Yet something happened along the way to Japan being the number one economy in the world.
You don't find it a success story that a country with about 1/3 the population of the US, 1/30 the land size and absolutely no natural resources manages to be the second largest economy in the world? Yes, Japan has bureaucratic and governmental issues. But don't overlook the fact that a lot of countries with better starting positions would love to have the economy that Japan has.
Its two main problems are demographic. Both are a result of its "one child" policy.
You know what the number one result of a large mass of single, young men with no jobs is? War. What you consider a Chinese problem is a problem that exacerbates the risk China poses to the rest of the world.
The iPhone with its iOS is Apple's XBox. The main difference is that the XBox is Microsoft's last hope for finding a market with growth, while the iPhone is Apple's license to print money. Both companies, however, are keenly aware that the future is appliance computing, and that there is very little profit in providing business- or superuser-class computing environment.
Here's where the similarity is: both companies know that the biggest profit margins and the biggest potential for growth come from the appliance model. Microsoft will continue to expand the XBox to provide an appliance-like experience, and Apple will push its iOS features into all of its consumer products. The endgame is the same for both companies. And Sony, by the way.
Some people can't see a few years down the road, but that's their shortcoming.
Correction: they're not doing it now. Wait a few years. Just like Microsoft with its Xbox - ultimately, it will have Windows for business, and XBox for consumers. Apple will work on a similar distribution.
I never thought I'd see the day when there'd be a major desktop OS that's even more closed than Windows. But, here it is. I have the nagging suspicion that Apple is indeed going to turn anything but the MacPro into a larger version of an iPhone, or the equivalent of an XBox. Goodbye Mac, hello Linux.
There is a massive ocean in the way and China has no blue water navy.
Which is exactly why China is working on a blue water navy.
They cannot project the force necessary, and cannot deal with the US intelligence abilities (like recon satellites and IUSS).
What do you think the satellite kill was for that China performed?
It's almost as if the Chinese leadership is aware of what its deficiencies are, and has long-term plans to remedy them. And yet, I hear the same comments about China I heard about Japan in the 70s and early 80s: they just copy, they don't innovate, and have a mediocre directed economy. And then they ate our lunch. I expect the same to happen with China. They will eat our lunch, because we're only looking at where they are, not where they're going.
Thanks for restoring a bit of faith in humanity. I would argue though that due to how you arrived at your conclusion, you weren't the target of the OP. Instead, he was targeting the crowd that was screaming treason - and those do seem to get their talking points from Fox News a lot.
No monopoly or oligarchy can last forever with unhappy customers.
Yes, they can. If the start-up cost to compete in the market of a monopoly or oligarchy is greater than any available funding, there is no way for new competition to enter the market. In the case of telcos, where startup costs are easy in multiple billions of dollars, this is a very real risk.
... it's the most useless way to progress, except for all others.
Be a skeptic, but don't confuse skepticism with truthiness. Unfortunately, I expect a rise in the use of truthiness over science when people will investigate reality.
Again, there's a difference in expected behavior for a civilian and a serving member of the military.
That argument didn't work during the Nuremberg trials, and for good reason. For one, it's because the only difference in the expected behavior of a civilian member and that of a serving member of the military is that they are supposed to contact different organizations in case of issues. Being part of a hierarchical organization doesn't absolve people from crimes they committed, helped commit, or helped bury.
Many good (and silly) complaints about how the military works have surfaced from retiring colonels and generals who have do this the right way.
Do you know why a lot military types wait until retirement before complaining, especially if they're higher ranked? You can't get your pension cut if you embarrass your superiors. Or beaten to a pulp. Or hung out to dry during a firefight. It's a basic economic calculation.
Of course, master. Tell us plebeians how to live, as we have no understanding how to do so.
Unfortunately, you are exactly like the dumb computer dweebs who think that because they know how to configure a firewall, they know what the purpose of the firewall is.
The first round of publication was rushed, and as such, contained names of informants.
Really?Which ones? If it's such common knowledge, then I'm sure you can provide me with the names of the informants that were leaked. And don't worry about endangering the lives of the informants through your actions, their names have apparently already been revealed.
Of course, if you can't, then I have to assume that the names of the informants were not released.
He helped the enemy fight us (attacking the will to fight a war is just as useful as killing soldiers or sabotaging material)
Oh hell fucking no. You didn't just go there. I won't argue whether the action of the soldier was justified or not, because that's a story for a different thread. But to argue that merely providing information that tarnishes the image of the country as being the same as actively sabotaging installations and killing people is exactly what lead to the Kent State shootings, and enabled Hitler to rise to power in Germany.
That argument is bullshit of the highest degree, because it not only makes it impossible to have a rational discussion about a war, but it also is a pretext to qualify anybody who questions the war as being a legitimate target for killing. I have seen the effects of that kind of logic, and it directly leads to killing anybody who is deemed objectionable by the one in power.
Yes, thank god the US isn't quite at the level of Russia or China yet. Is this supposed to make me feel better? Exactly when will criticism of methods employed by the US government to stop dangerous activities be legitimate? Only when they involve assassinations through radioactive poisons or random incarcerations? Do you want the US to be the country it aspires to be, or merely something marginally better than the bottom of the autocratic barrel?
I would also argue that the activities described in the documents are acts against the the United States. They are counter-productive, create more enemies and tarnish the reputation of the United States by association. Why should they stay secret? They are already known to the local population, because they happened there. The only people who don't know about it are Americans. Again, why should the American people be kept in the dark about activities that create dangerous situtations for America?
Finally, how do you know that they actually did put Americans, Australians, British and others in danger? Because some politician told you so? Or because you read the documents yourself? If you didn't read them yourself, why do you trust the people who are indicted by the documents to tell you the truth about what is in the documents?
If the US is what it aspires to be, rather than just another country striving for survival by any means, there is no place for secrets that exist solely to prevent embarrassment.
You can start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism. Basically, social harmony is one of the effects and goals of a virtuous person. Even Confucius knew though that political loyalty - one of the qualities of a virtuous person - could be abused by governments.
As such, it is both a culturally resonant idea and a commonly abused method for the ruling party to stay in power.
And....exactly the same thing happens in climate science. Just like no one is forced to build a full-scale model of a bridge to demonstrate that their compression and shear calculations are correct, no one in climate science is forced to build a full-scale earth to demonstrate that CO2 is a temperature forcing. Basic physics equations, coupled with lab experiments, are sufficient.
It seems to me you are just not familiar with the experiments that are at the root of the climate models.
I wouldn't believe in nuclear power either if we didn't have several examples of working reactors.
Thank god Einstein, Fermi, Szilard and Co believed in math and science enough to not need working reactors.
Newsflash: EVERYTHING is a mathematical model. Some theories are based on algebraic equations, some on non-linear equations, some on a set of iterative equations, but they are all "just" equations that model reality.
Computer models are just a fancy way of doing the same calculations that would be done by hand otherwise.
That's how you win glory in science: overturning the consensus.
This should be hung on a banner on every freeway.
Anybody who can show that AGC isn't occurring will have scientific fame for eons and more grant money they can shake a stick at. There's no glory in supporting the consensus.
Wait wait wait - you complain that someone links to realclimate.org, because you consider it not authoritative, but you're happy to link to climateaudit.org as being authoritative? Your brain didn't implode when it came up with that suggestion?
And that's even disregarding your ad hominem fallacy.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet something happened along the way to Japan being the number one economy in the world.
You don't find it a success story that a country with about 1/3 the population of the US, 1/30 the land size and absolutely no natural resources manages to be the second largest economy in the world? Yes, Japan has bureaucratic and governmental issues. But don't overlook the fact that a lot of countries with better starting positions would love to have the economy that Japan has.
Its two main problems are demographic. Both are a result of its "one child" policy.
You know what the number one result of a large mass of single, young men with no jobs is? War. What you consider a Chinese problem is a problem that exacerbates the risk China poses to the rest of the world.
You missed its move to get some current destroyers: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/luhu.htm
The iPhone with its iOS is Apple's XBox. The main difference is that the XBox is Microsoft's last hope for finding a market with growth, while the iPhone is Apple's license to print money. Both companies, however, are keenly aware that the future is appliance computing, and that there is very little profit in providing business- or superuser-class computing environment.
Here's where the similarity is: both companies know that the biggest profit margins and the biggest potential for growth come from the appliance model. Microsoft will continue to expand the XBox to provide an appliance-like experience, and Apple will push its iOS features into all of its consumer products. The endgame is the same for both companies. And Sony, by the way.
Some people can't see a few years down the road, but that's their shortcoming.
Correction: they're not doing it now. Wait a few years. Just like Microsoft with its Xbox - ultimately, it will have Windows for business, and XBox for consumers. Apple will work on a similar distribution.
I never thought I'd see the day when there'd be a major desktop OS that's even more closed than Windows. But, here it is. I have the nagging suspicion that Apple is indeed going to turn anything but the MacPro into a larger version of an iPhone, or the equivalent of an XBox. Goodbye Mac, hello Linux.
There is a massive ocean in the way and China has no blue water navy.
Which is exactly why China is working on a blue water navy.
They cannot project the force necessary, and cannot deal with the US intelligence abilities (like recon satellites and IUSS).
What do you think the satellite kill was for that China performed?
It's almost as if the Chinese leadership is aware of what its deficiencies are, and has long-term plans to remedy them. And yet, I hear the same comments about China I heard about Japan in the 70s and early 80s: they just copy, they don't innovate, and have a mediocre directed economy. And then they ate our lunch. I expect the same to happen with China. They will eat our lunch, because we're only looking at where they are, not where they're going.
Thanks for restoring a bit of faith in humanity. I would argue though that due to how you arrived at your conclusion, you weren't the target of the OP. Instead, he was targeting the crowd that was screaming treason - and those do seem to get their talking points from Fox News a lot.
No monopoly or oligarchy can last forever with unhappy customers.
Yes, they can. If the start-up cost to compete in the market of a monopoly or oligarchy is greater than any available funding, there is no way for new competition to enter the market. In the case of telcos, where startup costs are easy in multiple billions of dollars, this is a very real risk.
If no one got hurt because the actions taken were designed to get no one hurt, I'd say that that is the definition of acting responsibly.
Or are you the kind of person that likes to tell people what to do just because you think you know everything?
I think it's telling that no one has replied to your request. I don't expect anyone to do it any point either.
This isn't Twitter. Learn to communicate.
... it's the most useless way to progress, except for all others.
Be a skeptic, but don't confuse skepticism with truthiness. Unfortunately, I expect a rise in the use of truthiness over science when people will investigate reality.
Again, there's a difference in expected behavior for a civilian and a serving member of the military.
That argument didn't work during the Nuremberg trials, and for good reason. For one, it's because the only difference in the expected behavior of a civilian member and that of a serving member of the military is that they are supposed to contact different organizations in case of issues. Being part of a hierarchical organization doesn't absolve people from crimes they committed, helped commit, or helped bury.
Many good (and silly) complaints about how the military works have surfaced from retiring colonels and generals who have do this the right way.
Do you know why a lot military types wait until retirement before complaining, especially if they're higher ranked? You can't get your pension cut if you embarrass your superiors. Or beaten to a pulp. Or hung out to dry during a firefight. It's a basic economic calculation.
Of course, master. Tell us plebeians how to live, as we have no understanding how to do so.
Unfortunately, you are exactly like the dumb computer dweebs who think that because they know how to configure a firewall, they know what the purpose of the firewall is.
The first round of publication was rushed, and as such, contained names of informants.
Really?Which ones? If it's such common knowledge, then I'm sure you can provide me with the names of the informants that were leaked. And don't worry about endangering the lives of the informants through your actions, their names have apparently already been revealed.
Of course, if you can't, then I have to assume that the names of the informants were not released.
He helped the enemy fight us (attacking the will to fight a war is just as useful as killing soldiers or sabotaging material)
Oh hell fucking no. You didn't just go there. I won't argue whether the action of the soldier was justified or not, because that's a story for a different thread. But to argue that merely providing information that tarnishes the image of the country as being the same as actively sabotaging installations and killing people is exactly what lead to the Kent State shootings, and enabled Hitler to rise to power in Germany.
That argument is bullshit of the highest degree, because it not only makes it impossible to have a rational discussion about a war, but it also is a pretext to qualify anybody who questions the war as being a legitimate target for killing. I have seen the effects of that kind of logic, and it directly leads to killing anybody who is deemed objectionable by the one in power.
Get the fuck out my country. You are the enemy.
Yes, thank god the US isn't quite at the level of Russia or China yet. Is this supposed to make me feel better? Exactly when will criticism of methods employed by the US government to stop dangerous activities be legitimate? Only when they involve assassinations through radioactive poisons or random incarcerations? Do you want the US to be the country it aspires to be, or merely something marginally better than the bottom of the autocratic barrel?
I would also argue that the activities described in the documents are acts against the the United States. They are counter-productive, create more enemies and tarnish the reputation of the United States by association. Why should they stay secret? They are already known to the local population, because they happened there. The only people who don't know about it are Americans. Again, why should the American people be kept in the dark about activities that create dangerous situtations for America?
Finally, how do you know that they actually did put Americans, Australians, British and others in danger? Because some politician told you so? Or because you read the documents yourself? If you didn't read them yourself, why do you trust the people who are indicted by the documents to tell you the truth about what is in the documents?
If the US is what it aspires to be, rather than just another country striving for survival by any means, there is no place for secrets that exist solely to prevent embarrassment.
You can start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism. Basically, social harmony is one of the effects and goals of a virtuous person. Even Confucius knew though that political loyalty - one of the qualities of a virtuous person - could be abused by governments.
As such, it is both a culturally resonant idea and a commonly abused method for the ruling party to stay in power.
And....exactly the same thing happens in climate science. Just like no one is forced to build a full-scale model of a bridge to demonstrate that their compression and shear calculations are correct, no one in climate science is forced to build a full-scale earth to demonstrate that CO2 is a temperature forcing. Basic physics equations, coupled with lab experiments, are sufficient.
It seems to me you are just not familiar with the experiments that are at the root of the climate models.
Alright, name me one theory, one scientific model that does not have at its a core one or more mathematical equations.
And for your information: engineering design is based on static and dynamic physical models, all of which can be calculated by hand.
That said, I agree that engineering the earth's climate is grand-standing. Much better to do less change than to design a target.
Except you wrote nothing of the form that you're suggesting now. I would work on your writing ability, if I were you.
The EPA has never sued a private individual.
I wouldn't believe in nuclear power either if we didn't have several examples of working reactors.
Thank god Einstein, Fermi, Szilard and Co believed in math and science enough to not need working reactors.
Newsflash: EVERYTHING is a mathematical model. Some theories are based on algebraic equations, some on non-linear equations, some on a set of iterative equations, but they are all "just" equations that model reality.
Computer models are just a fancy way of doing the same calculations that would be done by hand otherwise.
That's how you win glory in science: overturning the consensus.
This should be hung on a banner on every freeway.
Anybody who can show that AGC isn't occurring will have scientific fame for eons and more grant money they can shake a stick at. There's no glory in supporting the consensus.
Wait wait wait - you complain that someone links to realclimate.org, because you consider it not authoritative, but you're happy to link to climateaudit.org as being authoritative? Your brain didn't implode when it came up with that suggestion?
And that's even disregarding your ad hominem fallacy.