backtop


Print 81 comment(s) - last by Min Jia.. on Nov 26 at 9:44 PM

The number of attacks and severity of attacks by Chinese hackers continues to increase

A congressional advisory panel has said China is perfecting its ability to engage in cyber warfare and other computer espionage against the United States and its allies.

Congress also warned that China is working on better engaging in cyber warfare that could lead to the delay and disruption of U.S. military deployment anywhere in the world.  Specifically, the Chinese are using cyber warfare to gain access to classified military documents, along with viewing documents from American corporations that work with the government.

The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission was founded eight years ago in an effort to help learn about and give advice regarding U.S.-China relations.  The overall threat of cyber attacks grows year after year, with 5 million computers in the United States last year the target of 43,880 incidents of attacks and other suspicious activity.  

The top 10 largest U.S. defense contractor companies all suffered computer espionage from foreign-based attackers, including Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon.

Chinese ability to attack is "so sophisticated that the US may be unable to counteract or even detect the efforts" of the attacks, according to the report.

The six Democrats and six Republicans who make up the panel said China's wide scale military modernization and "impressive but disturbing" computer and space warfare abilities "suggest China is intent on expanding its sphere of control even at the expense of its Asian neighbors and the United States."

There was no official word back from Chinese officials about the report.

President-elect Obama and his new staff will have to deal with cyber warfare and similar issues related to China once he takes office in January.  

Obama will face pressure from lawmakers who seek to acquire additional funding for programs aimed at monitoring Chinese cyber attacks and help protect government and defense computers.

Another situation Obama has to consider is with the Chinese space program, which is "steadily increasing the vulnerability of US assets," with a better ability to locate US warships deployed in the Pacific Ocean.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

*yawn*
By dsx724 on 11/24/2008 9:28:44 AM , Rating: 5
China this, China that. Politicians are ignorant and useless.




RE: *yawn*
By zombiexl on 11/24/2008 10:02:18 AM , Rating: 2
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. That would be congress (and gov in general) for those who failed to make the connection.


RE: *yawn*
By nosfe on 11/24/2008 10:15:48 AM , Rating: 2
and if you want examples just watch any zombie movie


RE: *yawn*
By cparka23 on 11/24/2008 10:47:53 AM , Rating: 2
YAWN?! Didn't you watch the opening ceremonies~?~!1


Cyber-attack too frequent?
By pxavierperez on 11/24/2008 1:35:15 PM , Rating: 2
I know that cyber-war falls under espionage, but if this is occurring as often as DailyTech reports them then what's stopping an elite US commandos discreetly blowing up hacker bases in China. I mean it seems cyber-attack from China has been going out of hand.

At least during the Cold War it took a couple of years to find out who stole what from who.




RE: Cyber-attack too frequent?
By JediSmurf on 11/24/2008 8:11:37 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe because they aren't sure the elite Chinese counter-teams won't kick their asses.


RE: Cyber-attack too frequent?
By paydirt on 11/25/2008 9:15:28 AM , Rating: 2
OR, this is an effort by a corporation to create a scare so the US government spends money on security.

Anyone remember the people lasering passenger jets and then the press running hard with the threat of missile attacks, then they say "well we need a flare/chaff defense on every passenger jet to protect them."

Well, not really, AND a company wants to make Bmillions off of it.


RE: Cyber-attack too frequent?
By Murloc on 11/25/2008 3:50:15 PM , Rating: 2
chinese ninjas!

WTF?
I think most chinese hackers are in the country chatting with IRC and getting work from the governement XD
It's a delocated and indestructable menace.


By ayat101 on 11/25/2008 7:56:26 AM , Rating: 1
Goebels: "Repeat a lie often enough, and it becomes accepted as the truth".

So let's do away with the propaganda of a peaceful China throughout history:

*Colonisation of Taiwan and displacement of the aboriginal population.

*Invasion of Tibet, genocide, and cultural genocide. Widescale population replacement with the majority Han Chinese.

*Conquest and colonisation of Inner Mongolia, cultural genocide and population displacement (two tactics favoured by the Chinese).

*Colonisation and population and cultural displacement in Xingjiang (East Turkestan).

*Displacement and genocide of the Hmong (this is a little older one).

*Displacement of the Southern Tai peoples (ancestors of Thais and Lao among some).

*Repeated attempted conquests of Vietnam throughout its history.

*Attempted conquest of Japan, Korea, wars with India, etc.

*all the smaller aboriginal groups and kingdoms conquered and their peoples absorbed or killed off throughout China's history.


By Subzero0000 on 11/25/2008 9:59:53 PM , Rating: 2
Those are good points indeed. I'll have to spend some time to study more details about those events.

I'm only referring "peaceful" in terms of comparing other countries.
Simply look at the recent war in Afghanistan. US has messed up the place totally.

Compare to what you pointed out :

- Taiwan is still Taiwan (there wasn't any war anyway). China and Taiwan has been doing a lot of business discussion these days. The desire to take Taiwan may still be there, but it's no longer a priority.

- Tibet is actually a better place with China than being ruled by buddhist (think about Dark Ages).

- Vietnam? I thought it's in war with US forever.

- Japan is the major player in World War II. THEY attempted to conquest the world. You want to talk about victims?

- Korea is still Korea. Actually, US is the one acting real tough on North Korea.

- India is still India.

"Attempt" is not the point.

My point is, US has been doing a lot of works to make China looks like a Evil empire.

Every year US spends billions and billions on weapon R&D. But when others make some weapons, US starts complaining.
US even justify the decision to build "missile defence" in Europe to "defence" against Russia. Now who is picking the fight here?
Imagine if someone else talks about placing "missile defence" right next to America. I'm sure US will go haywire.

No one in the world is more "attempting" than US.


By ayat101 on 11/26/2008 12:20:52 AM , Rating: 1
1. I mean the colonisation of Taiwan a few hundred years back. Yes, Taiwan is Taiwan, but now it has majority Chinese living there (even if they do not recognise the mainland government).

2. Tibet is not a better place with the Chinese. It is SILLY to compare a medieval Tibet to modern China. Modern China itself is better off than medieval China, but that still does not excuse the bad things they do, or remove the fact that they could be better still as compared to other countries. For a meaningful comparison you have to think of how a modern Tibet may have been without China.

3. Vietnam fought many foes in its history and won it all :) It's not just the US that tried to invade it.

4. The attempted invasion of Japan I am talking about happened hundreds of years in the past. Same for Korea.

ATTEMPT *IS* the point. An attempt is still an invasion and people die, and the invaded country has to defend itself. It's just that the invaders fail. By the same point WWII does not count because the Nazis only attempted to conquer the world but failed - CLEARLY a FALSE argument.

All I am saying is that China is hardly and angel and has a history of attacking and taking over other countries and groups when it feels powerful. So, we better all be careful. This is aside from how the US may or may not behave.


By Min Jia on 11/26/2008 7:54:07 AM , Rating: 2
It's the Mongols who invaded Korea and attempted to invade Japan in 1274, not the Chinese.

As for Vietnam, it had been a part of China since the Han Dynasty and was under Chinese rule for centuries afterwards.

Tibet, a part of China since Ming Dynasty, would be even poorer and worse off than it is now if the Chinese hadn't reclaimed it.

And speaking of colonisation, cultural genocide and population displacement, your ancestors did the same thing to the native Americans.


By Min Jia on 11/26/2008 9:44:57 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you can probably tell I'm a Chinese by name user name, so don't tell my Tibet is not part of my country.

Yes, it's the Mongols. The Mongols conquered China in 1271, and ruled us for 90 years. They They did not even speak our Han language. China (Yuan) at the time was just a small part of the huge Mongol Empire. That is why it's call the Mongol invasions of Japan, not Chinese.

Vietnam was under Chinese rule for a thousand years. A thousand years is not a while.


10001001011001010
By pjpizza on 11/24/2008 10:24:43 AM , Rating: 3
I didn't know computers understood Chinese... The world is movin' so fast...




US response
By headbox on 11/26/2008 2:07:12 AM , Rating: 1
The US govt. won't respond to Chinese cyber attacks for one reason: China owns the U$A.




Give it up
By onelittleindian on 11/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Give it up
By Bateluer on 11/24/2008 9:40:55 AM , Rating: 4
Wait, you're saying that Obama's administration will do worse then President Bush's administration? Last I checked, the economy under Republican leadership has been 'raped'.


RE: Give it up
By Gzus666 on 11/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Give it up
By zombiexl on 11/24/2008 10:12:17 AM , Rating: 2
On correction...
quote:

I think he is referring to the usual Democrat agenda which is increase stupid social ist programs, tax businesses and cut military spending. All of which are terrible ideas at this point.


Might also be referring to that fact that Obama actually said he wanted to bankrupt the coal industry. Or just about any of the plans he has actually talked about.


RE: Give it up
By MPE on 11/24/2008 10:22:07 AM , Rating: 1
OMG - stop parroting Fox news. If you actually watch the entire recorded interview you would know the context of that comment. And that McCain ACTUALLY INTRODUCED legislature that expressed what Obama was saying. Basically, under the proposed Cap and Trade law, newly built old fashion coal plants is economically not viable. Current plants would get subsidized to upgrade their plants in order to conform - even make money out of it. So LEARN TO READ and THINK for yourself.


RE: Give it up
By grenableu on 11/24/2008 10:31:43 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
If you actually watch the entire recorded interview you would know the context of that comment.
Total BS. Here's the actual interview with Obama, about a minute and a half in. You can't deny what he said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo5vAB10H8o


RE: Give it up
By MPE on 11/24/2008 10:50:01 AM , Rating: 2
The interview is more than half hour - try again.
Like I said watch the entire interview and look at the McCain Cap and Trade proposed law which is EXACTLY what Obama was talking about.


RE: Give it up
By grenableu on 11/24/2008 11:13:22 AM , Rating: 1
Why is it Obama supporters know less about his policies than anyone else? Obama's cap and trade plan would have put over 9 times the cost on coal power plants as the Warner-Lieberman plan (which McCain supported). Obama himself even said his plan was the most stringent ever proposed.

Its a moot point anyway. Even our Democratic congress isn't stupid enough to try to pass such a foolhardy bill.


RE: Give it up
By MPE on 11/24/2008 11:24:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Obama's cap and trade plan would have put over 9 times the cost on coal power plants as the Warner-Lieberman plan (which McCain supported). Obama himself even said his plan was the most stringent ever proposed.


Uhm - McCains proposal also made it economically not viable to create new plants using old technology. Both plans proposed is forcing "clean coal".


RE: Give it up
By grenableu on 11/24/2008 12:42:15 PM , Rating: 1
Stop playing stupid. "Clean coal" still produces CO2, coal plants, clean or not, are still hit exactly the same by cap and trade legislation.

Obama is the only politician who said he would "bankrupt" anyone who tried to build new coal power plants.


RE: Give it up
By masher2 (blog) on 11/24/2008 12:50:02 PM , Rating: 3
> "Obama is the only politician who said he would "bankrupt" anyone who tried to build new coal power plants. "

Well, what Obama said actually varied according to who he was speaking to. He told plenty of coal-producing states that he was for clean-coal technology. It was only in places like San Francisco that he came out against new coal plants entirely.

I think it's safe to say that, now that he's elected, we'll see that fiery anti-coal rhetoric moderated somewhat.


RE: Give it up
By rcc on 11/24/2008 4:01:43 PM , Rating: 2
Depending, of course, on who he needs a backscratch from.


RE: Give it up
By MPE on 11/24/2008 2:17:32 PM , Rating: 2
You are an idiot. Do you know what " " means?
No one is arguing about legitimacy of "clean coal". The discussion is about support for such policy and how you implement it. Obama and McCains fundemental support is EXACTLY the same. That is the point. No one is discussing what 'clean coal' is actually. And BTW - "clean coal" is the coal industry's own term.

Yes he said the word bankrupt because McCain and others did not have the balls to actually say it - without revision on old plants, these plants would be unable to pay for their pollution under McCains supported plan. That is fact. That is the point of the legistlation - to make old plant financially not viable while helping older plants.


RE: Give it up
By dflynchimp on 11/24/2008 11:59:28 AM , Rating: 1
Obama won, get over it.


RE: Give it up
By omnicronx on 11/24/2008 12:35:16 PM , Rating: 1
Ya really, your bitterness is not going to change anything..
Believe me, we would know after 8 years of Bush...


RE: Give it up
By InvertMe on 11/24/2008 1:07:49 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
by dflynchimp on November 24, 2008 at 11:59 AM

Obama won, get over it.


If you didn't vote for him you can bitch all you want. You "get over it" and welcome to the internet.


RE: Give it up
By johnadams on 11/24/2008 1:48:48 PM , Rating: 2
OK You know what?

1. Watch it
2. Rewind
3. and watch it again.
4. Repeat step 1 until you drink from the kool-aid.


RE: Give it up
By MPE on 11/24/2008 2:22:13 PM , Rating: 2
Or you can stop watching the 3 minute youtube video and watch the entire 30+ minute video to get the full scope. And while you are at it, Google McCain's own Cap and Trade policy. But that means you have to do your own research (aka Primary source) and come to your own conclusion instead of using pundits. Kool-aid comes in blue and red flavors.


RE: Give it up
By eyebeeemmpawn on 11/24/2008 10:41:37 AM , Rating: 2
Wake up! In America we live in a system of socialism for the rich and cut throat capitalism for the rest of us. The election is over, your name suits you.


RE: Give it up
By FITCamaro on 11/24/2008 12:11:22 PM , Rating: 1
How do the rich live in a system of socialism? Socialism's mantra is "take from the haves and give to the have nots". What are the rich taking from anyone? They earn their money through investments, high paying jobs, and running businesses (you know those things that give others jobs). They are rewarded for their success by being demonized by liberal politicians (despite said politicians also being rich) and paying higher taxes to fund government programs that they never use.


RE: Give it up
By Gzus666 on 11/24/2008 12:14:41 PM , Rating: 2
I believe he is referring to the bailouts that all the major businesses keep begging for, then we give it to them. Tax money going to businesses effectively does what he was saying. Once a business gets big enough, they seem to get bailouts to save them if they ever mess up.


RE: Give it up
By zombiexl on 11/24/2008 6:23:39 PM , Rating: 2
SO becuase I was a fan of white zombie and used the nick zombiexl for the last 15 years or so (starting back on IRC) I must be mindless.

Thats wonderful. I didnt realize a nick / login was supposed to tell the world all about you. I guess you must be retarded or a jailbird making license plates based on your name?


RE: Give it up
By Ammohunt on 11/24/2008 2:10:24 PM , Rating: 2
Everything was fine until 2006


RE: Give it up
By dsx724 on 11/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Give it up
By zombiexl on 11/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Give it up
By MPE on 11/24/2008 10:27:40 AM , Rating: 2
Socialst?

Which part of the republican plan is not socialist? The $700 Billion bailout? The proposed mortgage bailout of BAD mortgage? Republican Theodore Roosevelt progressive income tax we currently use?
When McCain in 2000 running for president said its fair to tax the wealthy? Or Alaska's taxing of oil corporation and 'spreading the wealth' to every citizen of Alaska for just living in Alaska. That is right - Alaska gives you $3000+ check every year, straight from corporate tax, just for living there.
That must not be socialist?

Socialism was a catch phrase by the extreme right to label Obama something during the campaign. It has no credibility whatsoever.


RE: Give it up
By grenableu on 11/24/2008 10:35:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Which part of the republican plan is not socialist? The $700 Billion bailout?
Get your facts straight. The bailout plan was proposed and passed by the Democratic leadership of the House and Senate. The first version of it was shot down by Republicans, and Republicans still managed to block the second version.

MOST (not all) Republicans were AGAINST the bailout. ALMOST ALL Democratics were FOR it.

quote:
That is right - Alaska gives you $3000+ check every year, straight from corporate tax, just for living there.
Ah, so it's Palin's fault for a policy that was put in place before she was even born? Good logic there.


RE: Give it up
By MPE on 11/24/2008 11:00:59 AM , Rating: 3
[quote]Get your facts straight. The bailout plan was proposed and passed by the Democratic leadership of the House and Senate. The first version of it was shot down by Republicans, and Republicans still managed to block the second version.[/quote]

Which was originally created and introduced by president Bush, which needed 91 Republican House Rep voted for (172 Dems) and 30 Rep Senators (40 Dems) voted for.
of course they are not socialist. And nice try on dodging the other facts.

[quote]Ah, so it's Palin's fault for a policy that was put in place before she was even born? Good logic there. [/quote]

Which she is a BIG supporter of. In fact she introduced and got it to pass new law. Revising the tax code, thus increasing the rebate.
So she obviously think its not fair. She made it more fair by spreading more wealth.


RE: Give it up
By grenableu on 11/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Give it up
By MPE on 11/24/2008 11:36:02 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
What Bush proposed was a 3-page bill. What got passed by the Democratic congress was over 400 pages, with a much higher price tag too.

So you are going to ignore Bush wanted a bailout plan and some Republican House and Senate voted for it? That is like arguing you only went 70 MPH in a 55 MPH while everyone else was doing 80 MPH.

quote:
She phased out a few loopholes that prevented oil producers from having to pay royalties for oil drilled on public land. That's common sense, not "spreading the wealth".

Nice try. Under Palin ACES revision of late 2007, the tax went up by an additional 1.5% on oil revenues and the rebate went up.

the point is - she made no attempts to revise to lower the tax - let alone remove what is obviously a wealth distribution tax code.

BTW - I love when Palin does the wealth spreading it is 'common sense'. When everyone else does it, it is 'socialist'.


RE: Give it up
By grenableu on 11/24/2008 12:46:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you are going to ignore Bush wanted a bailout plan
So are you going to ignore the fact that most Republicans were against the plan, and most Democrats for it? And ignore the fact that the bailout Bush wanted was 1/100 the size of what the Democrats delivered?


RE: Give it up
By omnicronx on 11/24/2008 1:00:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And ignore the fact that the bailout Bush wanted was 1/100 the size of what the Democrats delivered?
Really?
quote:
"U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson proposed a plan under which the U.S. Treasury would acquire up to $700 billion worth of mortgage-backed securities.[22] The plan was immediately backed by President George W. Bush and negotiations began with leaders in the U.S. Congress to draft appropriate legislation."
quote:
On September 23, the plan was presented by Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke to the Senate Banking Committee who rejected it as unacceptable.[31]
(This was rejected by a sizable amount too, and the senate was basically divided 50/50, so many democrats must have voted against it)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_St...


RE: Give it up
By omnicronx on 11/24/2008 12:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you are going to ignore Bush wanted a bailout plan and some Republican House and Senate voted for it? That is like arguing you only went 70 MPH in a 55 MPH while everyone else was doing 80 MPH.
I find it funny he even mentions this, does this mean that every bill proposed by Bush/Clinton can be accredited to the other party?(Repub dominated house during Clinton reign, and vice-versa during the Democrat house reign?) Bush proposed the Bill, and McCain almost didn't show up to the debate so that he could 'speed things up', but of course its the democrats who are to blame..

Both parties had their proponents and their opponents, it was not merely one party that decided the bills fate, so don't try to make it out as though it was a single party's 'fault'.


RE: Give it up
By MPE on 11/24/2008 2:25:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Both parties had their proponents and their opponents, it was not merely one party that decided the bills fate, so don't try to make it out as though it was a single party's 'fault'.

That is exactly my point!!!!
Socialist tagging for Obama's policy has no credibility since Repubs senaors, presidents, governors are as bad of an offender as their Democrat counterparts. Look at my post - I even give you how many Dems voted for it. I was not trying to hide.


RE: Give it up
By omnicronx on 11/24/2008 2:40:53 PM , Rating: 2
I was agreeing with you :) My statements were aimed at the poster you were replying too.


RE: Give it up
By masher2 (blog) on 11/24/2008 12:47:47 PM , Rating: 2
> "Under Palin ACES revision of late 2007, the tax went up by an additional 1.5% on oil revenues"

Oops! Under ACES, the tax actually rose by 2.5% (22.5% - 25%) -- but only on North Slope oil...oil on land owned by the Alaskan citizens themselves.


RE: Give it up
By blueman12 on 11/24/2008 5:02:55 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, Democrat Woodrow Wilson implemented the federal income tax via the 16th amendment.

The 700 billion dollar bailout plan was actually proposed by treasury secretary Paulson, not any one party.

Please get your facts straight.


RE: Give it up
By MPE on 11/24/2008 5:44:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually, Democrat Woodrow Wilson implemented the federal income tax via the 16th amendment.


I was referring to progressive income tax not the flat tax.

quote:
The 700 billion dollar bailout plan was actually proposed by treasury secretary Paulson, not any one party.


Uhm... Treasury Secretary is a appointed position in the Executive Branch. That is not the same a Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Meaning, any policy from Treasury Secretary office IS the policy of the president.

So it seems you do not know your facts.


RE: Give it up
By zombiexl on 11/24/2008 6:20:12 PM , Rating: 2
I never said that most republicans were any better. All politicians are full of....

How can you say he’s not a socialist? His comments almost mirrored karl marx exactly.

By the way, let me preemptively tell you that I don’t follow fox news. I know when you people who think everything should be given to you don’t agree with a point you mention fox news.


RE: Give it up
By arazok on 11/24/2008 10:02:19 AM , Rating: 2
I’m always intrigued by the perceptions people have of China. If anyone thinks a quasi-capitalist, communist run country is ever going to approach the US economy, I have a bridge to sell you.

China might be on the upswing, but don’t think for a second they aren’t going to totally screw it up at some point down the road.


RE: Give it up
By Gzus666 on 11/24/2008 10:14:03 AM , Rating: 2
They technically aren't communist at all. They can call themselves whatever they want, they follow none of the ideals of communism. Egalitarianism is surely not followed in China and this is one of the base ideals of communism. If anything they are an imperialistic government and even then, that isn't correct. They are quite literally run by their military.


RE: Give it up
By nah on 11/24/2008 10:38:29 AM , Rating: 2
I did some research in 2000, and (if i remember correctly)--China's GDP/capita will equal America's at around 2235 AD--IF China grows at a constant 5.5 % and the USA at a constant 2.5 %-- over the next 235 years

Of course China's population would be three times bigger then--so it's total GDP would be x3 larger


RE: Give it up
By masher2 (blog) on 11/24/2008 10:42:38 AM , Rating: 2
> "If anyone thinks a quasi-capitalist, communist run country is ever going to approach the US economy, I have a bridge to sell you..."

China GDP: $10T
US GDP: $13T

China is already "approaching" the US economy in terms of total size. In terms of per-capita GDI, it very well may never equal the US...but total GDP is the more important factor when it comes to factors like military and economic impact.

By the way, to the poster who projected China's growth, its current GDP growth rate is more like 10%, rather than 5%.


RE: Give it up
By arazok on 11/24/2008 10:51:18 AM , Rating: 3
That’s Google's result on GDP. I don’t know their source, but it seems suspect.

The IMF, World Bank, and CIA put China’s GDP at a more realistic 3 trillion, well behind the EU, USA, and Japan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...


RE: Give it up
By arazok on 11/24/2008 11:07:34 AM , Rating: 2
I just checked Google's GDP estimate again, and I see it links to the CIA world fact book as a source. Checking there, it lists China’s GDP (PPP) at 7 trillion, and GDP (OER) at 3.2 trillion.

I'm favoring the OER as the correct source for comparing economies.


RE: Give it up
By omnicronx on 11/24/2008 12:31:13 PM , Rating: 2
Although.. GDP is pretty much useless when comparing China vs the states, mainly because of the huge parity between cost of living.

GDP (PPP) is much more useful as only a few items such as oil are calculated based on exchange rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...

All GDP(PPP) sources put the U.S at around 14 million and China at 7 million (with China still having around 10% year over year increase.)


RE: Give it up
By nah on 11/24/2008 11:40:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
By the way, to the poster who projected China's growth, its current GDP growth rate is more like 10%, rather than 5%.


That's been true for most of the last 30 years--but can that rate be sustained for the next 200 +--that's the big question

You're comparing GDPs by PPP-compare it by the Atlas method--it's easier to grow from a very low base very quickly--snags hit when you cross the USD 6000 per capita mark--and then continue --problems of sustainability, R&D investments that actually keep your cutting edge--intellectual property development becomes a big issue--of course, if they keep on stealing our secrets--they've already saved on most of their R&D costs


RE: Give it up
By omnicronx on 11/24/2008 12:12:45 PM , Rating: 3
In 20 years, if China keeps this up, they will be running on their own internet. If they continue to allow these hackers to thrive, other governments will have no choice but to block out China completely.

P.S The U.S only has 300 million people, it is only a matter of time before other nations catch up and the U.S and their dominance starts to fade. Don't be surprised to see the U.S dollar no longer being the base world currency, regardless of what Obama does. And blaming Obama before he is in office is very childish. Bush is to blame for the current state of the US, whose non socialist/pro-military style of government you seem to agree with. Obviously that did not work and the majority of the population does not agree with you, so how about you give him a chance, it can't be any worse than what we have lived through the past eight years.


RE: Give it up
By InvertMe on 11/24/2008 4:20:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bush is to blame for the current state of the US


If you believe one person affected the ecconomy so drasticly you really need to increase your education of how our government and economy work.

I personally think Ombama is a scumbag and is NOT what this country needs in any way shape or form but I am not concerned in the slighest that he got elected because he is just one person and even being the president can only affect the country so much.


RE: Give it up
By zombiexl on 11/24/2008 6:32:29 PM , Rating: 2
Actually about the last 35 years of government have set up this current state of affairs. At least with the mortgage issues.

Well that and the complete lack of personal responsibility. For example when I bought my current home I was told I could buy something 4x more expensive than what I bought. I decided that it was more responsible to buy what I needed. If all those borrowers had used some common sense this wouldnt even be an issue.


RE: Give it up
By Noya on 11/25/2008 4:30:17 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
If all those borrowers had used some common sense this wouldnt even be an issue.


And I bet 30% of them barely spoke English and over 50% of them didn't even graduate high school. Let's not forget our entire economy is based on an ever increasing credit market.

When an auto dealership dupes some stupid people, the car gets repoed. When the entire US mortgage sector dupes people, then re-sells the loans across the globe a few times, the world economy gets screwed. The quasi capitalist system we use is shite without lots of regulations (look at Enron).


The decline of the old powers
By NubWobble on 11/24/08, Rating: -1
By GaryJohnson on 11/24/2008 9:53:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
...As you can see I corrected two minor, yet immensely irritating spelling mistakes...

quote:
emperialistic warmongerer

Earitating spelling checkerer.


RE: The decline of the old powers
By TerranMagistrate on 11/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: The decline of the old powers
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/24/2008 1:25:13 PM , Rating: 5
Frankly if I was in the U.S. Cyber Security I would be researching a killswitch to cut China off from the rest of the "Internet". Combined with taking down their satellites you could cripple their ability to do anything inside of a few hours. I would be highly surprised if the U.S. wasn't already working on or in possession of a killswitch for cutting China out of the larger Internet.


RE: The decline of the old powers
By sgw2n5 on 11/24/2008 3:25:45 PM , Rating: 2
That is seriously a good idea.

Let them do whatever the fark they want, we can't control that anyway, but just block their access to the rest of the internet.

The US should totally build a great firewall FOR china.


RE: The decline of the old powers
By Baov on 11/24/2008 6:18:16 PM , Rating: 5
Lol. The great firewall of china. New world wonder.


RE: The decline of the old powers
By Buspar on 11/24/2008 5:13:01 PM , Rating: 2
We already have indicators that the US has a plan like that. The US was the first country to develop and test anti-satellite missiles and is currently the leader in that field. The US also opposes all of the resolutions meant to stop the development and deployment of such tech. So I wouldn't be surprised if our military commanders have a lock on the various Chinese satellites and are ready to knock them out if needed.

One problem with that plan, however, is that China is catching up to us in the space arms race. After the US refused to stop developing weapons that threaten the global satellite network, China started their own program to counter ours. The recent tests we've seen have been them trying to match our own capacities, similar to the nuclear arms race of the Cold War.

Now we have to worry about them reciprocating if we launch something like a large strike on Chinese satellites. Imagine the GPS and telecom satellites going poof. (It'd explain why Russia wants its own system for such things.) Fortunately, mutually assured destruction of satellites makes it less likely for either side to tempt the other into doing so and instead promotes an uneasy equilibrium that can be defused through diplomatic channels. Unlike the stated goals of the USSR, China is not dedicated to our destruction, which makes them much easier to talk with. So as long as we keep our own hackers up to date we probably won't have to resort to that method.


RE: The decline of the old powers
By NubWobble on 11/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: The decline of the old powers
By Ammohunt on 11/24/2008 2:12:55 PM , Rating: 2
News flash! the US preserves Western Civilization and my guess is the life you enjoy. So unless you like living in the third world you might want to make sure we don't fail.


RE: The decline of the old powers
By wvh on 11/24/2008 5:14:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the US preserves Western Civilization


How's that? By war, aggression and tough talk? "Cultural" exports such as Hollywood movies, fast food, Coca-Cola? By justice for all, even the poor vs. big corporations? By blind capitalism pushing people so far into debt it is threatening the world economy? Having an excellent education system for all? Or perhaps learning people to think critically instead of blindly waving crosses, flags, political colours or presidential candidates?

There are far worse countries than the US, but nevertheless, as a nation you need some serious soul searching because reality – as experienced by a lot of people both in your own country and in the rest of the world – does not match up with your glorified view of modern-day America and that handful of simple and shallow one-liner values you assign to it. To many, there might not be as much to admire the modern-day US for as you seem to think.

To imply that either one lives the American way or suffers the third world is deeply arrogant. I don't hate you, but you've got to stop posturing as the saver of mankind. It's getting beyond laughable. Save yourself first.

Back on topic now... This article is political FUD, full of wild allegations. When it comes to spying and interfering, the whole US-Russia-China rhetoric is pot calling the kettle black. China might be one end of the spectrum, but the US is the other end, and by no means a pinnacle of truth, neutrality or middle ground. I guess China is just the new Russia, an easy enemy for political propaganda and mucho posturing drama. What other purpose does an article like this have than to rouse antipathy, even hatred?

It implies the whole of China teams up, hacking all systems over the whole US, exposing all secrets and using those to advance its own Evil World Domination Plans, starting with gobbling up its closest neighbours and then moving to take over space, after which they will destroy The West. And not surprisingly we witness the ignorant popping up, with their cries of "Save Western Civilisation! USA forever!". Not even worth a B-class Hollywood movie, if you ask me...


RE: The decline of the old powers
By Ammohunt on 11/24/2008 6:40:42 PM , Rating: 4
You must be Canadian. America preserves freedom around the world try turning on the TV sometimes and look through the propaganda. I've been in Kuwait on February 26th when they celebrate their liberation from iraq as an American i have been cheered in the streets of Kuwait City on that day(they understand). Thats just one glaring example for me personally? my German family is free today becasue of the efforts of America.

Now if you knew anything about history or had average smarts you could find many more examples all over the world..try it.

World economies live and die with America and so does the west. The fact is that 80% of the rest of the world does not enjoy near the quality of life the west enjoys thats a fact.


RE: The decline of the old powers
By NubWobble on 11/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: The decline of the old powers
By michael67 on 11/25/2008 5:23:01 AM , Rating: 1
O man it hurts being on the other end of the stick, dossent it?

You are all saying, how bad China is for doing this, hell the US has bin doing this to the rest of the world for years, only now there is a country that is getting better at it then the US, and now it starts mowing what bad China is for doing this.

"NSA ore ECHELON", hello anyone?, and don’t say "But we are the good guys", because your not.

There have bin dozens of incidents’ involving CIA tipping of US companies about big contract bid's, of what EU companies ware doing ore bidding, (and yeah EU companies don’t have clean hands eider, but they dont get help from secret service, ore at least not to the extend of the help US (oil)companies are getting)

I grew up in Holland, my grand parents and parents properly deserve there life to the US food drops.

And my grand parents and parent raised me up to be grateful to America, when i was young I wanted to move to the US and live the dream.

And I admired all those solders that died over here liberating Europe, ore as you would say “laid down there lives to liberate Europe”
(yeah it sounds more melodramatic that way)

How ever, after years of self centered behavior and only looking for the quick buck instead of the long term impact of what the US policy is doing to those countries I have lost all respect I had for the US.

The movie "Charlie Wilson's War" about the secret afghan war, is a good example why most countries dislike and the countries it happened to hate the US.

Ware is there freedom of those people you say "America preserves", the neocon. rep. wanted it to stick it to the USSR.
When Gorbatchov wanted to pull out of Afghanistan, he called the Whitehouse asking for help, to pull orderly out as he was scared that the country would be even more unstable after the USSR army left.
What did the leaders of the US government do ?, they cheered that they got the commy bustards out and then dropped all support for the Afghan people.

A CIA funded war that cosseted 3~4 billion, that helped defeating the USSR communist government, and what did country do that "preserves freedom" ?, they left, and not willing even to give a miserly 25~50 million, to help the country to get back up on its feed.

If you get help fighting a common enemy then you are grateful for the help.
But if the guy that’s helping you whit support, strait after you won, you realize, he dint help you because he liked to help you, just that he hated the other guy even more, because, “he” just spend dollars, you had to paid whit blood!

quote:
Criticism
The U.S. government has been criticized for allowing Pakistan to channel a disproportionate amount of its funding to controversial Afghan resistance leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who Pakistani officials believed was "their man". Hekmatyar has been criticized for killing other mujahideen and attacking civilian populations, including shelling Kabul with American-supplied weapons, causing 2,000 casualties. Hekmatyar was said to be friendly with Osama bin Laden, founder of al-Qaeda, who was running an operation for assisting "Afghan Arab" volunteers fighting in Afghanistan, called Maktab al-Khadamat. Alarmed by his behavior, Pakistan leader General Zia warned Hekmatyar, "It was Pakistan that made him an Afghan leader and it is Pakistan who can equally destroy him if he continues to misbehave."

In the late 1980s, Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto, concerned about the growing strength of the Islamist movement, told President George H. W. Bush, "You are creating a Frankenstein."

The U.S. says that all of its funds went to native Afghan rebels and denies that any of its funds were used to supply Osama bin Laden or foreign Arab mujahideen. It is estimated that 35,000 foreign Muslims from 43 Islamic countries participated in the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

Operation AJAX in 50's Iran is a other exsample.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=11867...

Wonder why all those darn Muslims hate the US and the UK so mouths, just maybe because they got it slicked to them to many times.


"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki