boat.
At any rate, it seems obvious that private industry has no place for an old curmudgeon like me- which is why I'm headed for the public sector.
Seems to be the only other choices. Private industry, since globalization and commodity coding offshore, has no place for old programmers anymore. They cost too much in salary and benefits in comparison to a young person just out of college, preferably India Institute of Technology, where they train the next generation of yes men.
Rational means to relate something to something else. Why are you so stupid?
Rational means whatever you want it to mean. Why are you so tied to a single reality? And why are you so off topic? Or do you think that it's possible to still be a country when Mexico City controls the language taught to our children, China controls our economy and technology, and India sets our immigration policy through the WTO? 'Cause I don't.
A distributist anti-federalist. I'd be happy if we got rid of the idea of nations altogether- not in favor of a single world government, but in favor of tribalism.
I hope it does- it's a vital component of paranoia, which is the only rational attitude left to take in this world where everybody else is your competitor or your enemy, and your very ability to take care of your famiy and pass on your culture is always under attack from the outside, by people like you.
Now, let's generalize that to the rest of your posts.
Beat you too it- see my journal. In my most recent article I not only claim that none of my posts or journal entries are rational- but that none of anybody else's are either, and that facts do not exist and neither does objectivity. Everybody is biased, so we might as well ACT like we're biased. And since I am biased, and since my ability to take care of my family has been directly damaged by globalism and it's attack on the American economy, I'm going to fight back against that attack. Sooner or later, somebody who loses EVERYTHING over this is going to use violence- and it's hard to stop somebody who is willing to trade their life for the life of the target.
As with all bad things, if it must be done at all, 'tis better it be done quickly- so the proper thing for the United States to do at this point if we want to still BE a country a few years from now, let alone a superpower, is to become isolationist, xenophobic, and belligerent.
Alright, define "authority." If you accept the challenge, you have set yourself up as an authority by claiming that "Nobody can possibly be an authority on anything at all", which means that your statement is incoherent and disregardable. If you decline the challenge, your statement is void of content. Either way, on simply logical grounds, your statement falls apart.
A statement does not need to be coherent or for that matter factual for it to be regardable, unless of course you're a worshiper at the religion of objectivism. An opinion is content also; but lacts factual nature. An authority is somebody who is convinced that all of his opinions are dogmatic fact- who believes in his own myth and tries to get others to believe it also. My statements are pure opinion, I offer no guarantees to their truthful nature beyond that they are truth as I understand them; including the above definition of an authority. You are thus free to regard or disregard them as you see fit.
The point is that all of us reading this thread are fully aware of Kant's distinction between phenomenal and noumenal realms, and are fully aware that, beginning with the senses, it is impossible to achieve perfectly justified knowledge. Nevertheless, there are also clearly *some* people who have taken the time to investigate area X and come to conclusions, regardless of their "objectivity." Unless their conclusions are outrageous -- another "non-objective" term! -- we choose to call them "authorities on X", and tend to accept their judgment in matters regarding X, possibly even in preference to our own judgment in that area. It's not a matter of objective knowledge; it's a concession to our finite time and resources (No doubt amply demonstrated by my posting comments on Slashdot).
Absolutely true- but thus, fact and objective evidence simply doesn't exist; and thus ending an argument with "because Wikipedia said so" (to bring the discussion back on topic) is simply not valid. At best we're only quoting myths at each other; but that too has value, you just can't end the argument that way. Great way to start an argument though.
BTW, before you get too excited about knowledge being unattainable and humans being incapable of objectivity, you might want to consider the philosophical consequences of accepting relativism.
I'm well aware of those consequences- in the religion that I admit is a religion and I am a follower of, moral relativism and it's dangers have become the greatest theological challenge of the 21st century (The Pope even said so in his last public speech *before* he became Pope!). But I'm also aware of the difference between moral certainty and absolute certainty- and I just wish more people were. Moral relativism may be a minefield of dangers- but absolute relativism mistaken for fact is the nuclear mine hidden in the rocks.
I am a parent, less than two weeks or within two years (unsure, my child has CP in the language center of his brain, bound to affect how fast he becomes technically literate)- but I've got to say this comes down to *useability* of what they're doing on the computer. Videogames, messaging, slashdot, these things are huge time wasters and very addictive. Just about anything else they could be doing online is actually life skills that are *more* profitable than what they could be learning otherwise- unless it's to get them to exercise, leave them alone.
Why not have a linux box someplace else runing Mr. House, and the computer plugged into an X10 appliance module that they have to enter a user code to turn on? Or Windows 98 and Homeseer? I believe both have just such a TV/Videogame timer in them with upper limit daily & weekly quotas. Any modern operating system ought to be able to recover just fine from a power outage. And since the software is in a separate machine, it's less hackable.
OTOH, I agree with most of the previous posts- all time spent on the computer not in "addictive" activities such as web browsing, messaging, slashdot and gaming is indeed profitable later on in life. Most likely MORE profitable than any homework the kids might have.
Ok, so I was completely wrong. It's more like what microsoft developers call intrinsic binding, rather than merely wraping a class in another class to translate between two disparate systems. It also contains some aspects of Microsoft's late binding in that it doesn't matter where a class is at compile time (or even if you have a copy of the class or it's wrapper installed on your machine at compile time).
The intimation is that he delivered Ohio in a nefarious manner
Text messages can't carry intimation, there is no body language attachment so far. That's what many people fail to realize about this media- you bring to it the emotions you already have.
You seem not to understand that a model is by definition not a reproduction of the modelled thing. The IMPERFECTION you so upper-cappily talk about is the very essence of modelling: if the models we build out of reality reproduced reality perfectly they would be of no use because they would simply reproduce reality---this sounds tautological, and, well, it is.
This all-caps IMPERFECTION you seem to regard as negative is precisely the reason those models are useful.
Now that's an interesting idea- models are useful because they are inaccurate and can never rise to the level of fact. You're the second person in this discussion to break through the wall of solipsism to say something interesting; in fact, that's why I said solipsism is just a step in the journey.
To tie this back to the original discussion- authorities such as wikipedia will never be useful for finding fact. But they are incredibly useful for finding collections of models. Or as I put it, myths, since the myth was the original form of modeling.
That's not war. It doesn't even approach the destruction (economic or otherwise) of war. At worst, economic depression. You cannot change the meaning of the word "war" to suit your whims.
Why not? We change definitions of other words all the time. Language evolves.
Funny, that. Looked at the Japanese banking industry lately? Or their economy in general?
They're doing a hell of a lot better than we are- their department of labor doesn't have to lie about the unemployment rate and redefine who's in the labor force to keep it low.
Wha? In the 1930's you could get a car for $500 and a house for $20,000, and damned nice ones at that.
True- but now you'd spend that much just for the right to shoot a deer.
Of course, it's kinda tough to forage for food in the middle of the Dustbowl.
That's why you follow the migrating animals, if you're smart.
No, rational is not playing games with terms and accusations as seirous as "war." That's like calling all diseases "cancer."
You are a well spoken hysterical nutcase. There is a big difference between economic dislocation and actual war. Fudging the meaning of war like that is bad semantics. Widespread acceptance of your viewpoint would lead to real troops fighting with real bullets and real people dying.
Economic dislocation SHOULD lead to that. It always has in the past. Only if people die of it will we have a reason to avoid it.
Unfair economic policies can be tackled without resorting to inflammatory rhetoric like "American businesses are traitors".
Really? We haven't been very successful so far. I say, only when the traitors are executed for their crimes will there be justice.
No they are merely making rational choices given the realities created by American trade policy. Want to make them fair? Change the policies so that the rational choices lead to jobs at home.
The traitors are in power- they have all the money, they make the policies, and the democracy has become nothing but a shell government because of it. Only when the traitors have been disposed will we have the freedom to work again.
And China and America are not enemies, but if everyone says it enough they will be.
They already are- you're just too naive to see it.
Decrease is a little vague...unemoployment rate is 1.2% higher than it was 5 years ago. ( reuters.com [reuters.com])
Unemployment is the percentage of people IN THE LABOR FORCE who can't find jobs. Decrease in the labor force as a whole decreases unemployment by reducing the denominator in the equation.
We aren't exactly hurting compared to the average Chinese, especially considering US citizens only spend 6.4% of their income on food (the lowest percentage of reported countries). (Source ific.org). No one has to starve in the USA; tragically there are those who still do, but there is plenty of food and money to go around. It's a resource allocation problem, not a question of affordability.
Resource allocations are always about affordability- if you lower the price of the resource that is in plenty, more people will be able to afford it. And I didn't say that the Chinese government was treating their own people any better; the way this war is being waged it's the little guy who hurts on both sides.
You are probably right here that NEITHER US or Chinese laborers will benefit from a price war...
The war I'm talking about is the American Corporations and the Chinese government against the average populations on both sides. They want slaves who will do their bidding, and are manipulating the laws to provide such.
I was surprised by a great NPR piece on the upcoming Walmart Movie which suggested that Walmart really does do some things to help common laborers like provide a lot of unskilled jobs, cashes a LOT of checkes, and keep the price of consumer goods down. Allbeit US manufacturing is suffering, it's not only Walmart's fault..."Traitor" is uncalled for...The Walton are mid-western American buisness owners, not anti-patriotic communists.
Then why are 9/10ths of the goods they sell bought from the Chinese government? Keeping the price of consumer goods down is stupid too- this country was built on inflation, not deflation. That's undermining the American economy right there. Add to that their daily brainwashing rituals for workers in their stores- and they've learned quite a bit from the Chinese.
Do you know anyone who has been to China in the last couple of years!?!? Things ARE changing...and if the worst part of your war is the exchange of shoddy goods, then you clearly don't have much experience with a "World War". It should conjure images of hollocaust and depraved trench war fare, not poorly made can-openers and long check-out lines.
If things are changing, then why aren't Chinese laborers making $40,000 a year? Slavery is slavery- you've been fooled by cheap goods.
Ten thousand years of civilization and warfare, and the face of war has always remained the same: people killing people and breaking things en masse, wholesale slaughter. The means and methods may have changed, but the results, the aftermath has always been the same: smouldering cities and bloodsoaked soil. Are you so vain as to believe that humanity is somehow above all that now and things have magically changed in the past hundred months that haven't changed in the past hundred centuries?
No, I'm saying that in the past 40 years we've found a new way to accomplish it much more slowly- by destroying the foundation of a nation's economy so that the cities fall apart and anybody who isn't independantly wealthy starves to death trying to pay for fuel and supplies that are reserved for the rich.
I call it the revenge of Tojo- since it was McArthur's Japan that started the trend.
And before you start pointing at 9/11, not even that qualifies. The Romans did far worse to Carthage and they didn't have airplanes or the Internet. Try finding something in Atlanta older than 150 years.
If we keep going down this path, try finding any buildings that aren't shacks or slums in America that aren't in Bentonville, Alabama where the Chinese are installing their new government in 20 years.
Any more than, say, the Great Depression? Even with the surge of population in the US since the 1930's, I'd still wager the raw numbers are higher from the '30's, and that was peacetime.
Actually, during the 30's it was still possible to forage for food- go hunting without a $500 permit or a $20,000 fine. Now it isn't.
Again, you have zero sense of scale.
And you have NO idea what some people out west have been through in the past 5 years.
Starvation during wartime comes because international shipments of food are seized/sunk and domestic food sources are torched, blighted, salted, or otherwise eliminated by human violence, and everybody knows it. You sure as hell don't start talking about a freakin' obesity epidemic. Hell, look at postwar Japan, and that was even after we called off our submarine fleet.
The "obesity epidemic" is a sign of malnutrition in the United States- of McDonald's hamburgers being cheaper than good food. It ends when the unemployment runs out.
And, again, this is something North America has not seen in almost 150 years. No rational person would even pretend this qualifies as a war.
Apparently you haven't seen my Journal- rational is something I certainly am not. Rational is just making up stories to lie about what is really going on.
Dude, you are smoking some seriously twisted stuff if you believe that. (Or, more likely, you are reading some seriously twisted "information" sources that are feeding you some serious lies.)
I lived it. I spent 3 years unemployed myself during that time period. So did several million others. When it looked like the unemployment numbers were getting to high, they started reclassifying the long term unemployed as "discouraged" or "disabled" to remove them from the offical labor force. If you were able to be disabled, like me, you got some help; but if you were merely discouraged, like my wife, you were cut off from any help when your unemployment ran out.
I know people who ended up HOMELESS over this, and a couple who ended up DEAD. So don't tell me that it didn't happen.
Actually, I would have welcomed an answer with value. But since I don't know Java, I guess what you're telling me is that it's a slightly different syntax.
First, your handle is Marxist hacker, so why are you pissed
at the chinese?
Maybe because they're MAOIST, not MARXIST? But more importantly, because they've chosen an attack which harms the worker, and enriches the capitalist traitors to America- like the Walton family.
Second, requiring chokepoints essentially sets up government monitoring and thus control (ala "patriot" act).
A government is supposed to monitor and control it's borders. That's the whole point of bothering with a government to begin with- to provide for the common defense against invasion. Why is a cyberinvasion treated any differently?
P.S. perhaps you should change your handle to "National Socialist Hacker" instead?
Nope, national socialists let corporations take over government, I'm definately against corporations having any political power whatsoever.
Well, this just proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a complete idiot. China makes our inferior equipment, and if you think a nation with less than an eighth of China's population is able to throw vast numbers of troops at China then you failed kindergarden math.
With our current manufacturing capability going idle, we don't need troops. Smart, creative, and willing to spend 120% of our GDP is what we need.
Slashdot Mirror
I've worked for both public service and private companies. If you love to code and don't want to be a manager, public service is a great way to go. It's fairly secure compared to the private sector (except when the legislature starts messing with pension plans).
Gee, are you in Oregon by any chance? I'm currently contracting with ODOT, hoping to go permanent in the next few months (a retirement created an opening, for which they interviewed 4 people- and 3 of those 4 were already permanent employees looking for a raise. If I don't get it, one of those will create another opening that I'm almost a shoe-in for.)
Maybe not for you, but there are for lots of others. A good coder (one who understands the "why" instead of just the "how") is still in demand. I turn down good opportunities a lot because I'm too busy with what I'm doing today.
I can't even find the opportunities- prior to working in the public sector, I put out a hundred resumes a month for two years and two months. The majority of those were never heard from again. I'm to the point that I've simply stopped looking- except at permanent positions with the agency for which I am currently contracting. Near as I can tell, that's the only stability this industry has to offer- and most of the coders I'm working with right now are over 40.
An experienced programmer will always be more productive in the long run- because instead of rushing in and coding to meet deadlines, he'll argue for deadlines that actually meet the problems given, which lead to solutions that require far less maintenance down the road.
American private sector businesses can't stand that answer though- for them any project that takes more than 4 months to finish is a failure, because the stockholders expect that money spent in one quarter should result in sales or cost reductions in the next quarter. Government can afford to take a longer view.
Agreed with everything except that last clause there. Do you really know what you are talking about or are you just randomly talkin' out your ass? Whether you are a 'yes man' or not, is completely based on your own personality and not where you go to college. I think what you meant to say is that 'preferably IIT, which has typically churned out excellent graduates' (note: I am at UCB not IIT, so this is by no means a biased statement).
As a 30-something programmer who went to a good American school, it's something I've noticed in the newest generation of H-1bs hired from India. Most of them are from IIT, and most of them know the language that they were hired to work in- but NONE know when to tell managment off when they need telling off. Managment likes this, and this is the reason I got laid off, moved to contracting for a state agency, and am in the process of interviewing for a permanent position with the same agency. It's more a function of age than where you graduate from I think- though there does seem to be something in the Eastern cultures that lends itself to working on teams and not rocking the boat.
At any rate, it seems obvious that private industry has no place for an old curmudgeon like me- which is why I'm headed for the public sector.
Seems to be the only other choices. Private industry, since globalization and commodity coding offshore, has no place for old programmers anymore. They cost too much in salary and benefits in comparison to a young person just out of college, preferably India Institute of Technology, where they train the next generation of yes men.
What a mental image- a morph from an old white Jew boy to a small yappy purple dinosaur....
Rational means to relate something to something else. Why are you so stupid?
Rational means whatever you want it to mean. Why are you so tied to a single reality? And why are you so off topic? Or do you think that it's possible to still be a country when Mexico City controls the language taught to our children, China controls our economy and technology, and India sets our immigration policy through the WTO? 'Cause I don't.
Jesus, what kind of patriot are you ?
A distributist anti-federalist. I'd be happy if we got rid of the idea of nations altogether- not in favor of a single world government, but in favor of tribalism.
I hope it does- it's a vital component of paranoia, which is the only rational attitude left to take in this world where everybody else is your competitor or your enemy, and your very ability to take care of your famiy and pass on your culture is always under attack from the outside, by people like you.
Now, let's generalize that to the rest of your posts.
Beat you too it- see my journal. In my most recent article I not only claim that none of my posts or journal entries are rational- but that none of anybody else's are either, and that facts do not exist and neither does objectivity. Everybody is biased, so we might as well ACT like we're biased. And since I am biased, and since my ability to take care of my family has been directly damaged by globalism and it's attack on the American economy, I'm going to fight back against that attack. Sooner or later, somebody who loses EVERYTHING over this is going to use violence- and it's hard to stop somebody who is willing to trade their life for the life of the target.
As with all bad things, if it must be done at all, 'tis better it be done quickly- so the proper thing for the United States to do at this point if we want to still BE a country a few years from now, let alone a superpower, is to become isolationist, xenophobic, and belligerent.
Alright, define "authority." If you accept the challenge, you have set yourself up as an authority by claiming that "Nobody can possibly be an authority on anything at all", which means that your statement is incoherent and disregardable. If you decline the challenge, your statement is void of content. Either way, on simply logical grounds, your statement falls apart.
A statement does not need to be coherent or for that matter factual for it to be regardable, unless of course you're a worshiper at the religion of objectivism. An opinion is content also; but lacts factual nature. An authority is somebody who is convinced that all of his opinions are dogmatic fact- who believes in his own myth and tries to get others to believe it also. My statements are pure opinion, I offer no guarantees to their truthful nature beyond that they are truth as I understand them; including the above definition of an authority. You are thus free to regard or disregard them as you see fit.
The point is that all of us reading this thread are fully aware of Kant's distinction between phenomenal and noumenal realms, and are fully aware that, beginning with the senses, it is impossible to achieve perfectly justified knowledge. Nevertheless, there are also clearly *some* people who have taken the time to investigate area X and come to conclusions, regardless of their "objectivity." Unless their conclusions are outrageous -- another "non-objective" term! -- we choose to call them "authorities on X", and tend to accept their judgment in matters regarding X, possibly even in preference to our own judgment in that area. It's not a matter of objective knowledge; it's a concession to our finite time and resources (No doubt amply demonstrated by my posting comments on Slashdot).
Absolutely true- but thus, fact and objective evidence simply doesn't exist; and thus ending an argument with "because Wikipedia said so" (to bring the discussion back on topic) is simply not valid. At best we're only quoting myths at each other; but that too has value, you just can't end the argument that way. Great way to start an argument though.
BTW, before you get too excited about knowledge being unattainable and humans being incapable of objectivity, you might want to consider the philosophical consequences of accepting relativism.
I'm well aware of those consequences- in the religion that I admit is a religion and I am a follower of, moral relativism and it's dangers have become the greatest theological challenge of the 21st century (The Pope even said so in his last public speech *before* he became Pope!). But I'm also aware of the difference between moral certainty and absolute certainty- and I just wish more people were. Moral relativism may be a minefield of dangers- but absolute relativism mistaken for fact is the nuclear mine hidden in the rocks.
I am a parent, less than two weeks or within two years (unsure, my child has CP in the language center of his brain, bound to affect how fast he becomes technically literate)- but I've got to say this comes down to *useability* of what they're doing on the computer. Videogames, messaging, slashdot, these things are huge time wasters and very addictive. Just about anything else they could be doing online is actually life skills that are *more* profitable than what they could be learning otherwise- unless it's to get them to exercise, leave them alone.
Why not have a linux box someplace else runing Mr. House, and the computer plugged into an X10 appliance module that they have to enter a user code to turn on? Or Windows 98 and Homeseer? I believe both have just such a TV/Videogame timer in them with upper limit daily & weekly quotas. Any modern operating system ought to be able to recover just fine from a power outage. And since the software is in a separate machine, it's less hackable.
OTOH, I agree with most of the previous posts- all time spent on the computer not in "addictive" activities such as web browsing, messaging, slashdot and gaming is indeed profitable later on in life. Most likely MORE profitable than any homework the kids might have.
Which is why my wife and I take turns shopping: one of us stays HOME with the kid. Lots less impulse buying that way.
Ok, so I was completely wrong. It's more like what microsoft developers call intrinsic binding, rather than merely wraping a class in another class to translate between two disparate systems. It also contains some aspects of Microsoft's late binding in that it doesn't matter where a class is at compile time (or even if you have a copy of the class or it's wrapper installed on your machine at compile time).
The intimation is that he delivered Ohio in a nefarious manner
Text messages can't carry intimation, there is no body language attachment so far. That's what many people fail to realize about this media- you bring to it the emotions you already have.
You seem not to understand that a model is by definition not a reproduction of the modelled thing. The IMPERFECTION you so upper-cappily talk about is the very essence of modelling: if the models we build out of reality reproduced reality perfectly they would be of no use because they would simply reproduce reality---this sounds tautological, and, well, it is.
This all-caps IMPERFECTION you seem to regard as negative is precisely the reason those models are useful.
Now that's an interesting idea- models are useful because they are inaccurate and can never rise to the level of fact. You're the second person in this discussion to break through the wall of solipsism to say something interesting; in fact, that's why I said solipsism is just a step in the journey.
To tie this back to the original discussion- authorities such as wikipedia will never be useful for finding fact. But they are incredibly useful for finding collections of models. Or as I put it, myths, since the myth was the original form of modeling.
That's not war. It doesn't even approach the destruction (economic or otherwise) of war. At worst, economic depression. You cannot change the meaning of the word "war" to suit your whims.
Why not? We change definitions of other words all the time. Language evolves.
Funny, that. Looked at the Japanese banking industry lately? Or their economy in general?
They're doing a hell of a lot better than we are- their department of labor doesn't have to lie about the unemployment rate and redefine who's in the labor force to keep it low.
Wha? In the 1930's you could get a car for $500 and a house for $20,000, and damned nice ones at that.
True- but now you'd spend that much just for the right to shoot a deer.
Of course, it's kinda tough to forage for food in the middle of the Dustbowl.
That's why you follow the migrating animals, if you're smart.
No, rational is not playing games with terms and accusations as seirous as "war." That's like calling all diseases "cancer."
What's the root word of rationalization?
You are a well spoken hysterical nutcase. There is a big difference between economic dislocation and actual war. Fudging the meaning of war like that is bad semantics. Widespread acceptance of your viewpoint would lead to real troops fighting with real bullets and real people dying.
Economic dislocation SHOULD lead to that. It always has in the past. Only if people die of it will we have a reason to avoid it.
Unfair economic policies can be tackled without resorting to inflammatory rhetoric like "American businesses are traitors".
Really? We haven't been very successful so far. I say, only when the traitors are executed for their crimes will there be justice.
No they are merely making rational choices given the realities created by American trade policy. Want to make them fair? Change the policies so that the rational choices lead to jobs at home.
The traitors are in power- they have all the money, they make the policies, and the democracy has become nothing but a shell government because of it. Only when the traitors have been disposed will we have the freedom to work again.
And China and America are not enemies, but if everyone says it enough they will be.
They already are- you're just too naive to see it.
Decrease is a little vague...unemoployment rate is 1.2% higher than it was 5 years ago. ( reuters.com [reuters.com])
Unemployment is the percentage of people IN THE LABOR FORCE who can't find jobs. Decrease in the labor force as a whole decreases unemployment by reducing the denominator in the equation.
We aren't exactly hurting compared to the average Chinese, especially considering US citizens only spend 6.4% of their income on food (the lowest percentage of reported countries). (Source ific.org). No one has to starve in the USA; tragically there are those who still do, but there is plenty of food and money to go around. It's a resource allocation problem, not a question of affordability.
Resource allocations are always about affordability- if you lower the price of the resource that is in plenty, more people will be able to afford it. And I didn't say that the Chinese government was treating their own people any better; the way this war is being waged it's the little guy who hurts on both sides.
You are probably right here that NEITHER US or Chinese laborers will benefit from a price war...
The war I'm talking about is the American Corporations and the Chinese government against the average populations on both sides. They want slaves who will do their bidding, and are manipulating the laws to provide such.
I was surprised by a great NPR piece on the upcoming Walmart Movie which suggested that Walmart really does do some things to help common laborers like provide a lot of unskilled jobs, cashes a LOT of checkes, and keep the price of consumer goods down. Allbeit US manufacturing is suffering, it's not only Walmart's fault..."Traitor" is uncalled for...The Walton are mid-western American buisness owners, not anti-patriotic communists.
Then why are 9/10ths of the goods they sell bought from the Chinese government? Keeping the price of consumer goods down is stupid too- this country was built on inflation, not deflation. That's undermining the American economy right there. Add to that their daily brainwashing rituals for workers in their stores- and they've learned quite a bit from the Chinese.
Do you know anyone who has been to China in the last couple of years!?!? Things ARE changing...and if the worst part of your war is the exchange of shoddy goods, then you clearly don't have much experience with a "World War". It should conjure images of hollocaust and depraved trench war fare, not poorly made can-openers and long check-out lines.
If things are changing, then why aren't Chinese laborers making $40,000 a year? Slavery is slavery- you've been fooled by cheap goods.
Ten thousand years of civilization and warfare, and the face of war has always remained the same: people killing people and breaking things en masse, wholesale slaughter. The means and methods may have changed, but the results, the aftermath has always been the same: smouldering cities and bloodsoaked soil. Are you so vain as to believe that humanity is somehow above all that now and things have magically changed in the past hundred months that haven't changed in the past hundred centuries?
No, I'm saying that in the past 40 years we've found a new way to accomplish it much more slowly- by destroying the foundation of a nation's economy so that the cities fall apart and anybody who isn't independantly wealthy starves to death trying to pay for fuel and supplies that are reserved for the rich.
I call it the revenge of Tojo- since it was McArthur's Japan that started the trend.
And before you start pointing at 9/11, not even that qualifies. The Romans did far worse to Carthage and they didn't have airplanes or the Internet. Try finding something in Atlanta older than 150 years.
If we keep going down this path, try finding any buildings that aren't shacks or slums in America that aren't in Bentonville, Alabama where the Chinese are installing their new government in 20 years.
Any more than, say, the Great Depression? Even with the surge of population in the US since the 1930's, I'd still wager the raw numbers are higher from the '30's, and that was peacetime.
Actually, during the 30's it was still possible to forage for food- go hunting without a $500 permit or a $20,000 fine. Now it isn't.
Again, you have zero sense of scale.
And you have NO idea what some people out west have been through in the past 5 years.
Starvation during wartime comes because international shipments of food are seized/sunk and domestic food sources are torched, blighted, salted, or otherwise eliminated by human violence, and everybody knows it. You sure as hell don't start talking about a freakin' obesity epidemic. Hell, look at postwar Japan, and that was even after we called off our submarine fleet.
The "obesity epidemic" is a sign of malnutrition in the United States- of McDonald's hamburgers being cheaper than good food. It ends when the unemployment runs out.
And, again, this is something North America has not seen in almost 150 years. No rational person would even pretend this qualifies as a war.
Apparently you haven't seen my Journal- rational is something I certainly am not. Rational is just making up stories to lie about what is really going on.
Dude, you are smoking some seriously twisted stuff if you believe that. (Or, more likely, you are reading some seriously twisted "information" sources that are feeding you some serious lies.)
I lived it. I spent 3 years unemployed myself during that time period. So did several million others. When it looked like the unemployment numbers were getting to high, they started reclassifying the long term unemployed as "discouraged" or "disabled" to remove them from the offical labor force. If you were able to be disabled, like me, you got some help; but if you were merely discouraged, like my wife, you were cut off from any help when your unemployment ran out.
I know people who ended up HOMELESS over this, and a couple who ended up DEAD. So don't tell me that it didn't happen.
Actually, I would have welcomed an answer with value. But since I don't know Java, I guess what you're telling me is that it's a slightly different syntax.
First, your handle is Marxist hacker, so why are you pissed at the chinese?
Maybe because they're MAOIST, not MARXIST? But more importantly, because they've chosen an attack which harms the worker, and enriches the capitalist traitors to America- like the Walton family.
Second, requiring chokepoints essentially sets up government monitoring and thus control (ala "patriot" act).
A government is supposed to monitor and control it's borders. That's the whole point of bothering with a government to begin with- to provide for the common defense against invasion. Why is a cyberinvasion treated any differently?
P.S. perhaps you should change your handle to "National Socialist Hacker" instead?
Nope, national socialists let corporations take over government, I'm definately against corporations having any political power whatsoever.
Well, this just proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a complete idiot. China makes our inferior equipment, and if you think a nation with less than an eighth of China's population is able to throw vast numbers of troops at China then you failed kindergarden math.
With our current manufacturing capability going idle, we don't need troops. Smart, creative, and willing to spend 120% of our GDP is what we need.