backtop


Print 128 comment(s) - last by 3kliksphilip.. on Dec 7 at 11:48 AM

The UK thinks China is ready to wage cyberwar on British networks

British officials accused China of organized cyber-warfare against computer systems of banks and other large corporations located in the United Kingdom.  The head of Britain's domestic spy agency MI5, Jonathan Evans, distributed a letter to more than 300 executives and security officers of large banks and major financial institutions.

Evans reportedly warned them "of the electronic espionage attack" by "Chinese state organizations."  Specifically, companies were warned of risks of the Chinese Army, which is known to use the Internet to steal personal information and other data.

"The letter acknowledges the strong economic and commercial reasons to do business with China, but the need to ensure management of the risks involved," warns a letter published on the Centre for the Protection of the National Infrastructure, where the report was originally published.

This is the first time London officials directly blamed China for conducting cyberwar.  Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced last week he has a scheduled visit to China in January, and talks of possible cyber-warfare may have to be added to the discussions.

Attacks initially started out as regular network probes, but quickly progressed towards "well-funded and well-organised operations for political, military, economic and technical espionage."

Officials in North America and several European nations have strongly criticized China for allegedly operating organized hacking rings aimed at infiltrating foreign networks.  Even though a direct military battle is unlikely, nations appear to be willing to feud with China through cyberspace.

China earlier in the year accused other nations, including the United States, of waging cyber-attacks against its computer networks.

British allegations come only a day after U.S. company McAfee published a scathing 22-page report that hacking arms races will become the next Cold War. While McAfee, a software security company, certainly has interests in future wars unfolding on its home turf, several global conflicts have already unfolded.

In May 2007, a three week campaign of denial of service and intrusion was detected against Estonian government computers.  The Estonian government publicly blamed Russia for the attacks.  Just three months later, another large-scale intrusion was detected in the Pentagon. U.S. officials put the blame on Chinese government hackers.

Intergovernmental hacking, it would seem, is on the rise; or at least are the means to detect such attacks.


Comments     Threshold


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

Friends or enemies?
By Misty Dingos on 12/2/2007 11:48:44 AM , Rating: 5
Why is China trying to attack our networks?
I thought they just wanted to be friends? I find all of this very confusing.
Does China want to our friends or our enemies?

If they want to be our enemy then we should treat them as such. Boycott the
Olympics. Isolate them from the global economy as effectively as we can.
Target there military installations with nuclear weapons. Note I did not say
attack them with nuclear weapons. Just target. Pressure them to change their
policies concerning repression of dissent in their country. Allow the use of
privateers to target vessels flying the ChiCom flag without reprisal. Shut down
any international air traffic in and out of China. Confiscate all Chinese
assets in the US and pressure Europe to do the same. If they want to try and
mess with our high tech infrastructure we should feel free to mess with them
economically also.

If a bully pushes you on the play ground the worst thing you can do is ignore
them. Push back. Hell break their nose. Bullies are only emboldened by
inaction.




RE: Friends or enemies?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/2/2007 11:53:41 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Why is China trying to attack our networks?
I thought they just wanted to be friends? I find all of this very confusing.
Does China want to our friends or our enemies?

China is a big place. In many ways, much bigger than the U.S.

It would be unfair to claim that all of the U.S. wants to rain nuclear holocaust down on Tehran, yet when a few rednecks in the deep south proclaim it from the hillsides, people in Iran think the entire country feels that way.

The same could easily be said for China.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By dsx724 on 12/2/2007 1:04:47 PM , Rating: 5
Cyberwarfare is like playing monopoly where US has all the land. Much of the world's internet traffic is routed through the US. Most of the world's root DNS server clusters are in the US. We are the most prolific sponsors of cyberwarfare not to mention our intelligence agencies are bar none. Government officials only scream 'China' or 'Russia' to play politics and create irrational fears. It's the modern propoganda campaign for feeding people's fears to themselves in order to control the status quo in politics. Its the same as the bloated communist scare.

On the economic front, our economy would have stalled in the 1990's without China and the internet boom would have barely made up for it. Today, China owns 1.2 trillion dollars of US debt. If they were to sell them, the dollar would be worth 75 canadian cents. We're screwed both ways, just less so now than if we didn't embrace China.

With respect to human rights and democracy, there are cultural boundaries we're ignoring. We assume that the progression of developing nations should follow that of our own but time has proved that it doesn't work 9 out of 10 cases. The only true success is south korea from following the path we laid for them. Yet even they took a somewhat different approach.

I think people should stop thinking of countries as enemies or friends and start thinking of people as people. The only people that truely threaten the safety of the world are American politicians spreading ignorance. There's good and bad people everywhere and we shouldn't generalize. After all, we are the only nation to deliberately use the atomic bomb on a population, knowing full well the consequences.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/2/2007 1:18:31 PM , Rating: 1
Great post :)


RE: Friends or enemies?
By Clauzii on 12/2/2007 3:40:14 PM , Rating: 2
Can You give him a 6 please. VERY good post indeed :)


RE: Friends or enemies?
By ThisSpaceForRent on 12/3/2007 8:19:55 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, this was an excellent post. He offered a counter-point to the first poster, who also had an excellent post, without resorting to flaming, or ignorant bashing of anyone's opinions.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By mdogs444 on 12/2/2007 1:25:30 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
After all, we are the only nation to deliberately use the atomic bomb on a population, knowing full well the consequences.

Very true. However the ends justified the means, at the time. Very easy to put into question what happened so many years ago, but at the time, I think we'd be hard pressed to find many people who disagreed with the actions that took place. After all, thats partially, if not majorly, why the Japanese are not allowed an organized military.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By Ringold on 12/2/2007 2:16:09 PM , Rating: 5
Think we'd be hard pressed to find many people that disagreed at the time?

Hell, I dont disagree with it now. Landing troops would've cost the US hundreds of thousands, if not a million or more, lives, and beyond all doubt would've resulted in millions of Japanese deaths based on how they fought in Okinawa and other places.

Beyond the direct cost in human lives, its pretty certain that the entire Japanese society and traditional ways of life would've been completely and totally annihilated, one bloody yard at a time.

I don't know why leftists deny this or make a big deal out of it. If we could go back, we'd nuke 'em again, and again, and again. With 20/20 hindsight, perhaps if we'd firebombed other cities and left Tokyo alone until it was time to bring in 'the bomb', perhaps a single strike on a previously untouched Tokyo would've had the desired effect without need of a second. That's hard to say, though. What's not hard to say is that it was the best thing we could've possibly done, to use the nuclear option.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By mdogs444 on 12/2/2007 2:20:56 PM , Rating: 2
LOL - you and I are in complete agreement about all of that Ringold...as usual.

I just was trying to be a bit PC, and not offend anyone. But yeah, if it was up to me, I probably wouldnt have just stopped there.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By FITCamaro on 12/2/2007 2:26:14 PM , Rating: 2
We didn't just consider our casualties. We also considered theirs. Conventional warfare in Japan would have cost them millions of civilian lives. And yes their society and culture would have been destroyed.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By Noya on 12/3/07, Rating: -1
RE: Friends or enemies?
By mdogs444 on 12/3/2007 9:28:46 AM , Rating: 2
Yup - and over and over and over....why stop?


RE: Friends or enemies?
By FITCamaro on 12/3/2007 9:47:00 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah we'll just get back to standing behind our fence sipping a beer.

Seriously. At least have a f*cking argument. And anyone with a clue about how the Japanese fought during WW2 would make the decision consistently to nuke Japan. They weren't saying they'd have kept bombing them and bombing them just for the hell of it. Just that dropping the two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified because in the end, it saved lives. More importantly American lives but also Japanese lives.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By rcc on 12/3/2007 1:13:14 PM , Rating: 2
I don't have a fence, a field, or a red neck, but sign me up too.

Not only did those strikes allow us to avoid the invasion of Japan, they also provided the world a shining example of why they should never be used again.

Without that example, would someone have been tempted to use them elsewhere on a wider scale sometime in the last 60 years?

File it under horrible, but necessary.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By OrSin on 12/3/2007 12:35:37 PM , Rating: 2
I'm harecore democrat and the truth is the Atomic and hydrogen bomb (we didnt have nucks then) saved millions of lives on both side. The thing is we only had 2 bombs and could not make more for at least 9 months. Thier was reason one was atomic and one had hydrogen. It becuase we didn't have the nuclear fuel for more then 1 of each. The bombs allow Japan to save face, and surennder. Remember even in the terms of surrender they never allowed any of the allies to step foot on thier land. As far as they are concerned they were defeated not concured.

Now for mondern day the use of the nucks is just dumb. But then it was the best out come we could have hope for, and even Japanese historian will tell you the same thing.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By rcc on 12/3/2007 1:35:44 PM , Rating: 2
Both of the nuclear devices detonated during WWII were first generation atomic weapons. Granted Fat Man was a more sophisticated device, but it was not a fusion( i.e. hydrogen) weapon.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By dsx724 on 12/2/2007 2:20:06 PM , Rating: 5
Thats exactly the point. Does the ends justify the means?

We failed to examine the consequences of our actions at the moment and seek the shortcut to victory. Its the case with Japan, Laos/Vietnam, Israel, Continent of Africa, and Iraq just to name a few. We don't consider it a problem until it bites us in the ass.

In Japan, the napalm fires from the bombs we dropped kill more people than the two nuclear bombs combined. However, few people know this outside of Japan. Also, I recalled the Pearl Harbor is a military target, therefore it was fair. They had the decency not to attack major cities on the West Coast. Our attacks illustrate our ignorance and hypocracy.

In Vietnam, we "assumed" indefinite health effects from Monsanto Agent Orange in the future was better than definite death during combat. So, we have hundreds of thousands of soldiers with terrible problems coming home that they must deal with for the rest of their lives. I'm not even considering the Loacians, Vietnamese and Korean victims.

By creating Israel in its very inconvinent location, we basically spawned the Israel-Arab conflict and made the middle east hate us despite our assistance fighting the Soviet.

Our aid to Africa included Monsanto products which created their dependence on us to this day. Yet we screw them over by subsidizing our farm industry to the tune of 25 billion dollars and sinking the prices so that Africa can't compete on the global farm market. This also screws with the global food markets and has been very contraversial and yet US media marginalizes it.

Before we entered Iraq, the main reason for poverty was because we sanctioned the country to death. Sanctions hurt the people more than their leaders. With their oil, they could be a very proment Arab state with stable government and good infrustructure. Instead, we went in and gave everyone a headache and an uncertain future.

Our lack of planning has left a path of destruction everywhere we went. We have been the nemesis of those we tried to help. Yet we continue to toss the good administrations and elect ones with many corporate ties. The American government is suppose to absorb the externalities of American corporations, not get in bed with it. Do our ends really justify our means?

I am sorry this is so far off topic but I rarely hear it said on DT so I thought I might as well give my perspective.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By Ringold on 12/2/2007 2:31:20 PM , Rating: 5
To use the word "deceny" in relation to anything the Japanese did in World War 2 is, in my book, almost a criminal act. At least Nazi forces killed some of their victims immediately. Japanese use of torture on both POWs and civilians was so atrocious as to make being a US POW in a German camp seem like a 5 star luxury resort.

The firebombing, while brutal, taken together with the nuclear strikes, allowed the Japanese military and Emperor (just barely) to surrender. If you bother to take a gander at the expected loss of life in the event of a US ground invasion, plus total devastation of probably everything not already destroyed, then you'd realize we did the best we possibly could. What would you of had us do, genius, surrender after our victory at Midway? :P

The others I wont necessarily disagree with, though you did manage to pick the weakest possible argument for Vietnam. Nevermind, you know, carpet bombing rice paddies and backing corrupt governments, or even getting involved in an internal social problem in the first place -- lets hate on Monsanto.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By dsx724 on 12/2/2007 2:42:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
To use the word "deceny" in relation to anything the Japanese did in World War 2 is, in my book, almost a criminal act. At least Nazi forces killed some of their victims immediately. Japanese use of torture on both POWs and civilians was so atrocious as to make being a US POW in a German camp seem like a 5 star luxury resort.

I completely agree. I was kind of playing devil's advocate.
quote:
The firebombing, while brutal, taken together with the nuclear strikes, allowed the Japanese military and Emperor (just barely) to surrender. If you bother to take a gander at the expected loss of life in the event of a US ground invasion, plus total devastation of probably everything not already destroyed, then you'd realize we did the best we possibly could. What would you of had us do, genius, surrender after our victory at Midway? :P

I'm not disagreeing with everything. There was internal plotting for unconditional surrender even before the first bomb. The second bomb was completely unnecessary. We could have just sat on our asses.
quote:
The others I wont necessarily disagree with, though you did manage to pick the weakest possible argument for Vietnam. Nevermind, you know, carpet bombing rice paddies and backing corrupt governments, or even getting involved in an internal social problem in the first place -- lets hate on Monsanto.

It's not a debate until you hate on Monsanto. :P You knew that. You gotta put hate on the backs of corporations. Why do you think so many topics are about Microsoft being evil even though they've probably advanced IT by 5 years with their standards.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By Ringold on 12/2/2007 3:22:26 PM , Rating: 2
Heheh, okay. I like you. :P


RE: Friends or enemies?
By GeorgeOrwell on 12/2/07, Rating: 0
RE: Friends or enemies?
By dsx724 on 12/2/2007 11:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
I liked the quote about israel in ur later post. :D

Isn't control and incremental progress the foundation of america from 1900 on? Microsoft is merely fulfilling the void of control that personal computers created. If microsoft set us back by 100 years, then i guess ford, military industrial complex, and the iron triangle has set us back 1000 years? Personally, I feel that information flows way too fast and you need filters like corporations to put things into perspective. However, there's good filters and bad filters and I don't think Google and Microsoft are comparatively bad.

quote:
Remember, people, it's all about money. All the emotion, the drama, the good vs. evil, is irrelevant.

To Quote Dune: The spice must flow.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By mdogs444 on 12/2/2007 2:37:40 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
In Japan, the napalm fires from the bombs we dropped kill more people than the two nuclear bombs combined. However, few people know this outside of Japan. Also, I recalled the Pearl Harbor is a military target, therefore it was fair. They had the decency not to attack major cities on the West Coast. Our attacks illustrate our ignorance and hypocracy.

This goes majorly on opinion. If you want to call a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor when our forces weren't even on the defense...FAIR, then you should be highly ashamed of yourself. Our ends justifed the means in this case, in my opinion, and I wouldnt even have stopped the nuclear bombings when we did, in fact, I would have kept going.

quote:
In Vietnam, we "assumed" indefinite health effects from Monsanto Agent Orange in the future was better than definite death during combat. So, we have hundreds of thousands of soldiers with terrible problems coming home that they must deal with for the rest of their lives. I'm not even considering the Loacians, Vietnamese and Korean victims.

Although a possibility, it may also be because we didnt actually KNOW the long term effects of Agent Orange. My father is a drafted Vietnam Vet (whos platoom was actually profiled in the popular movie starring Mel Gibson), but does not have any effects of Agent Orange. Although, I'm not happy about the after effects on it, I am not going to criticize the decision made in hind sight.

quote:
By creating Israel in its very inconvinent location, we basically spawned the Israel-Arab conflict and made the middle east hate us despite our assistance fighting the Soviet.

So now, because we helped a helpless society and enabled them to defend themselves, we are guilty of creating hate against us. That goes on the thought of yours, that if we didnt help and allow Israel to have that land, that those countries would not hate us....which I disagree with.

quote:
Our aid to Africa included Monsanto products which created their dependence on us to this day. Yet we screw them over by subsidizing our farm industry to the tune of 25 billion dollars and sinking the prices so that Africa can't compete on the global farm market. This also screws with the global food markets and has been very contraversial and yet US media marginalizes it.

For one, I am not a big supporter of Global Aid to begin with. But, since when does the attempt to give global aid say that it has to come at the price of sacrificing our own economy? And I highly doubt that if we didnt give any of this aid, that Africa would be a prospering nation...in fact, they would be no different than they are today...which backs my thought that we should have just given them nothing.

quote:
Before we entered Iraq, the main reason for poverty was because we sanctioned the country to death. Sanctions hurt the people more than their leaders. With their oil, they could be a very proment Arab state with stable government and good infrustructure. Instead, we went in and gave everyone a headache and an uncertain future.

The US cannot sanction Iraq alone. And we were not the reason for poverty. The reason for Poverty was because of a dictator installing fear into its citizens to follow his path, or be killed. As a result, with their Oil, being a stable government with solid infrastructure is exactly what we are trying to put in place.

quote:
Our lack of planning has left a path of destruction everywhere we went. We have been the nemesis of those we tried to help. Yet we continue to toss the good administrations and elect ones with many corporate ties. The American government is suppose to absorb the externalities of American corporations, not get in bed with it. Do our ends really justify our means?

And what "good administrations" are you suggested that we tossed? Clinton, Carter? I am assuming you are not referring to Reagan as one of the best and most influencial presidents of modern times. I think you would be hard pressed to find a candidate for president with our major corporate ties - due to political backed parties and special interest groups. For example, if the candidate is not in favor of free market and increasing the manufacturing industry - then most likely they are in favor of increased environmental sanctions, socialistic policies. Not exactly what i'd call "middle ground".

quote:
Do our ends really justify our means?

In my opinion, yes they do. But again, just my opinion. We should be concerned with the outcome of events for the US first and foremost...and other countries as a secondary concern.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By FITCamaro on 12/3/2007 7:25:28 AM , Rating: 2
As those on the street say, word.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By sviola on 12/3/2007 7:51:28 AM , Rating: 1
Man, you can talk some serious BS...

First of all, you can't choose when the ends justify the means...It's not a when the results are good to me the means are justifiable...it does not work like that. Oh, and if you didn't notice, the US is not the only country in the world you should care about. The not caring about the rest has brought America a lot of the problems they have today.

I'll not discuss the Global Aid, but only the other topics:

Israel: well, the US, and the UK, are solely responsible for the Middle-East crysis. They forced the state of Israel in muslim territory...what did they expected? They'd be happy to be taken out of their lands and become friends? Why didn't the US, one of the biggest countries in the world created Israel in one of it's states (maybe SC)? That'd have kept a lot of the actual problems in that region from happening.

Iraq: Don't bring this evil government BS to the argument. The war has nothing to do with that. Do you forget how the US armed Iraq in the 80's to attack Iran? And the friendship only ended when Iraq invaded Kwait. About the sanction, of course America can saction alone (you know that companies that sell to US sanctioned countries cannot do commerce with the US, right?).

Japan: the use of the bomb was a crime, period. There's no explanation you could post that would justify it. Specially the "they'll surrender faster" one. If that works with you, than you shouldn't be upset if an enemy country throws one on the US (which I hope will never happen, as I like America and think it has great things and people, despite some conflict of opinions I might have regarding some topics) states "they sanctioned us and threaten us of invasion". In both cases, it's unnaceptable to use any sort of mass destruction weapons. After all, in regular war, which as terrible as it is, civilians do have a chance to survive, but when such weapons are used, they don't stand a chance.

Vietnam: there's no need to discuss this, as the outcome of the war speaks for itself. But it is good point this: France left the region after a 20 year old war without being near to a victory. What the heck were the American politicians thinking when they approved the invasion? Do they even study the country before taking such a decision?


RE: Friends or enemies?
By mdogs444 on 12/3/2007 8:51:58 AM , Rating: 1
You're right I can talk. Because I stand by my country, its actions, and believe that we are doing what we need to do to survive, prosper, and retaliate when needed.

quote:
you can't choose when the ends justify the means

Im not, you are. I not the blaming the US in hindsight for its actions.

quote:
well, the US, and the UK, are solely responsible for the Middle-East crysis

Wow, talk about a cherry picked example. Give them SC? Please. What makes you think the people of Israel would have wanted to travel halfway across the globe to live? Please. I hope you see that there is much more to the middle east conflicts than just blaming the US for giving someone land. But then again, when you feel the need to bash the US, go right ahead, knowing full well that you were probably not even around when it happened.

quote:
Don't bring this evil government BS to the argument. The war has nothing to do with that. Do you forget how the US armed Iraq in the 80's to attack Iran? And the friendship only ended when Iraq invaded Kwait. About the sanction, of course America can saction alone (you know that companies that sell to US sanctioned countries cannot do commerce with the US, right?).

Oh, so now its a question of why we went to war? First it was telling me that we are responsible for their poverty. Now you want to blame that on why we went to war. Please, stop trolling and reading the liberal newspapers junk. Once you get a real clue, then come back for a legit argument.

quote:
the use of the bomb was a crime, period

Ding Ding! And what has he won Bob? Absolutely nothing for being an idiot! The bomb was not a crime, take your "crimes against humanity" speech somewhere else when they do not pertain to a war. When at war, do as you must to win. Try WWII for example in Germany. Do you know how many civilians died? Do you know they were bombed just so we could limit factory workers who were building up the German army? Obviously, the atom bomb was used as a last resort - and worked as it make Japan stand down, and surrender their military capabilities. Now, they cannot even have an organized military. Please, take your social policy elsewhere because you will not find many, if any, americans that would not defend our actions against Japan.

quote:
France left the region after a 20 year old war without being near to a victory. What the heck were the American politicians thinking when they approved the invasion?

I never said I agreed with the Vietnam war, I just said I dont play blame game in hindsight. But if you are referring to France as being a superpower, and since they cannot win, no one can...then you are dreaming. France is not a power at all. In fact, you'll be hard pressed to find many Americans who even like those social pigs to begin with. Including me.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By Noya on 12/3/2007 9:32:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As a result, with their Oil, being a stable government with solid infrastructure is exactly what we are trying to put in place.


THEY (the civilian population) do not want us there. As for their oil, we're practically auctioning it off to the highest bidding corporation(s).


RE: Friends or enemies?
By mdogs444 on 12/3/2007 10:03:49 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
THEY (the civilian population) do not want us there

Wrong again. They are practically begging us to stay longer. The only people who dont want us there, are the select ones who propsered under Saddam's regime.
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/iraqis-may-offer-us-d...

quote:
As for their oil, we're practically auctioning it off to the highest bidding corporation(s).

I'd like to see any proof of that, and since we know you canot come up with any, its FUD as usual. If we really wanted to, we wouldnt auction it off, we'd steal it...dumbass.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By FITCamaro on 12/3/2007 10:08:43 AM , Rating: 2
Uh...the first oil shipments from Iraq to another country after they got their production back up went where? China. If we were really "Selling it off to the highest bidder", don't you think we'd have sold it to someone who would bring that oil here to the US?

quote:
THEY (the civilian population) do not want us there.


Where do you get that from? Let me guess. The media? Talk to Marine's who've been there. They love us. The ones who don't are the ones trying to kill us. It's far from the majority of the population. Saying "they don't want us there" is like saying "they all hate jews" when referring to American's even though its not even 1% of our population that feels that way.

The majority of the citizens of Iraq want to be free. Saddam's group is the ones who liked the way things were before. And they were the minority group of the citizens of Iraq. Not the majority.

Now yes some think we've done our job and want us to go home, but the job is far from done.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By Clauzii on 12/3/2007 2:42:29 PM , Rating: 2
The first oil went to China 'cause that is whwere the production of most electronics are carried out today. (Plastic casings and such anyway..)


RE: Friends or enemies?
By 3kliksphilip on 12/2/2007 5:54:27 PM , Rating: 1
When atomic bombs were detonated for the first time, how did they know the explosion was going to stop?

Just wondering. I mean, if it has such a large radius from such a small thing, how can it be predicted? Just a couple of factors out and it could have destroyed the WORLD. I guess it's just as well it stopped.

A bit off topic, but it's been a while since mass destruction was brought up in any of these topics... especially from one where the attacks are purely electronic.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By mdogs444 on 12/2/2007 5:57:15 PM , Rating: 3
Good question....

Answer: The first nuclear test was conducted in Alamogordo, New Mexico, on July 16, 1945, during the Manhattan Project, and given the codename "Trinity". The test was originally to confirm that the implosion-type nuclear weapon design was feasible, and to give an idea of what the actual size and effects of a nuclear explosion would be before they were used in combat against Japan.

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


RE: Friends or enemies?
By theapparition on 12/2/2007 10:37:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
how did they know the explosion was going to stop?

The short answer is that there is a theoretical maximum amount of energy that can be released in a fission event. Actual energy released is less. So there is no possible way they could have been a few factors out and destroyed the world.

Actually pretty simple to calculate based on the mass of the fissile material.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By ziggo on 12/2/2007 10:54:15 PM , Rating: 2
There were actually some concerns, I believe by Fermi, that the bomb would start a chain reaction in water. Simply put, while they knew what they were doing, some things cannot be predicted.

If you are interested in learning more about the building of the atomic bomb, particularly from a technical standpoint(as in depth as can be while still only covering declassified topics), and the reasons for dropping them, I would highly recommend the book "The Making Of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes. If you think Einstein was behind it you HAVE to read this.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By 3kliksphilip on 12/7/2007 11:48:22 AM , Rating: 2
yeah... vote me down for that


RE: Friends or enemies?
By FITCamaro on 12/2/2007 2:23:38 PM , Rating: 3
Well we did invent the internet. So in my mind, I have no problem with the main backbone of the majority of the internet remaining in US hands. If other countries don't like it, they can go start their own.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By dsx724 on 12/2/2007 2:30:33 PM , Rating: 2
I meant that we have the means of controlling and hacking other country's networks as well as their interaction with other countries. The threat of foreign countries winning ina cyberwar is laughable.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By mdogs444 on 12/2/2007 2:42:46 PM , Rating: 3
Well, if all need be, we can just get Al Gore to come in and help as a consultant. After all, he did "invent" the internet so he says....and he should be able to stop them from hacking ours :-)


RE: Friends or enemies?
By JonnyDough on 12/3/2007 3:41:43 AM , Rating: 1
Don't be a moron. Al Gore never said any such thing. He said he had a hand in passing the legislation to switch it from military to public, and someone decided to take it out of context.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By mdogs444 on 12/3/2007 6:01:38 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, Al Gore was a moron. Here are his exact words...and I quote:

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."

It wasn't taken out of context. Its either he lied, or hes a terrible speaker. One of the two, your choice.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By Clauzii on 12/3/2007 5:39:24 PM , Rating: 2
Is that why there are still so much pron on the WWW? ;)

Which, btw., were invented by these guys:

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/Content/Chapters/...


RE: Friends or enemies?
By crystal clear on 12/3/2007 7:31:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think people should stop thinking of countries as enemies or friends and start thinking of people as people.


Countries are like your neighbours(people) around your apartment or people sitting around you in a restaurant/plane/train/etc.

Even people treat people as enemies or friends.

They are some that dont bother you,some that upset you or you upset them,some that hate you for whatever reason & some YOU DESPISE/HATE for whatever reasons.
Some who are jealous of you & some YOU are jealous of.
(I can quote more such examples..lets cut it short)

At your workplace/employer/work envoirement-there are jealousies/rivalries/backstabbing/competitions/HATE etc
If you are student then you have a lot to learn in life-if you are working professional then you know it all.

People make up neighbourhoods-neighbourhoods make up cities & cities make up countries.

So your argument/reasoning is incorrect-we are human beings & human beings ARE JUST THAT what I quoted above about people.

"All human power is a compound of time and patience."
Think hard on this.

quote:
The only people that truely threaten the safety of the world are American politicians spreading ignorance.


Wrong again-ALL politicians are alike of any nationalities of any country in any part of the world.
They all do what you say-looks like you lack international experience-So dont criticize only American politicians.

In short-

"Your worst enemy is always a man of your own trade."

Thats a politicians "Thought of the DAY" just EVERYDAY.

quote:
After all, we are the only nation to deliberately use the atomic bomb on a population, knowing full well the consequences.


If you had lived those times when this was done,YOU WILL NOT THINK & WRITE THIS WAY.
Do some research in history of those times...the japs invented the suicide bomber....etc ..to cut it short-

That act of using the Atomic bomb serves as DETERENT till today of the horrific consequences-that PREVENTS countries today from using it.
Thats why the whole world is UP AGAINST IRAN & N.Korea who threaten to use it.

Come down to earth be realistic & practicle.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By crystal clear on 12/3/2007 7:39:30 AM , Rating: 1
correction should read "practical"


RE: Friends or enemies?
By dice1111 on 12/3/2007 10:34:50 AM , Rating: 2
Hear hear! Rate this man up!


RE: Friends or enemies?
By mdogs444 on 12/2/2007 11:59:53 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Does China want to our friends or our enemies?

Technically neither. China wants to be our "friends" in regards to trade import/export. However, that is about as far as it goes. China is building war planes for Iran in a very touchy time.

quote:
If they want to try and mess with our high tech infrastructure we should feel free to mess with them
economically also.

The problem is that would not work. In fact, some would argue that China actually would disrupt our economy more than we would theirs. Our manufacturing industry has delclined hugely over the past 30 years. Two reasons: environmental regulations from the EPA and cost.

The EPA regulations make it extremly expensive for our companies to function, thus making our products much more expensive. Some argue that its because of labor cost, which is not really relevant because our labor costs have ALWAYS been much more than that of China, India, etc and still were extremely viable.

China is able to product items at such cheap prices due to limited, if any, environmental regulations - similar to how the US used to function prior to the 70's, which is also why our economy prospered more than anyone else.

I would contend with you that eliminating trade with them would boost our economy in the long run, but in the short run, it would create a bit of havok with higher prices than we are used to. But again, some think it would be much better for us as whole to do so, and get back to the days of US power in manufacturing and let the economy even itself out.

quote:
If a bully pushes you on the play ground the worst thing you can do is ignore them. Push back. Hell break their nose. Bullies are only emboldened by
inaction.

We are definately in agreement. But try telling that to the anti-war groups and environmentalists who seem to think that this whole "peace on earth" campaign is actually good for all society. They are actually a cover for class warfare socialistic policy. The US prospered for almost 200 years because of the statement you just made, but recently, our country is becoming more "social" as opposed to "capital", and class warfare is starting build - why, I dont know, because the rich pay almost all the taxes anyway.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/2/2007 12:12:16 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Two reasons: environmental regulations from the EPA and cost.

Don't be so quick to dismiss cost as a secondary factor. Cost, without a doubt, is the leading factor in why jobs go overseas. While I think environmental regulations have gone too far in the U.S., the EPA didn't force Burger King to move its drive-thru checkout to India.
quote:
But again, some think it would be much better for us as whole to do so, and get back to the days of US power in manufacturing and let the economy even itself out.

What you propose is moving from a manufacturing economy to a service economy -- then back to a manufacturing economy. I personally would rather be writing about technology than working in a textile factory. However, the U.S. has a very large population in its backyard that is willing to work for $5 / hour, but last I heard we're shipping them back south and putting up a big wall in between them and us.

quote:
If a bully pushes you on the play ground the worst thing you can do is ignore them. Push back. Hell break their nose. Bullies are only emboldened by

War is a terrible, ungodly forsaken thing. It's easy for us to sit in our heated apartments typing to each other on the Internet about how to hurt our enemies without "losing face."

I won't be carrying M16s into battle against China, and I sort of like cities (both ours and theirs) in a non-nuclear-apocalytic state.

That doesn't mean I don't advocate deterrence. Speak softly, and carry a big stick -- I once heard.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By mdogs444 on 12/2/2007 12:22:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't be so quick to dismiss cost as a secondary factor. Cost, without a doubt, is the leading factor in why jobs go overseas. While I think environmental regulations have gone too far in the U.S., the EPA didn't force Burger King to move its drive-thru checkout to India

Im not dismissing the cost factor by any means. What I am getting at is that our costs have been driven way up due to increased environmental regulations - that keep increasing.

But lets be real here, by BK moving its drive thru to india is not decreasing any US jobs, its increasing jobs in India, but i understand your point - was just a bad example. Should we focus more on US companies not being able to move their workforce overseas for cheaper labor? Yes, absolutely in my opinion - but you cannot do that with increased environmental regulations because the cost of doing business here is increasing beyond the cost of importing cheap goods. It needs to be a middle ground of decreasing environmental regulations, while also regulating how much labor can be conducted overseas.

quote:
What you propose is moving from a manufacturing economy to a service economy -- then back to a manufacturing economy. I personally would rather be writing about technology than working in a textile factory. However, the U.S. has a very large population in its backyard that is willing to work for $5 / hour, but last I heard we're shipping them back south and putting up a big wall in between them and us.

I personally am not proposing that, just stating what propositions are out there. However, we prospered more as a manufacturing industry, and thats not really something we can argue about - but make no mistake, our service industry is no slouch either. But as for the $5 an hour workers, I dont know somuch if its that they are willing to do so, much more than they have to due to location, education, cost of living, and work skills.

quote:
I won't be carrying M16s into battle against China, and I sort of like cities (both ours and theirs) in a non-nuclear-apocalytic state.

I think everyone agrees that we dont want to just go Nuke anyone. But a like for their cities is definately not a reason to prohibit war either. Personally, protecting our economy to me, even if it means some type of military or economic war with China, is more important than sitting back and just accepting their trades while our economy dimishes becuase of it.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/2/2007 12:30:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
But a like for their cities is definately not a reason to prohibit war either.

Well ... I like the people in them too.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By mdogs444 on 12/2/2007 12:31:57 PM , Rating: 2
I dont know them, so I really have no opinion on their people as a whole. More of an opinion on their governmental and economic policies.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/2/2007 12:44:59 PM , Rating: 2
I highly encourage you to check out some of these places for yourself, rather than relying on my opinion or the opinions of the talking heads on TV.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By mdogs444 on 12/2/2007 12:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
No offense, but I have absolutely no plans, or wants, to travel to China.

As said, I dont have anything personal against the people of China as a whole. But I do against their governmental and economic policies.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/2/2007 12:55:30 PM , Rating: 2
I respect that decision, though I think once you see those policies first-hand you'll have a much different perspective and understanding of them.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By mdogs444 on 12/2/2007 1:01:39 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, if they work for the people of China - then are serving their intended purpose, no? I cannot argue with that.

But not being a citizen of China, if I see that they are damaging the economy that I survive in, then thats what creates my perspective.

Fair assertion?


RE: Friends or enemies?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/2/2007 1:16:48 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose that's one way to look at it. Sun Tsu wrote a single passage at the end of an insignificant chapter in the Art of War that spawned a thousand texts:
quote:
Hence the saying: If you know the enemy
and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a
hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy,
for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.
If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will
succumb in every battle.

But that's enough armchair politics for me today -- I'm off to the Bears game :)


RE: Friends or enemies?
By mdogs444 on 12/2/2007 1:41:52 PM , Rating: 3
Bears? Have they even won a game yet this year? Im a Browns fan, but lived in Chicago for 4 years, ending just last year. Never was a Bears fan, but so many die hards there that just cannot admit that Grossman is terrible!


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/2/2007 8:31:36 PM , Rating: 2
Oh we know Grossman is not a franchise player. Just try to convince Lovie that...


RE: Friends or enemies?
By Ringold on 12/2/2007 1:03:52 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see how it's relevant to wander the Chinese western hinterlands to get a feel for the spirit of the people. I'm sure they're decent human beings, but we don't deal with the people, we deal with Beijing. Beijing doesn't legitimately represent the will of the people, it represents its own interests, so what does any of this have to do with the people themselves?


RE: Friends or enemies?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/2/2007 1:15:34 PM , Rating: 2
There, summed it up for us. Wipe out Beijing.

That was sarcasm for the uninformed. Unfortunately you can't wipe out a major city and call it a day.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/2/2007 1:24:41 PM , Rating: 2
I think you missed my point by a thousand miles.

All I propositioned was to check out Shanghai, Hong Kong and Shenzhen. See how capitalism, democracy, the Internet and the West is changing the country from a backwards fascist state to something much more similar to New York or LA.

The country is morphing from the inside -- Old Beijing be damned. We worry about China changing the U.S., when all the while we've completely changed the face of what was China.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By mdogs444 on 12/2/2007 1:29:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We worry about China changing the U.S., when all the while we've completely changed the face of what was China.

Very true Kris - China is functioning, economically, the way that the US did when we were gaining more and more economic power due to our industrial manufacturing and technology. However, goes to show, that we change our ways due to environmental regulations - and we go downhill....all the while China has no major environmental regulations, and their economy functions like ours used to...and IMO, still should if it weren't for the environmentalist and special interest groups. So why is it that the many people on this forum who back the environmental movement, are also saying its bad that China is moving ahead of us.....perhaps too shallow to look upon themselves as root cause?


RE: Friends or enemies?
By Ringold on 12/2/2007 2:22:11 PM , Rating: 2
I don't deny that Kris. In 30 years, I'm sure that'll be important to consider.

Today, though, their army, and apparently its electronic warfare units, take marching orders not from the increasingly enlightened individuals of your Shanghai, Hong Kong and Shenzhen. They take their orders and directives from "Old Beijing."

Again, in perhaps even the near future that won't be the case, but at least for the next 5 years there's little to suggest it's going to change. They might fear the people rising up, but thats all the more reason to target the government; perhaps if they feel they're getting caught in the crossfire due to their unrepresentative governments bellicose actions, they'll agitate for change. Until then, though, its a 21st century evolved Western democracy vs a government little evolved from 18th century European models.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By cochy on 12/2/2007 2:30:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
when all the while we've completely changed the face of what was China.


Hehe. The US didn't change China. The Chinese are highly impervious to outside cultural influences (man look at the wall those guys built. Only man-made structure visible from the Moon). Probably one of the most so of all cultures. The Chinese have always been capitalistic at heart, and as we are beginning to see are even more so than Americans (As was mentioned early, they already own so much of your country :P). The whole Communist Cultural Revolution was something that all in all is incompatible with the ancient Chinese culture, it was a forced solution and slowly but surely it will lose it's hold on the people.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By Ringold on 12/2/2007 1:12:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but last I heard we're shipping them back south and putting up a big wall in between them and us.


NAFTA has made it such that the entire northern section of Mexico is a manufacturing breadbasket. Except for labor that has to be done locally, they can and do partake as well as anyone possibly can. Moving them here rather then keeping them there simply raises costs, because if they were legal they'd have to be paid and be subject to all our various laws, and meanwhile brings to a post-industrial society with post-industrial social costs a massive load of workers with barely industrial-age skills and productivity.

A reformed border that allowed everyone outside an equal shot at coming inside, based on skills, has an undeniable economic argument. The status quo, an uncontained surge of unskilled labor gushing across the border, has no such defensible argument.

Unless, of course, you're a politician of one particular creed, which benefits from laws that make it easy for illegals to vote. If I have to name names, then ya'll haven't been paying attention. ;) This would've been a resolved issue, but the other party fears losing the legitimate hispanic vote for a generation. Like European economic reform -- they know what must be done for the good of the nation, but not how to get re-elected after its done.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/2/2007 1:25:54 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you entirely. Just playing a little devil's advocate.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By FITCamaro on 12/2/2007 2:31:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would contend with you that eliminating trade with them would boost our economy in the long run, but in the short run, it would create a bit of havok with higher prices than we are used to.


I'm with you man. Eliminating trade with China would strengthen the US economy significantly in the long run. Not just in jobs, but in the ability to keep our country functioning. It's a good thing we lead the world in military technology, because we don't have the manufacturing ability we did in any of the previous wars. If we ever had to fight a war like World War II again, we'd be in big trouble. But hey, corporate big wigs get richer by outsourcing, so thats what matters right?


RE: Friends or enemies?
By sxr7171 on 12/2/2007 3:27:03 PM , Rating: 3
Mess with them economically... Ha Ha. Maybe if you'd stop shopping at Walmart where everything is made in China we might be able to begin thinking about it. You can talk the talk but it means nothing when all the toys and goodies you want this Christmas are made in China. We'd all have to give up our all-consuming need for iPods and TVs and other toys first.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By mdogs444 on 12/2/2007 3:36:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe if you'd stop shopping at Walmart where everything is made in China we might be able to begin thinking about it.

Although relevant on a high level thought, its more complicated than that. People buy what is lower on cost - the solution is to regulate what is allowed to be brought on trade to begin with, not setting its price tag.

quote:
We'd all have to give up our all-consuming need for iPods and TVs and other toys first.

No, we would just have to settle for immediate changes in price due to them being manufactured in the US and other places besides China. This would last for a short while (economically) until the trend follows suit and the cost of manufacturing them in the US gets less and less.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By sxr7171 on 12/3/2007 1:22:44 PM , Rating: 2
Those price changes won't be immediate but also long term. A lot of people will be without iPods when they find out that they are no longer $349 or $399 but $649 because they are now made in the US. Still it makes little difference where something is assembled considering everything inside is also made in China. The good thing is that the intellectual property inside those is generally a US product. Still we'd need to get used to spending more for our toys and generally buying less toys.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By MagnumMan on 12/2/2007 5:43:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Does China want to our friends or our enemies?
How many product recalls have we had for hazardous materials lately? Someone's trying to same a penny at our expense.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By zombiexl on 12/3/2007 8:09:22 AM , Rating: 2
Enemies obviously.
They have tried to poison our animal's food, our food, and our children's toys. What other evidence do you need?


RE: Friends or enemies?
By chick0n on 12/3/07, Rating: -1
RE: Friends or enemies?
By Screwballl on 12/3/2007 1:12:59 PM , Rating: 2
If incoming internet traffic into the US was studied, they would find that a large portion of incoming traffic comes from China and a majority of it is spam, viruses and hackers (in that order). They are just as bad as the rest of the world if not worse with their compromised botnet of home computers but what makes it worse is that many Chinese corporate servers have also been compromised so that these hackers around the world have a low latency high bandwidth servers able to distribute the botnet attacks on any target in the world. The US is a favored victim due to the higher security and attitude towards hackers (crackers) in this country.
Some attacks are religious, try sending an email to support@characterlink.net (Characterlink is a very strict Christian based web filtering) and you will most likely get it returned as that server has been under attack for over 3 months now by servers worldwide due to it being a strict Christian company.

Look at the number of servers down in Asia and South America due to these hackers and botnets overwhelming servers: http://www.internettrafficreport.com/


RE: Friends or enemies?
By slickr on 12/3/2007 6:21:18 PM , Rating: 2
U.S. are not even near to China's power.
US - 276 million population
China - 1.1 billion population
US - 250.000 active soldiers
China - 1.000.000 active soldiers

Not to mention China has hundreds of billion dollars in U.S. banks and if they remove them it will cause to say at least major damage.

If you are reffering to threatening a country with nuclear weapons then you as a country are the ones that need to be wiped out from the face of the earth.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By mdogs444 on 12/3/2007 6:25:13 PM , Rating: 2
China's army is only considered of ground troops. Sure they have planes, and tanks and whatnot. But the overall military capacity does not even come close to the US - in fact, no ones does.


RE: Friends or enemies?
By mdogs444 on 12/3/2007 8:51:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
US - 250.000 active soldiers

Not to mention your number is hugely wrong...

The total US Military is roughly 1.42 million soldiers divided amongst the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and Coastguard. In fact, the coast guard is only about 41,000.

So our military is actually over 1 million soldiers.

Fell to try and spin those numbers however you want, but facts are facts and our military is the strongest in the world.

Nuclear weapons are not being used as a threat you nimrod. We've dropped to bombs in the past, and countries know the destructive power that we have the capability of using. Its more of a last line of defense, and to give them something to think about being trying to pull a fast one. However, anyone to tries to invade and attack on our own soil like Japan did will no question get the most ruthless military destruction they've ever seen. And well deserved at that.


Everyone is doing it !
By armagedon on 12/2/2007 11:56:25 AM , Rating: 2
No kidding It's not only China which does that. Every country with decent military program is doing it too.
Probing each others to see what their counter measures are. It's always been part of military warfare from day one. Knockout and control enemy communication networks before a strike.

No let's face it, China is the world manufacture of goods. You wouldn't have acquired the material wealth we enjoy now if it was not because of their cheap workforce. Your US made TV will cost you three times as much as you're paying now.

I'm not a fan of China human right records but we did let it grow as it does because of simple greed and profits prospect of international corporations. Now ill doubt their will eventually be a full war against them. But with scarcer oil reserves and their insatiable energy demand, we're heading for a rough future.




RE: Everyone is doing it !
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/2/2007 12:01:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But with scarcer oil reserves and their insatiable energy demand, we're heading for a rough future.

I think no matter what your opinion on peak oil, the U.S. won't be at war with anyone for a while over energy shortages. We sit on top of the world's largest coal reserve, biofuel ethanol might suck but we can sure make a lot of it, and then there's that big old nuclear elephant too.

Of course, that doesn't exempt the rest of the world from having said energy crises.


RE: Everyone is doing it !
By armagedon on 12/2/2007 12:18:43 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say their will be a war. With the US consuming 25% of world oil (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-ener... that will be a real technical challenge to transfer that kind of energy to another source without catastrophic environmental damages and world hunger aggravation.
Especially since there is no pressure of every Americans to decreased their demand and ditch their SUVs.

OOps back on topic sorry.


RE: Everyone is doing it !
By mdogs444 on 12/2/2007 12:26:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Especially since there is no pressure of every Americans to decreased their demand and ditch their SUVs.

Why do you people insist on making this stupid argument? The SUV itself is not responsible for any type of "oil" crisis. Its the weight of the vehicle and engine efficiency. Are you going to argue against small, mid, and full size trucks? How about the trucking industry? Hell, how about we abolish planes? The SUV argument is more about class warfare and you determining someone elses needs vs. wants, than an actual oil crisis argument.


RE: Everyone is doing it !
By Targon on 12/2/2007 6:58:49 PM , Rating: 2
This is the sort of argument that also makes no sense. You want logic about why SUV usage causes problems, try this...

First, assume the average person drives 12000 miles per year as a baseline figure.

Now, if the average SUV is 8 miles per gallon less efficient than a normal car, that means the SUV draws that much more gas than a normal car. Ok, so now, multiply that by the number of SUVs out there, and you now have a basis to show how much additional gas is WASTED because people decided to buy an SUV rather than a normal car. Now, based on that, an estimate about how much that additional gas increases the price(because higher demand increases the price).

If the demand for gas were lower, the price of gas would be lower. Since this focus is on SUV vs. car, it can be argued that since SUV owners as a group are responsible for that increase in gas prices, they should be responsible for compensating those who have a normal car that does not suck up that amount of gas.

I am not saying that any of these numbers are easy to come up with, but at the same time, trying to say that this LOVE of SUVs does not drive up the cost of gas is also foolish. Those who can afford to buy an SUV should also be willing to compensate those who buy a normal car that can average 32 or more miles per gallon.


RE: Everyone is doing it !
By mdogs444 on 12/2/2007 7:17:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now, if the average SUV is 8 miles per gallon less efficient than a normal car, that means the SUV draws that much more gas than a normal car. Ok, so now, multiply that by the number of SUVs out there, and you now have a basis to show how much additional gas is WASTED because people decided to buy an SUV rather than a normal car. Now, based on that, an estimate about how much that additional gas increases the price(because higher demand increases the price).

This goes basically on the assumption that everyone drives the same distance daily. Are you really inferring that an SUV owner who drives 10 miles perday is more responsible for gas prices than the car owner who may drive 75 miles per day? And what next, are we going to start charging more for gasoline for people who are single vs. those who have a family? This my friend, is called class warfare, and has no logical explaination of fuel efficieny when not everyone drives the same distance.

quote:
If the demand for gas were lower, the price of gas would be lower.

Not technically. Supply can meet demand, the problem is that they are not increasing the supply to meet the demand. Until recently, we have not been searchcing for new oil wells for almost 20 years - since the last false gasoline crisis of the early 80's. If you want to blame anyone for the supply problems, look no further than your environmentalist who are claiming this to be a problem - as they are the ones standing in the way of searching for more fuel globally - as well as in the US.

quote:
, they should be responsible for compensating those who have a normal car that does not suck up that amount of gas.

Are you serious? So now also those people can buy more land than their neighbor should also be responsible for paying their property tax for them? Perhaps, I should pay your rent since I have a bigger house than you. If you are really analyzing your argument, you would know that alot of the price of gasoline are actually taxes. So if the SUV owner is purchasing more fuel (again based on the assumption that they are drivng the same mileage), they are already paying more than you are.

quote:
trying to say that this LOVE of SUVs does not drive up the cost of gas is also foolish

No, trying to defend class warfare is foolish.

quote:
Those who can afford to buy an SUV should also be willing to compensate those who buy a normal car that can average 32 or more miles per gallon.

Again, a stupid class warfare argument - I should pay for you since I have more than you. Socialism at its best - lets all be even, eliminate the material things in life, and all live on an even playing ground.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/2/2007 12:28:07 PM , Rating: 2
It's OK - I agree with you here mostly.


RE: Everyone is doing it !
By mdogs444 on 12/2/2007 12:05:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No let's face it, China is the world manufacture of goods. You wouldn't have acquired the material wealth we enjoy now if it was not because of their cheap workforce. Your US made TV will cost you three times as much as you're paying now.

On the contrary - its actually a "shell game". A cover that makes it look good on our economy, when it fact, it hurts the economy of the US very much.

Sure, you can get goods cheaper and cheaper due not only to China's cheap labor (which has always been cheap, and the US's has never been cheap), but its actually because of having no environmental regulations.

By accepting all China's cheap goods, its hurting americans because manufacturing is down, the GDP will decrease, good paying jobs are being taken away. If the manufacturing industry did not have these regulations in the US, it would still be expanding much like it did before the 1970's, and due to success in the market by being able to produce products cheaper than we can today, would create more & better jobs for the average US manufacturing worker.

Our wealth has never been determined because of cheap non-US workforce, and never has been for over 200 years. We were the economic leaders due to expansion & export, not cost.


RE: Everyone is doing it !
By FITCamaro on 12/2/2007 2:37:47 PM , Rating: 2
I would say a lot of our lost manufacturing jobs are due to the insane unions we have in manufacturing industries. Look at the UAW. We've got guys making $30/hr right out of high school when engineers right out of college aren't always making that much. If not for the unions, wages wouldn't be as high and the labor cost wouldn't be as much an issue.

But yes, environmental regulations are just as costly.


RE: Everyone is doing it !
By ToeCutter on 12/4/2007 4:11:54 PM , Rating: 2
You've conveniently left out the cost of healthcare, which by far exceeds any other cost associated with labor in the automotive industry.

The US is the only Western nation that still doesn't offer it's citizens universal healthcare.

Whatever your opinion on that subject, you'll have to agree that it's incredibly difficult to compete with foreign manufacturers who have no financial commitment to their employees healthcare care costs, while American manufacturers are forced (asked? expected?) to spend BILLIONS to insure their employees.

The "free" market has spoken. Too bad the competition is getting alot of help from socialized medicine the US doesn't offer.


RE: Everyone is doing it !
By mdogs444 on 12/4/2007 4:56:40 PM , Rating: 2
Of course rising labor costs are affected by Health Care costs. That goes without saying. But implementing a universal health care reform is not going to decrease the cost of products, increase jobs, or increase wages. In fact, your take home pay is going to be less due to tax increases to support sub-par health care. The blanket idea of universal healthcare is good, however every country that has executed the policy has be downright awful. Those people dont complain about it until they get sick and find out a doctors visit is so far away.


RE: Everyone is doing it !
By ToeCutter on 12/2/2007 12:45:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your US made TV will cost you three times as much as you're paying now.


I'm SO tired of hearing this crap. It's taken a while to figure out, but the Chinese sh*t sold at WalMart/Target/Lowes/etc is truly junk.

Small appliances, kitchen items, furniture, all of it lasts a fraction of the time the old "expensive" American (or even Japanese) commodities used to. My mother has an ancient toaster, filled with dings and scratches that she insists on using daily. I flipped it over one day to see who made it; it was a Kenmore, made in Indiana, the copyright on the label reads 1978. Thirty freaking years for a toaster ? Pretty impressive by today's standards.

I've recently had to return a "Mr. Coffee" coffee maker to Target three times because they simply STOP working after a few weeks. I went to take a peek at their website to see if I just got a bad batch only to discover that they and several subsidiaries have recalled DOZENS of similar models due to, get this: CATCHING FIRE! All the recalled models were made in China.

I understand that a single incidence doesn't speak for an entire year's worth of imports, but come on, no one else has noticed how much more often we're returning broken sh*t to WalMart/Target/Lowes/etc?

Or even worse, we use it for 9 months, it breaks, we go buy a new one, perpetuating the fraud. Save that "quality Chinese manufacturing" happy-crappy, cause I ain't buying.


RE: Everyone is doing it !
By mdogs444 on 12/2/2007 12:54:42 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with all you are saying ToeCutter...

The cost of importing cheap goods has taken a negative toll on this countries economy, and thats no lie.

The goods are lower quality, do not last as long....but the problem is they are cheaper to buy a new product, than it is to fix an old one.

If you could buy a toaster for $200 and it would work for 20 years, or buy one for $20 and have it work for 2 years, then just keep buying new ones, people somehow see that as a good thing because its less money out of their product at the current time.

I for one, am all about US goods as I care about our economy and our working people. I could care less about China's economy or what happens to their people if we stopped buying their products, as I am more concerned with our people. Call me selfish, call me war mongering conservative....but I live in the US, not China, and think as such.


RE: Everyone is doing it !
By FITCamaro on 12/2/2007 3:28:59 PM , Rating: 2
With you there man. I really could care less about the people of China or their economy. Them prospering means nothing for people here. Honestly, I'm more in favor of isolationism at this point. Part of why I might vote for Ron Paul. Seems he wants to pull out of many of our free trade agreements that do nothing but weaken our economy.


RE: Everyone is doing it !
By mdogs444 on 12/2/2007 3:45:11 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed, isolationism would be great. Stop the global aid, stop the nonsense trade agreements. Global aid used to mean something when the amount we donated was only allowed to be used on puchasing US goods - but now they can use it on anything they want - another reason our manufacturing and export business was top of the world.

Ron Paul definately has some interesting ideas. Unfortunately, he wont really stand much a chance when it comes to the actual election. I dont care who is the republican candidate as ill still vote for him...anything i can do to keep the democrats from taking the presidency, controlling both the senate and presidency, and running the economy into the ground so we can save the trees and promote an increase to social policy while taxing me even more.


RE: Everyone is doing it !
By FITCamaro on 12/2/2007 5:15:21 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know. He's gained a good deal of support. Will it be enough? Time will tell. But for the majority of his ideas, I support him. About the only thing I don't agree with him on is that he wants to pull US troops out of Iraq immediately. Bad idea.


RE: Everyone is doing it !
By mdogs444 on 12/2/2007 5:23:52 PM , Rating: 2
I agree - terrible idea to pull out. Surge is working, government there is forming slowly but surely. Pulling out, will only induce more terrorist activities due to the US being viewed as 'weak'.

As far as his idea, almost sounds like he wants to pull out our troops from over 130 international bases. That sounds bad as well.

But I love his view on immigration - deport, built wall, zero amnesty, get rid of the automatic citizenship due to being born here. Everything I want. I only wish that Guiliani, Romney, or Huckabee would take those stances.

And tax cuts, big in favor of that here. The rich need more of their own money to expand business and create jobs. If people are against the tax cuts, then quit complaining about the unemployment rate.


RE: Everyone is doing it !
By ToeCutter on 12/4/2007 4:22:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And tax cuts, big in favor of that here. The rich need more of their own money to expand business and create jobs. If people are against the tax cuts, then quit complaining about the unemployment rate.


Okay, I've read all of your posts and with this comment I've concluded that you're a complete idiot that has essentially no understanding of foreign or economic policy. You simply regurgitate the vocabulary and even at then, poorly.

To assume, and even worse, publicly state that the rich require additional tax breaks so that we, the working class, can experience economic success is the pinnacle of ignorance.

Are you aware that that the super rich now control more of the GDP than any other time in history? Do you understand that the middle class has experienced virtually stagnant wages for nearly 8 consecutive administrations?

Do you realize the super rich are paying the least of their share since the signing of the Declaration of Independence?

You obviously understand how to use a computer. You should invest a bit more time on expanding your own understanding of these complex concepts before pounding out a few talking points you overheard on television and clearly demonstrating your feeble understanding of such things.

Or, you can continue to vote out of ignorance and hope for the best...


RE: Everyone is doing it !
By mdogs444 on 12/4/2007 5:10:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've read all of your posts and with this comment I've concluded that you're a complete idiot that has essentially no understanding of foreign or economic policy.

On the contrary, I absolutely understand it, but I do not support socialism's redistrution of wealth policies. Therefore, I wouldn't expect you to agree.

quote:
To assume, and even worse, publicly state that the rich require additional tax breaks so that we, the working class, can experience economic success is the pinnacle of ignorance.

You need to have more money in peoples hands to build up an economy. That is simple. Dont understand? Head back to school.

The rich are who pays for services, create businesses & jobs, and invest in companies. Thats who pays your jobs. Its not a difficult concept. They already account for 70% of the federal taxes, they pay more than their fair share. Perhaps you should start paying yours instead of being a low life leach, living off someone else.

quote:
Are you aware that that the super rich now control more of the GDP than any other time in history?

For sure. And it still doesn't matter. The rich have always controlled the GDP in one fashion or another, and that will not change unless your socialistic policies are introduced, in which the people will not own any of the GDP, but the government will. Thats why we republicans want less government.

quote:
Do you understand that the middle class has experienced virtually stagnant wages for nearly 8 consecutive administrations?

Thats quite an exaggeration. Middle class wages have definately increased in the last 32-40 years. And the middle class are still the middle class. And please tell me how instituting tax increases are going to better the middle class income? Please, give me some liberal view about how its "good for all" to not have separation of classes.

quote:
Do you realize the super rich are paying the least of their share since the signing of the Declaration of Independence?

Wow, i guess they should be paying 80% instead of 70%?! Hell, maybe we should stop taxing the poor and lower middle class all together. Oh wait, we already do. Your argument is nothing more than socialistic class warfare. Take your pantywaist argument to MoveOn.org or Media Matters, because I will not fall into your socialistic trap. Move on Hillary....nothing to see here.

quote:
Or, you can continue to vote out of ignorance and hope for the best...

Yup, I'm from a red state and will continue to vote accordingly. The only thing i could hope for is the elimination of garbage social policy like welfare and providing our services to illegals. But as long as we have you wackos around, that'll never happen. Your kind is not wanted around my parts, and I intend to keep it that way.


By ToeCutter on 12/2/2007 12:11:17 PM , Rating: 2
DailyTech: THE place for concise and effective Asian-American Military Policy!

Give it a rest, DT Staff Officers.

Hu Jintao could double team the Bush twins in the Rose Garden without fear of reprisal, as no one (UK, India, Russia, EU, etc) is going to support a military strike by anyone (including the US) on the gold mine that is China.

China's kinda like the "best friend" that offers to lend you some cash to make your car payment, but wants to bang your wife when he drops by with the dough.

Get used to it, folks. It's only gonna worse for us Yanks as China's influence continues to grow.




By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/2/2007 12:15:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Get used to it, folks. It's only gonna worse for us Yanks as China's influence continues to grow.

I'd love to hear your justification for that...


By mdogs444 on 12/2/2007 12:29:04 PM , Rating: 2
As would I. Unless he is some type of economic advisor, Its safe to say its an opinion, and very general with no factual backup at that.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/2/2007 12:47:19 PM , Rating: 2
He's just yanking your chain. There is no plausible backing to that statement. It's probably going to include references to Iraq though if I had to guess.


By ToeCutter on 12/2/2007 1:30:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is no plausible backing to that statement.


Because you're not aware of any "plausible backing" for my comments doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

This was a recurring theme on Perry Mason, Matlock, etc; the revelation of evidence no one knew existed (complete with dramatic score, to emphasis the plot twist?)

And your suspicion of some anti-war agenda on my part demonstrates prejudice on yours: You've already concluded that my assertions are wrong and my comments are of little value.

(Despite the fact your "guess" was completely wrong, no mention of Iraq in any of my comments)

You won't understand because you really don't want to, which is truly ironic considering your handle.

(No offense intended, just calling it as I see it..)


By Strunf on 12/2/2007 1:03:06 PM , Rating: 2
It's no so hard to justify that... China is making friends with as many people as possible, mainly for Oil and other resources so one day China will probably have most of the cards on their hands and that can only mean bad news for the US.

Just look to the current US-Russia situation, when the interests clash the "new best friends" turn into something a little less "friendly"...


By ToeCutter on 12/2/2007 1:08:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd love to hear your justification for that...

Use some Google Fu:

"Peak Oil"

"China oil consumption"

"American debt asia"

"China central bank"

"China currency"


Connect the dots and you'll see that military conflict is the least of China's concerns.

Consider the targets of the cyber attacks mentioned in this very article and my comments make even more sense.

Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws.
Mayer Amschel Rothschild


Rothschild. A filthy rich old prick that knew a thing or two about money. Not money the way each of us here think about it. Rothschild controlled an incomprehensible amount of wealth. Wealth, that when manipulated, can lay waste on entire markets.

And now China is accumulating similar degrees of wealth by lending money to us. "Investment" is "lending".

China doesn't need military superiority if they hold even marginal control of the American economy.

Lastly, before you let the conspiracy accusations fly, bone up on your economic history and you'll see this is simply more of the same; history repeating itself, etc.


By BitJunkie on 12/2/2007 2:04:22 PM , Rating: 2
There are a few arguments in this thread that need challenging. The first is that the democractic system and free market when combined are the right and only way to rule a nation, the second is that China is going to control the US, the final (implied) argument is that conflict between China and other nations is inevitable because of their dominance in global markets.

All of those arguments can be claimed to be true when looking at historical facts. Communism in it's pure sense failed and the successful paradigm as championed by the US survived and propspered, China's financial investments in the US may be of a scale that can influence market stability and therefore threaten US interests, where national security was threatened previously war ensued e.g. The Gulf War (I & II).

But all of the arguments in this thread assume that these scenarios will play out following the historical precedents. What if they don't?

What if:

1) The failure of communism was just a minor setback, Russia and China may yet harness market forces to act as an engine for growth while maintaining rigid control of the political system, in a communist style. Furthermore, what if these are the political systems required to maintain control in said countries given the nature of their people? We see it in Africa and in culturally diverse nations in general (Iraq?) where if you impose a democratic system on a basically tribal culture, the democratic system is subverted and becomes just a tool for the dominant party to maintain control. Democracy is not the answer to everyone's problems. Government intervention in a nominally free market may be the answer to some nation's success. We just haven't seen that proven on consistent basis yet.

2) Even if China is able to control stability of the Global (and therefore US) economy, why would she as a nation do anything to threaten such large investments? The Chinese may be Communists, but that doesn't mean they are a) stupid b) unaware of the value of money c) unaware of what is in its own interests for survival. Destabilising the global economy is something that can be achieved by nations other than China - the US could do it, Russia could do it, the EU as a bloc could do it - why don't they? Catastrophic destabilisation of the global economy is the new "mutually assured destruction" of our age. We just don't need nuclear devices to achieve that.

3) The US has historically been in a position to dictate terms through international policies. Along with their allies the US have had the luxury of being able to wage war on a local basis while leveraging economic insentives in the wider world to maintain stability. If as other economies grow and become dominant this role changes, then it may be the case that instigating conflict to achieve ones national goals becomes less likely, due to the mutual dependence of nations and the highly integrated and complex economies. In future, war on a large scale is likely to be unsustainable due to the dogma of "mutually assured destruction" that would come in to play if markets entered terminal meltdown.

That’s a lot of hot air and opinion, but I’m just trying to make the point that the world is changing and future events will roll out based on the new realities which we face, looking at recent (i.e. 20th Century) history is not a reliable indicator for future events if taken in isolation...in my opinion.


By Ringold on 12/2/2007 2:44:22 PM , Rating: 2
I think the first "what if" is the most likely outcome. It's not that I believe democracy isn't compatible universally for any area or culture; it exists in South Africa, and South Korea had no history of democracy and an indentical cutlure initialy to that of North Korea, and we see how they've done in comparison.

Also, the failure of communism wasn't that dictatorship can't work, it was a failure of economic theory; they fell in love initially with some romantic idea, and it failed. Putin is an avid capitalist. The Russian people, so long as they have growth and increasing wealth, plainly seem to be rather content.

I think they'll have to loosen the chains a bit as time goes on, and really do think it's inevitable that they'll convert to democracy. In the mean time, I agree with your economic argument; it's not in anyones interest to go to war.

The Soviet Union fell without a single missile being fired by someone on the outside. The above change will all happen in the same way, I think. We might have a Cuban Missile Crisis equivalent that doesn't end up being so lucky, but that's an outside chance, I believe.


By BitJunkie on 12/2/2007 3:04:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I agree...

Singapore is a great example of how an economic miracle can be managed by embracing free market ideals while using a tightly controlled political system to maintain stability. In the 1960s racial and political tensions in Singapore were very close to causing civil war (and in Malaya in general?)

If anything the Singaporean and Hong Kong models are the ones the Chinese are using as benchmarks, but still, they will play their own tune on them and it very much up to the way the World in general embraces emergent nations as to how conflicts will develop.

As for the original article, it would be interesting to know how much of this cyber-warfare is actually equivalent to state sponsored espionage or rogue elements within the country trying to make a buck.


By ToeCutter on 12/4/2007 4:05:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That’s a lot of hot air and opinion, but I’m just trying to make the point that the world is changing and future events will roll out based on the new realities which we face, looking at recent (i.e. 20th Century) history is not a reliable indicator for future events if taken in isolation...in my opinion.


You've succinctly (and quite eloquently) made the point I was trying to make, albeit mine was somewhat light-hearted and soaked with wry sarcasm.

China doesn't need or perhaps even desire military superiority to make itself the dominant power first in Asia, and then the world. They've already laid the groundwork to quite literally overtake the US economically in the first half of this century.

China as acted both as our dealer (trade) and our banker (investment), which will eventually leave the US asymmetrically dependent upon China for both goods and capital. Without either, the US could potentially find itself woefully indebted to China, allowing the Chinese to demand far more in the future than they do today. Demand, met by submission, is commonly referred to as power.

Consider how China has taken full advantage of America's fractional reserve banking system on which to fix its currency, and the future looks even darker for the US.

I marvel at the ignorance of most Americans as this nefarious development unfolds before our very eyes. I'm sure historians will share my astonishment and ask WTF we were thinking during the early decades of the 21st century as we allowed, nay; financed, China's ascension to economic dominance while fettering our immense wealth and resources on foreign policy escapades that did little to preserve our standing in the world.


Yet.
By FITCamaro on 12/2/2007 11:32:57 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Even though a direct military battle is unlikely


The only question is who will fire first. We can already count out the EU. So it's either the Brits, the US, or the Chinese. Maybe Japan.




RE: Yet.
By mdogs444 on 12/2/2007 11:37:46 AM , Rating: 1
Yup, definately count out the EU. I highly doubt that Japan will fire first, as they recently just agreed to major economic policies to benefit both countries. I would also count out Britain as well, since the outburst of the Iraq war and Tony Blairs actions.

Really, I think it leaves the US as the leader, if anyone were to actually fire first...but probably backed up with support of several other nations including possibly India. The problem wont be getting countries to back with support, it would be analyzing who is supporting China if that happens - which would most likely start with Iran & Russia.


RE: Yet.
By TMV192 on 12/2/2007 11:41:55 AM , Rating: 2
Japan? For a long time they didn't even have a military, now they only really have Defensive forces


RE: Yet.
By mdogs444 on 12/2/2007 11:48:10 AM , Rating: 2
They still do not have an active military, and to my knowledge are not allowed to. They have manpower for defensive purposes, but nothing enough to actually leave the country to attempt to raise, or back, a war.

So you are correct.


RE: Yet.
By Hare on 12/2/2007 12:28:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only question is who will fire first. We can already count out the EU.

Obviously...

The European Union (EU) is a political and economic community of twenty-seven member states with supranational and intergovernmental features, primarily located in Europe. The European Union is not a state and as such does not have its own dedicated military forces. Some EU states cooperate on defense policy albeit primarily through NATO rather than through the EU.


RE: Yet.
By Strunf on 12/2/2007 12:55:23 PM , Rating: 2
The EU has the ESDP (European Security and Defence Policy) in the works which will not be under the NATO commandment.


RE: Yet.
By FITCamaro on 12/2/2007 2:20:38 PM , Rating: 2
Fine. Any country in the EU. I just say "the EU" since I don't feel like listing every country in it.


china
By ma2ree on 12/2/2007 1:13:15 PM , Rating: 2
Talk about some naive young twits. China is now and will be for the foreseeable future the biggest threat to U.S., western culture, NATO, and the rest of the non-chinese world that exists. All this "free trade" with them is cr**.




RE: china
By jconan on 12/2/2007 6:27:26 PM , Rating: 2
"Talk about some naive young twits. China is now and will be for the foreseeable future the biggest threat to U.S., western culture, NATO, and the rest of the non-chinese world that exists. All this "free trade" with them is cr**."

That's your disdain for China. However the future is uncertain like the Berlin wall or end of the cold war. China is still in a nascent stage like Japan was back in the early 80s in terms of economic, environmental, safety and health and lack regulation enforcement with a very large population to manage. When China does mature in these areas, hopefully soon they will be more of an ally. It's now like the joust of the haves versus the have nots. Everyone is greedy and would like to despise people or nations who are more successful than them and put down others who are beneath them like societal issues in America with illegal residents from the South. They do take jobs that people don't like to do and yet they get persecuted that they are taking jobs away. However no one wants to do them and they are also more industrious than the people who live on welfare of the middle class tax subsidization.


RE: china
By mdogs444 on 12/2/2007 7:33:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They do take jobs that people don't like to do and yet they get persecuted that they are taking jobs away. However no one wants to do them and they are also more industrious than the people who live on welfare of the middle class tax subsidization.

Wow, quite misinformed. Did the left wing party tell you that? Of course they want them to stay because it means for votes for the democratic party - hence why the democrats are throwing a fit right now because the government is not granting citizenship to applicants fast enough. But on to the actual issues with your statement...

First, illegals are NOT doing jobs that Americans dont want. They are doing jobs for cheaper than Americans are willing to do them for. Its cheaper to employ an illegal than a citizen. If those illegals were in fact legal, federal tax paying citizens...they would not be able to do those jobs either because they could not afford to live on that salary. It also stems down to the business who employ these illegals because they are attempting to do so to build a bigger profit...which is why they should be penalized huge amounts, or even permanently shut down for even hiring an illegal.

Also, they are not "more industrious" than people who live on welfare - in they are are one and the same, if not worse. Illegals are still eligible for welfare, government assisted health coverage, food stamps, etc - all while paying ZERO federal taxes. At least the citizens on welfare are in fact citizens legally, and chances are they have at one point in time, or will at one point in time, pay some sort of federal tax to at least make a contribution to our government.

quote:
Everyone is greedy and would like to despise people or nations who are more successful

Hello?! McFly, are you in there?! Its not called greed - its called MOTIVATION. And unlike Socialism, its what drives this economy. Sure, we can be a socilist state and give everyone $40,000/yr for their job - but where is the motivation to get a good job, increase your "class", etc. Its what tells the poor to get up off their asses and do something about it - like further their education, get a job, get a better job, learn how to actually handle their finances, stop living "hood rich" by cashing in your paycheck and spending it all in one day. Thats why free market works, and the American way works...because you have the OPPORTUNITY to make something of yourself.

Democrats want to give you a fish (and make you dependant upon them forever - aka, welfare).
Republicans want to teach you how to fish (and let you control your life, good or bad).


RE: china
By feraltoad on 12/2/2007 9:49:16 PM , Rating: 3
I think both parties want to gut us and sell us on the global fish market.


RE: china
By FITCamaro on 12/3/2007 7:21:48 AM , Rating: 2
If no one wanted to do those jobs, who was doing them before the illegals got here. Oh right, legal citizens who wanted to do them.

The problem now is that people care more about price than quality or whats right. Nevermind that the fruit pickers are all illegal immigrants, we get orange juice for 50 cents less than if they'd hired a legal citizen. Nevermind that the China-made toys are painted with lead paint and made in a sweat shop, we get them for a dollar.


In Defense of Trade & Moderation
By Ringold on 12/2/2007 3:21:42 PM , Rating: 3
Warning: More of an essay, or uber-blog, than a casual comment. I recommend ignoring this. You've been warned. :P

I've read a lot of comments along the lines of trade, and wish to at least try to defend trade with China. It'll be disagreeing with some of you that I don't normally disagree with, but can't agree all the time!

China has made itself a magnet for protectionism due to its lower labor costs, lighter regulation, and all around lower opportunity costs. This had drawn a lot of the worlds manufacturing jobs from countries that previously were flush with manufacturing jobs, and of course this leaves some places feeling sore.

First, some historical perspective. 100 - 200 years ago, we went through the same story, with simply different protagonists and antagonists. The protectionist party consisted of skilled artisans, masters and apprentices, guilds, etc, who had since nearly the very start monopolized production of certain goods -- like shoes. These people did everything by hand, painstakingly. Accordingly, shoes were pretty damn expensive.

Then came along mass production. I wont make this a wiki entry on the history of factories, but there were at times violent explusions of factory equipment and owners from local towns -- it obliterated local artisans.

The process of economies doing what can be called "moving up the value ladder", and is precisely why full employment is not 0%. As technology improves, and labor market inefficiencies are worked out, people of low skill or out-dated skills are no longer needed; hence structural unemployment, a change in the structure of the economy that renders some people relatively of less use than they previously were.

The example of the factory vs artisan is imperfect as its local and this is international, but at that time international might well have been 50 miles due to transportation costs. Today, it's nothing for an American firm to order a production run from a factory in South East Asia and have it delivered in almost no time. The global economy is one large economy, making local distinctions and even borders less important.

Of course, factory owners won out; who the hell makes shoes by hand now? Now they can be had for as little as $15, an almost irrelevant portion of even a poverty-line individuals income, or $20-50 for those of us who arent Clark Howard, or $80+ for something we may wear to work, Church, etc. Meanwhile, standards of living have shot up.

In the big picture, China is the modern equivalent of the factory of old. Its lower labor costs allow things to be done cheaper there, and in return this is sent back to us, allowing us to buy more for less. Meanwhile, slowly, we've had people who, like artisans before, have discovered that the modern worlds has passed 'em up. I'm a complete supporter of mixing in some tuition support with unemployment benefits for those that've lost their jobs. Helping hand or no, though, the jobs that've left the country are generally at the bottom of the value ladder; these people, with a couple years to pick up a trade or a 4 year degree, can easily find their way to a job that makes them equivalent or better money, and be much more productive for society. These folk can then take this well-earned money and buy more than they could before.

Of course, that takes dedication and some effort; hence opposition by labor unions, which represent the modern equivalent of guilds.

What happens when we resist? There's a myriad of examples; any country that's gone the import-substitution route, which is erecting trade barriers of various sorts to encourage domestic production, has generally met with stagnation, decline, and some times ruin. One look at Europe, and their significantly lower disposable income purchasing power as compared to America tells the story there, though extensive socialist wealth redistribution and social engineering also play a big part. Those Frenchmen making wine could be writing code for an engineering firm and leave the winemaking to more agrarian states.

Also, the loss of trade in America is nothing new. It's been happening for a long time, and all the while the power of our disposable income has continued its steady increase.

Not to say China plays completely fair. Their currency is a little devalued compared to what it should be, but there is a flip side to this coin. It's been rising slowly, but a quick change would stoke inflation here and hurt both of us. They've also been, frankly, whiny bitches about some minutae of trade, like "inspecting" GE medical imaging equipment imported from the US in retaliation to the toy recalls, but I write that off myself to government officials that arent used to dealing with non-communists.

All this talk about trade protectionism when it comes to China is, therefore, a little concerning. It's just in our own best interest to solve what we can diplomatically, or even militarily, without upsetting the global economy applecart. I think the importance of free and open international trade was seen just this past month; the US markets have been volatile, yet international ones have shored us up like never before, and when our banks start to falter foreigners have invested money directly in to our economy to stabilize the situation; we all benefit.

Of course, we can force ourselves to protect the old, established way of doing things, that's for certain. History tells us the results, however, aren't very favorable; to steal Larry Kudlow's trademark line, "Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity."

Other people can and have talked about how to approach China diplomatically over its apparent aggression, and since thats the next stage of my argument, I'll stop here.




RE: In Defense of Trade & Moderation
By mdogs444 on 12/2/2007 3:32:55 PM , Rating: 2
Very informative, and quite correct in many ways Ringold. Typically, you and I stand still ground on our conservative ways, and objecting many social policies.

However, I do agree with you that labor costs & skills have taken their toll on our economy - especially the unions because they promote mass amounts of unskilled labor for the same costs.

This article shows that one of the downsides of "free market" is that we in the US are not always the winner. Playing fair, and having equal environmental regulations would definately start to even the scale with China - but we still cannot compete with labor costs.

We can however, regulate trade & decrease environmental regulations to help promote growth in the US manufacturing economy - and I really hope we do it. The special interest groups - most notably the Environmentalist groups - are not concerned with our economy, they are more concerned with saving the trees and questionable air pollution & its questionable effects.

IM all with you in solving what we can democratically - however, I am not one to leave out Military actions for the benefit of the US (as well as global) economy in the long run.


By teckytech9 on 12/2/2007 8:41:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Playing fair, and having equal environmental regulations would definitely start to even the scale with China - but we still cannot compete with

Indeed, environmental regulations are relaxed in China, just smell the air. However, relaxing ours has nothing to do with the problems mentioned. Developing nations eventually clean up their air as prosperity increases and its citizens demand it. Japan prospered and is one of the cleanest cities per population density. Relaxing the US environmental regulations would be contrary to the majority and won't be
supported.

The issue is carbon emissions, education, and health care which is not mentioned above. Clearly, one could debate the inefficiencies of our transportation infrastructure that allows increased carbon emissions to be spent, and the worsening gridlock in all major cities. Ever wonder why so much time is spent idling at a stop light? Both economies prosper by burning oil and coal.

Could it be that China has lured the major corporations do to business in their country to increase its own prosperity? Could it also be said that once China prospers, its currency increases in strength, that the populace could consume more US products? Today, the balance of trade is not equal. The US sends containers of food and China returns products for consumption. America is the breadbasket of the world, thus our prosperity lies within. Some sands of New Mexico remain polluted forever.

The free market left unchecked has unforeseen consequences. The people ultimately decide whether to consume or not consume a product. Whether it’s a soccerball in Bangladesh, a pair of jeans in Cambodia, or a high-tech product from China.

As for playing the fear factor card, indeed the US maintains control of the Internet. China censors it, since their won't be any Chinese national commenters on this thread in the foreseeable future. But who knows, times are changing.


By BitJunkie on 12/2/2007 7:03:06 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with a lot of the above, but there's one part I struggle with, and that's probably because I'm a European.

Part of me really hates the fact that pure, unfettered free market economics would lead to your token vintier retraining to write code, purely because it adds more value to his economy. If we were to follow that logic, something of value could be lost to the world - his potentially unique wine that, because of the nature of his local soil can not be reproduced anywhere else. I'm sure such sentimentality makes me weak and I'd probably never cut the mustard as a true American Capitalist, but at some point we as humans have to stop and make a choice about the cost of such sentimentality.

If you can empathise with that point even remotely - maybe because your favourite hand gun, or your lucky brand of golf ball are going to be discontinued and you'd like to keep using it - even if someone is producing a different brand cheaper, then it's not a massive step to extend that sentimentality to human beings as well as inanimate objects, and you start to see why having a social conscience is not always a weakness but a value judgement.

Of course, there are shades of grey, and I'm not totally comfortable with the way some European and Scandanavian countries take this to an extreme, but I really don't like the other extreme that we see in the US. I know I took that as an opportunity to have a cheap pop at hardline free-marketeers, but hell it makes for a good debate ;)


China
By mdogs444 on 12/2/2007 11:33:38 AM , Rating: 2
I think it goes without question that China's recent large scale military build up, economic strength, and recent missle launch to knock down a satellite are now starting to wage fears on other governments outside of the US. The ability to hack networks, and shoot down satellite communications, bundled with a large scale military is proving to be quite a threat - or at least, a possible threat to many nations.

Let alone that I dislike them for their lead painted toys, low quality products, and the fact that their manufacturing industry has grown due to not having to face the same environmental sanctions as the US and Europe, I see this is starting to effect other countries as well eliminating the theory that its really just a US overblown political agenda.




RE: China
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/2/2007 11:50:59 AM , Rating: 2
The unfortunate fact about China is that it is the new Wild West. It's very hard for me to imagine Hu Jintao signing the order for something like this in the way that Kim Jong-il would (if his country had electricity I suppose).

However, you get a lot of hardliners grandfathered into the military. Rich brats that are essentially untouchable no matter what their actions. Many of the saber rattling generals lining up across the Strait of Taiwan fall into this category.

However, the fact is as China starts to enter the world sphere of politics and economics, those sort of renegades will be more scrutinized. Ultimately, China will have to deal with these guys or someone else will.


RE: China
By crfog on 12/2/2007 6:39:54 PM , Rating: 2
I think that most of this fear you speak of stems from a lack of knowledge. Nobody really knows what China's political agenda is. In my mind, the best-case scenario is that all of the growth you cited is part of steps China is taking to assert that they do have power and can play a big role in the global spectrum. I mean, it's not like they're the only country that invests heavily in their military or tests new weapons. We just don't know what use these new developments have for them yet. I highly doubt that China is planning on launching an offensive of any kind. They are just asserting their power and assuring that this case does not change quickly. In terms of economic power, China has been strong for years, but nowhere near as powerful as they are now. With so much US debt to China, I think that eventually the aim is to demand respect and equal standing.


RE: China
By FITCamaro on 12/2/2007 11:12:26 PM , Rating: 2
Add this to the list.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314534,00.html

Now the question is how did they get the missiles. My money is on the Chinese government, or someone in it, selling the missiles to them.


China
By alanore on 12/2/2007 8:46:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To use the word "deceny" in relation to anything the Japanese did in World War 2 is, in my book, almost a criminal act. At least Nazi forces killed some of their victims immediately. Japanese use of torture on both POWs and civilians was so atrocious as to make being a US POW in a German camp seem like a 5 star luxury resort.


Ehh I think you'll find 6 million Jews who died in the germans "5 star resorts" would disagree.

It's hardly surpising that Britian, the lapdog of the US is the one crying wolf. With the basis for this being, the hacking seems to come from China, and probably has a Chinese government involvement. Its not the hardest thing to route network traffic through proxies.

More over I live in Britian, where both at work and at home my firewalls most commonly come under DoS and other attacks from the USA. Does that mean I should say that the US is trying to illegal access my data, and it probably the goverment involved. Then have a long winded conversation about wiping them off the map?

If anything the US probably conducts more "attacks" on China that vise versa, although I guess to most of you judging from your posts think that this is unconditionally justifieable. If the US can do it and China not think its an act of war and only return with kind attacks, why can you accept that when China does it, it should be seen as a reason to start war with them. Spying has been around since forever, we live in the digital age, so it stands to reason that spying would be conducted through the internet, wither it covert or overt.

As for the
quote:
Cyberwarfare is like playing monopoly where US has all the land.
comment, darpanet was orginally designed as a network that could survive nuclear strikes and continue routing data through diffrent nodes so it kept going. Its designed to be damaged and keep works. Thats what the internet is based on, short of the US cutting all the fiberlines with other contentants and shutting down satelites. Its never going to have total control. Even then just having a contenant wide internetwork, all it takes is someone to fly across and set-up shop in the US. Also if China didn't want people to know it was them why didn't they send hacker out to the countries with laptops? Or even set up a server in the country and use it as the launch pad of the attack.

Theres no such thing as policing the internet, thats why there are hackers, thats why there are sites with illegal content. Thats why you can download music and movies illegal. You shut down a node on the internet, and the internet just routes round it like nothings happened.

As Karl Hagbard Koch said "Wissen muss fur jenden menschen gleich zuganglich sein" which pretty much translates into "Information is free and needs to be accessible for everyone" The reason for hacking is to find out infromation or to control it, control may mean denial of access to it (Dos attacks) to change it, or delete it. In the age of information its advatagous to know the most. All the US and China are doing circling each other trying to gain information that the other has. They're not even putting it in the public domain, which in the strictest philosphy of hacking, means it not really hacking.




RE: China
By GeorgeOrwell on 12/2/2007 9:30:16 PM , Rating: 2
It sounds like you've been drinking the Kool Aid for a long time.

Just because a packet looks like it is from China, does it mean it is from China? For from the US, Israel, etc? Don't be naive.

I hope you don't believe that computer viruses are written by poor kids in Bangladesh. I hope you are old enough and wise enough to understand the "protection" industry is a very big business that needs continual danger and constant fear in order to keep giving a reasonable return from quarter to quarter.

China is a Central Bank economic development province. There is no real threat from China, just as there never was any real threat from the former Soviet Union. It's all under the same ownership. The appearance of conflict is often necessary to advance the underlying agenda.

Sure, the economic development of China means that money will shift from the middle class of one region of the world to another. But the people on top, the owners, will end up with more than they had before.

This is what it is all about.


By GeorgeOrwell on 12/2/2007 9:09:17 PM , Rating: 2
There is no reality to this latest cry of "we are being attacked".

The only goal is to make it easier to enact more draconian laws regarding internet usage and the government's ability to spy on people. Like this is something new?

China is nothing more than a place where there is a lot of money to be made. Israel was once referred to "a convenient peg to hang a very powerful weapon". China is much the same.




"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg

Related Articles













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