The research team will be in the running for a Nobel prize, and of course they would generate large numbers of published articles that will enhance their work metrics and keep them in "most favor researcher" status with their research institute. Not to mention, the additional travel to conferences and an increased amount of celebrity for the principle scientists.
The automobile industry reports their percentages now. So I don't know what your point is other than being reactionary.
Origins of raw materials are not taken into consideration just the finished parts. Parts would include the CPU, Speakers, anything in a plastic package (ICs, RAM, etc.), chassis, light pipes, and surface mounted semiconductors.
This isn't that big a deal to track and as far as I can tell the chassis and circuit boards are manufactured and assembled in the US with foreign components. Believe it or not, most companies have this statistic already for duties and tax purposes.
The article is from someone who will go to pedantic lengths to justify their hate.
Of course! By the same token, you'll see Google "fans" go through the same exercise when an article mentions their "nemesis".
Every thread that mentions Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc will generate comments from both fans and foes. This is why websites gravitate to articles that mention these brands despite its newsworthiness.
Anyway this article is one of those "no shit sherlock" articles that points out the obvious that Google was doing this as a PR stunt. There isn't any real commitment being made to keep the facility open nor to increase the number of domestic parts being used. The fact that only the final assembly is being done in the US is used mostly for PR and possibly as political cover from Apple's (and Microsoft's, Nokia's, etc.) attempts to block importation due to patent infringement, since technically only the parts are being imported not the media device.
What generally happens when we trade with other countries (ie. no protectionism) is that other countries become more wealthy. This, means less poverty and other unpleasent things, I think that's good.
Good for them.
Anyways, I think history indicate that trade is good for everybody and strongly encourages peace.
Would you prefer to make your shoes yourself if it costs you $50 in labor and materials even if another person is willing to sell you the exact same pair already made for $10? Would you impose a tariff on that other person of $40 so his shoes cost the same as the ones you make? Why?
let's paraphrase your statement to better fit the situation:
Would you prefer to purchase your shoes from your neighbor if it costs your neighbor $50 in labor and materials even if another person outside your country is willing to sell you the exact same pair already made for $10?
Yes because I don't want to export currency for trinkets. If I purchase from my neighbor, I increase the likelihood that he will purchase something from me, my employer, or a store we both shop at in the neighborhood. Money that stays in the community benefits the community.
Would you impose a tariff on that other person of $40 so his shoes cost the same as the ones your neighbor makes? Why?
Yes because it benefits my community. If we allow someone else to play the currency market or be able to produce goods without the regulatory overhead that we place on a local producer then we undercut both our community's value and the intent of the regulations. Meaning if there is an overhead of $1 to keep from polluting the local water supply, we shouldn't encourage manufacturers to build elsewhere and import that good just to save the $1. Not only does it means less jobs for the community, but it also exports the pollution we were trying to prevent in the first place.
NOTE: Yes, I DID mean that as a Perl-style scalar in an article that's basically a standard-issue programming language hatefest. That's right, I went there. Come at me, bro.
The linux kernel is the choice of most of the embedded community (which Google Android is part of) and has garnered its mainstream acceptance in this market since the kernel was first introduced. Google picked the Linux kernel to host the Android OS not only because it was free, but because the Linux kernel was already prevalent in the embedded market and was compatible with the ARM processor. Android OS may have increased the number of units sold with the Linux kernel installed, but it DID NOT make Linux mainstream in the embedded market.
Android didn't even make Linux mainstream to the general public. The consumer has no direct contact with the kernel, nor is Linux mentioned in any marketing done by Google to the general public. In this case, the linux kernel is just a part of a much bigger OS being installed on a mobile phone. I think when most people think of Linux they think of the Linux kernel with the Posix compliant runtime environment. Android does not fit this definition.
Nitpicks aside... Linux only has mainstream acceptance in the embedded and server market. People purposely choose a Linux OS to run on a server. People do NOT choose a Linux OS to run their phone (well not a lot of them), they instead choose Android OS which Google spent large amounts of money to market it. My point being that in order to be considered "mainstream" the community at large would consider picking your product directly versus as an internal part of a much more popular product.
China protects its companies (many of which are at least partially state owned). The US does not.
Not necessarily true. The US provides subsidies to its corporations especially ones that export.
China puts high import taxes on goods made elsewhere, while the US does not.
There is no free trade agreement with China and the US does impose punitive duties on goods that threaten US companies with dumping. Solar panels is the latest example of the U.S. raising duties on chinese imports.
According to FactCheck.org and other sites. Only a 1% to 2% premium hike could be accounted towards overhead created by ObamaCare. The Keiser survey of employers performed from Jan through May 2012 showed that the employers only experienced a premium rise of 1.5% which were inline with previous years premium increases.
If you look at the data accumulated by the Kieser Family Foundation, 2011 had a premium increase of around 8% (single) and 9% (family) compared to over 13% (family) and over 14% (single) in 2002. While the cost of insurance hasn't shown any sign of going down yet, the rate of premium increase has.
It's also my understanding that the "ridiculous terms in contracts to discourage those with pre-existing conditions" is actually against the law passed by the Affordable Healthcare Act (aka ObamaCare). It was one of the key provision that required a mandatory insurance clause to get the bill passed.
You are arguing that the inability to pay the doctor somehow equates to the inability to pay the insurance premium. This is a fallacy since medical expenses can be orders of magnitude higher than your insurance premium. It is more accurate to say that you have a better chance of affording medical insurance than you are paying medical expenses directly out of your pocket. You also left out the medical insurance exchange that is designed to make insurance easier and cheaper to purchase (remember that free market theory people keep bring up?), the tax credit and subsidies to low income people that will go towards the premiums, and the fact that young adults up to the age of 26 can stay on their parent's health insurance plan. That's way better than I had it when I was 23.
You also argue that accidents, assaults, substance abuse and illnesses are rare which doesn't seem to be supported by statistics. Also teen pregnancies are "voluntary". Yea because we all know how well you keep it in your pants and how contraception never fails. Also I don't know what kind of insurance you have, but pregnancy is covered by my insurance. Most people pay a large co-pay (still cheaper than paying for it all) for the actual birth, while the pre-natal care and any emergencies that arise during birth are covered by traditional insurance terms.
The overall tone of your comment suggests that insurance is always an option before ObamaCare goes into effect. It's not an option if you can't afford it and you can't buy insurance after you are sick.
Your insurance has already changed to accommodate Obamacare. You now enjoy no lifetime limits on benefits, your dependents can stay on your insurance until 26, some copays have been reduced or eliminated depending on procedure, and your (well actually your employer's) premiums will go down as a result of institutions not having to pass the cost of the uninsured on to you.
You'd be surprised by the large number of "younger, poorer, healthier people" that find their way to an emergency room simply because they can't afford a doctor.
Also while statistically younger people do not have chronic illness, they make up for it in emergency care resulting from accidents. It's the overnight stay in the hospital from an emergency that bankrupts most young people. More so when combined with their inability to work and the lack of short term disability benefits.
I could also mention that in addition to accidents, younger people are prone to pregnancies, assaults, and sickness due to acute substance abuse.
That, or companies could actually take on university graduates like they used to do, train them, treat them well, and have some high class permanents who know what they're doing. Oh wait, that's a long term strategy. And long term's no good because in the long term we're all dead anyway.
They still do. They are called "fresh outs" and corporations love them. They are young, willing to relocate, and work for less than the going rate in exchange for experience to show on their resume. These corporations tend to hire by the project. This allows them to layoff workers at the end of each project and the workers find themselves competing with new "fresh outs" on upcoming projects. The majority of these workers find themselves looking elsewhere for employment only to find out that despite their experienced gained from their first employer they must compete with H1B workers who will work for less pay.
In this case, skill shortage means a shortage of people possessing the skill and willing to work for less than the median salary for their chosen profession.
Still not much of a measure. It's just a task list and your CPU usage reported by either Activity monitor or Windows 7. How is a comparison being made?
Right now I'm using VMWare Fusion 4.1.3 on my Mid-2012 MacBook Pro. I have to run a virtualized version of my network to test some software that splits the workload amongst several hosts. I'm running 5 Scientific Linux 6.2 hosts with two running Apache Web server, all running MySQL server daemons, and all running code designed to push large quantities of data through. My laptop is not even breaking a sweat. Is it a comparable measure of performance? No. Why? because it doesn't give me a nice computed benchmark to compare against another configuration running a similar task, nor does it fully exercise the OS since applications running in the background are idled more so for applications in a ready state waiting on user input (ie. your many browsers and editors that you have loaded in your example), in favor of applications in the foreground.
In addition to my virtual servers, I'm running Outlook, Word, Safari, OmniGraffle, BBEdit, SSH, gnuplot and Previewer in OS X. Since I'm not pushing data through the scripts, my CPU is showing 96% idle. So the only thing we proven is that we are able to load a bunch of stuff into memory and the scheduler is more than capable of handling the task. Now I'm able to fully test my network and still have enough headroom on the CPU to do some work while the test suite does its thing. Sure the fans spin up but the notebook is still more than up to the task. I'm running 16 GB of RAM to support this test environment. I didn't run Skype today, but I did use google voice for a conference call that lasted an hour with excellent call quality.
Of course this is 2012 and this usage should be typical of most developers, so don't take offense that I don't consider this an admiral feat in computing power. Come to think of it, this is a considerable improvement from 10 years ago.
Anyway, even though you may have loaded a crap load of applications waiting for your input my point still stands, I seriously doubt that your performance in OS X is faster than OS X running on native hardware. That being said, I'm not doubting that you are able to do some work with your set up. I'm just thinking that your perceived performance boost may not actually be what you perceive it to be.
BTW another reason OS X may boot faster in your VMWare environment versus an actual iMac may be due to the kernel extensions quickly exiting since hardware normally present in an iMac not being present in your virtual host.
So your argument against us rednecks is that you like to have the ability to exploit workers, and you are particularly fond of foreign labor because they are more easily extorted and are more desperate for work?
Slashdot Mirror
I never said money.
The research team will be in the running for a Nobel prize, and of course they would generate large numbers of published articles that will enhance their work metrics and keep them in "most favor researcher" status with their research institute. Not to mention, the additional travel to conferences and an increased amount of celebrity for the principle scientists.
The automobile industry reports their percentages now. So I don't know what your point is other than being reactionary.
Origins of raw materials are not taken into consideration just the finished parts. Parts would include the CPU, Speakers, anything in a plastic package (ICs, RAM, etc.), chassis, light pipes, and surface mounted semiconductors.
This isn't that big a deal to track and as far as I can tell the chassis and circuit boards are manufactured and assembled in the US with foreign components. Believe it or not, most companies have this statistic already for duties and tax purposes.
Of course! By the same token, you'll see Google "fans" go through the same exercise when an article mentions their "nemesis".
Every thread that mentions Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc will generate comments from both fans and foes. This is why websites gravitate to articles that mention these brands despite its newsworthiness.
Anyway this article is one of those "no shit sherlock" articles that points out the obvious that Google was doing this as a PR stunt. There isn't any real commitment being made to keep the facility open nor to increase the number of domestic parts being used. The fact that only the final assembly is being done in the US is used mostly for PR and possibly as political cover from Apple's (and Microsoft's, Nokia's, etc.) attempts to block importation due to patent infringement, since technically only the parts are being imported not the media device.
They can always print the percentage of foreign manufacturing on their package.
Good for them.
citation please.
let's paraphrase your statement to better fit the situation:
Would you prefer to purchase your shoes from your neighbor if it costs your neighbor $50 in labor and materials even if another person outside your country is willing to sell you the exact same pair already made for $10?
Yes because I don't want to export currency for trinkets. If I purchase from my neighbor, I increase the likelihood that he will purchase something from me, my employer, or a store we both shop at in the neighborhood. Money that stays in the community benefits the community.
Would you impose a tariff on that other person of $40 so his shoes cost the same as the ones your neighbor makes? Why?
Yes because it benefits my community. If we allow someone else to play the currency market or be able to produce goods without the regulatory overhead that we place on a local producer then we undercut both our community's value and the intent of the regulations. Meaning if there is an overhead of $1 to keep from polluting the local water supply, we shouldn't encourage manufacturers to build elsewhere and import that good just to save the $1. Not only does it means less jobs for the community, but it also exports the pollution we were trying to prevent in the first place.
Using perl is punishment enough for you.
Neither!
"=" is an assignment and "==" only tests if the L-value are the same.
We should use !cpp.equal(c) or !equal(C,CPP)
;)
Repeat after me: C++ is not equal to C
Actually no.
The linux kernel is the choice of most of the embedded community (which Google Android is part of) and has garnered its mainstream acceptance in this market since the kernel was first introduced. Google picked the Linux kernel to host the Android OS not only because it was free, but because the Linux kernel was already prevalent in the embedded market and was compatible with the ARM processor. Android OS may have increased the number of units sold with the Linux kernel installed, but it DID NOT make Linux mainstream in the embedded market.
Android didn't even make Linux mainstream to the general public. The consumer has no direct contact with the kernel, nor is Linux mentioned in any marketing done by Google to the general public. In this case, the linux kernel is just a part of a much bigger OS being installed on a mobile phone. I think when most people think of Linux they think of the Linux kernel with the Posix compliant runtime environment. Android does not fit this definition.
Nitpicks aside... Linux only has mainstream acceptance in the embedded and server market. People purposely choose a Linux OS to run on a server. People do NOT choose a Linux OS to run their phone (well not a lot of them), they instead choose Android OS which Google spent large amounts of money to market it. My point being that in order to be considered "mainstream" the community at large would consider picking your product directly versus as an internal part of a much more popular product.
Smart ass. The goal of these companies is to LOWER the median salary by hiring more workers who are willing to work for less.
Not necessarily true. The US provides subsidies to its corporations especially ones that export.
There is no free trade agreement with China and the US does impose punitive duties on goods that threaten US companies with dumping. Solar panels is the latest example of the U.S. raising duties on chinese imports.
You speak of protectionism as a bad thing. Why do you feel it's bad? I heard much propaganda from the free marketers, but what is your theory?
According to FactCheck.org and other sites. Only a 1% to 2% premium hike could be accounted towards overhead created by ObamaCare. The Keiser survey of employers performed from Jan through May 2012 showed that the employers only experienced a premium rise of 1.5% which were inline with previous years premium increases.
If you look at the data accumulated by the Kieser Family Foundation, 2011 had a premium increase of around 8% (single) and 9% (family) compared to over 13% (family) and over 14% (single) in 2002. While the cost of insurance hasn't shown any sign of going down yet, the rate of premium increase has.
It's also my understanding that the "ridiculous terms in contracts to discourage those with pre-existing conditions" is actually against the law passed by the Affordable Healthcare Act (aka ObamaCare). It was one of the key provision that required a mandatory insurance clause to get the bill passed.
Just so I understand you correctly.
You are arguing that the inability to pay the doctor somehow equates to the inability to pay the insurance premium. This is a fallacy since medical expenses can be orders of magnitude higher than your insurance premium. It is more accurate to say that you have a better chance of affording medical insurance than you are paying medical expenses directly out of your pocket. You also left out the medical insurance exchange that is designed to make insurance easier and cheaper to purchase (remember that free market theory people keep bring up?), the tax credit and subsidies to low income people that will go towards the premiums, and the fact that young adults up to the age of 26 can stay on their parent's health insurance plan. That's way better than I had it when I was 23.
You also argue that accidents, assaults, substance abuse and illnesses are rare which doesn't seem to be supported by statistics. Also teen pregnancies are "voluntary". Yea because we all know how well you keep it in your pants and how contraception never fails. Also I don't know what kind of insurance you have, but pregnancy is covered by my insurance. Most people pay a large co-pay (still cheaper than paying for it all) for the actual birth, while the pre-natal care and any emergencies that arise during birth are covered by traditional insurance terms.
The overall tone of your comment suggests that insurance is always an option before ObamaCare goes into effect. It's not an option if you can't afford it and you can't buy insurance after you are sick.
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/10/factchecking-health-insurance-premiums/
Your insurance has already changed to accommodate Obamacare. You now enjoy no lifetime limits on benefits, your dependents can stay on your insurance until 26, some copays have been reduced or eliminated depending on procedure, and your (well actually your employer's) premiums will go down as a result of institutions not having to pass the cost of the uninsured on to you.
You'd be surprised by the large number of "younger, poorer, healthier people" that find their way to an emergency room simply because they can't afford a doctor.
Also while statistically younger people do not have chronic illness, they make up for it in emergency care resulting from accidents. It's the overnight stay in the hospital from an emergency that bankrupts most young people. More so when combined with their inability to work and the lack of short term disability benefits.
I could also mention that in addition to accidents, younger people are prone to pregnancies, assaults, and sickness due to acute substance abuse.
They still do. They are called "fresh outs" and corporations love them. They are young, willing to relocate, and work for less than the going rate in exchange for experience to show on their resume. These corporations tend to hire by the project. This allows them to layoff workers at the end of each project and the workers find themselves competing with new "fresh outs" on upcoming projects. The majority of these workers find themselves looking elsewhere for employment only to find out that despite their experienced gained from their first employer they must compete with H1B workers who will work for less pay.
In this case, skill shortage means a shortage of people possessing the skill and willing to work for less than the median salary for their chosen profession.
Still not much of a measure. It's just a task list and your CPU usage reported by either Activity monitor or Windows 7. How is a comparison being made?
Right now I'm using VMWare Fusion 4.1.3 on my Mid-2012 MacBook Pro. I have to run a virtualized version of my network to test some software that splits the workload amongst several hosts. I'm running 5 Scientific Linux 6.2 hosts with two running Apache Web server, all running MySQL server daemons, and all running code designed to push large quantities of data through. My laptop is not even breaking a sweat. Is it a comparable measure of performance? No. Why? because it doesn't give me a nice computed benchmark to compare against another configuration running a similar task, nor does it fully exercise the OS since applications running in the background are idled more so for applications in a ready state waiting on user input (ie. your many browsers and editors that you have loaded in your example), in favor of applications in the foreground.
In addition to my virtual servers, I'm running Outlook, Word, Safari, OmniGraffle, BBEdit, SSH, gnuplot and Previewer in OS X. Since I'm not pushing data through the scripts, my CPU is showing 96% idle. So the only thing we proven is that we are able to load a bunch of stuff into memory and the scheduler is more than capable of handling the task. Now I'm able to fully test my network and still have enough headroom on the CPU to do some work while the test suite does its thing. Sure the fans spin up but the notebook is still more than up to the task. I'm running 16 GB of RAM to support this test environment. I didn't run Skype today, but I did use google voice for a conference call that lasted an hour with excellent call quality.
Of course this is 2012 and this usage should be typical of most developers, so don't take offense that I don't consider this an admiral feat in computing power. Come to think of it, this is a considerable improvement from 10 years ago.
Anyway, even though you may have loaded a crap load of applications waiting for your input my point still stands, I seriously doubt that your performance in OS X is faster than OS X running on native hardware. That being said, I'm not doubting that you are able to do some work with your set up. I'm just thinking that your perceived performance boost may not actually be what you perceive it to be.
BTW another reason OS X may boot faster in your VMWare environment versus an actual iMac may be due to the kernel extensions quickly exiting since hardware normally present in an iMac not being present in your virtual host.
Anyway, still a cool story...
It is the 40 year anniversary of Deliverance!
So your argument against us rednecks is that you like to have the ability to exploit workers, and you are particularly fond of foreign labor because they are more easily extorted and are more desperate for work?