In article . net, Java
Man wrote:

It's tough to get there when some won't acknowledge that Google has
proprietary trade secrets which they want and need to protect.

Who's done that?

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article ,
says...
In article . net, Java
Man wrote:

It's tough to get there when some won't acknowledge that Google has
proprietary trade secrets which they want and need to protect.

Who's done that?

Who do you think?

Rick

In article . net, Java
Man wrote:

In article ,
says...
In article . net, Java
Man wrote:

It's tough to get there when some won't acknowledge that Google has
proprietary trade secrets which they want and need to protect.

Who's done that?

Who do you think?

Cite, please? I've neither said nor hinted I believe that.

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

The Dave Balderstone entity posted thusly:

In article . net, Java
Man wrote:

In article ,
says...
In article . net, Java
Man wrote:

It's tough to get there when some won't acknowledge that Google has
proprietary trade secrets which they want and need to protect.

Who's done that?

Who do you think?

Cite, please? I've neither said nor hinted I believe that.

According to the posting, he said that you said "Who's done that?"

Just follow the 'greater than' levels to see who said what. It
shows...

rick said : "It's tough to get there...
You said: "Who's done that?"
rick said: "Who do you think?"
You said: "Cite please....
I said the rest...

In article ,
Dave Balderstone wrote:

Instead, Google said "Well, we don't really like the idea, but if
you're prepared to pay us and allow us access to your market in the
future, we can be a *little bit* evil."

A little bit evil is similar to me like being a little bit pregnant or a
little bit dead.


This following story has been variously ascribed, but the way I heard it
was that Leonard Cohen was in a cafeteria at McGill. A female student
sat down at the same table to eat her lunch and Cohen asked her if she'd
be willing to sleep with him for $ 100,000.00.
She thought about it honestly and said that considering the offer was
coming from Leonard Cohen and that she was financially somewhat hard up,
she would agree.
He then asked if she would do it for $ 50.00.
She replied, indignantly; "What do you think I am?"
Cohen replied: "I know what you are, now we're just arguing about money."

I see Google in similar light.

Rob

"Robatoy" wrote


This following story has been variously ascribed, but the way I heard it
was that Leonard Cohen was in a cafeteria at McGill.

I have heard this attributed to Mark Twain.

Regards,

Rick

Robatoy wrote:

A little bit evil is similar to me like being a little bit
pregnant or a little bit dead.

A little bit evil to me is like a little bit dirty or a little bit
wet. I think mine is a more accurate view of evil in the world.

This following story has been variously ascribed, but the way I
heard it was that Leonard Cohen was in a cafeteria at McGill. A
female student sat down at the same table to eat her lunch and
Cohen asked her if she'd be willing to sleep with him for $
100,000.00. She thought about it honestly and said that
considering the offer was coming from Leonard Cohen and that she
was financially somewhat hard up, she would agree.
He then asked if she would do it for $ 50.00.
She replied, indignantly; "What do you think I am?"
Cohen replied: "I know what you are, now we're just arguing about
money."

Excellent story.

I see Google in similar light.

Actually, I'm not sure the Chinese govt is actually *paying* Google
anything. I think it's just allowing the Chinese people access to the
search engine and Google hopes to make money there in much the same
way it makes money here. I should add that I'm not entirely sure of
the details of the agreement/proposal so I might be dead wrong on this
point. I understand that either way it will likely benefit Google, but
it does change the flavor of the agreement.

Joe Barta

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 00:59:28 -0600, "todd" wrote:

wrote in message
roups.com...
...

On the surface it looks like George Soros provides more
funding than policy--quite a contrast with Pat Robertson
who dictates much of the Republican policy. However
maybe Mr Soros is just more subtle.

I'll also add that from his bio it looks like George Soros made
his money honestly.


Do you actually know who Pat Robertson is? Or did you just hear his name on
Air America (assuming it hasn't gone off the air in your area)? I wouldn't
necessarily put Pat in the neighborhood of kook fringe, but he certainly
doesn't dictate policy for the Republican party.



You have to realize that in Fredfighter's world, the act of accusing
those espousing ideas not in line with the congressional left or the NYT
editorial page of being mindless robots directed by Rush Limbaugh no longer
gets the desired reaction. Thus, he has had to cast about for someone at
the fringes in order to attempt to denigrate those with whom he disagrees.


Splorf!

It looks like you never heard Pat Robertson speak.

How many people are in his 'Christian Coalition'?
How many watch _The 700 Club_?

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...
Guilt by association. Robertson was once a slighly provocative
ultra-conservative with a religious fan base. He has aged into
becoming a loon. No serious political platform is built around
his personal insanity and suggesting so is just flatly wrong.
Certainly the Republican party has to pay some homage' to the
Religious Right - they are a considerable constituency - but that
hardly makes him a principal in Republican policy setting.

Personally, I find Robertson's lunacy far more entertaining than, say,
Kennedy's (who is just another tired old drunk)...



How many voters are in his 'Christian Coalition'?
How many watch _The 700 Club_?

If Pat Robertson comes out against a Republican candidate,
that candiddate loses.

--

FF

Mr. Cohen has way too much class to behave so crassly. In addition, he can
undoubtedly get as many girls to sleep with him just by introducing
himself...

Of course he's not a young man anymore and he's undoubtedly learned that
it's much more fun when the girls come onto him...

John E.

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave Balderstone wrote:

Instead, Google said "Well, we don't really like the idea, but if
you're prepared to pay us and allow us access to your market in the
future, we can be a *little bit* evil."

A little bit evil is similar to me like being a little bit pregnant or a
little bit dead.


This following story has been variously ascribed, but the way I heard it
was that Leonard Cohen was in a cafeteria at McGill. A female student
sat down at the same table to eat her lunch and Cohen asked her if she'd
be willing to sleep with him for $ 100,000.00.
She thought about it honestly and said that considering the offer was
coming from Leonard Cohen and that she was financially somewhat hard up,
she would agree.
He then asked if she would do it for $ 50.00.
She replied, indignantly; "What do you think I am?"
Cohen replied: "I know what you are, now we're just arguing about money."

I see Google in similar light.

Rob

In article ,
"Rick M" wrote:

"Robatoy" wrote


This following story has been variously ascribed, but the way I heard it
was that Leonard Cohen was in a cafeteria at McGill.

I have heard this attributed to Mark Twain.

That would work. Sounds more like it too.

On 4 Feb 2006 09:04:30 -0800, wrote:


Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 00:59:28 -0600, "todd" wrote:

wrote in message
roups.com...
...

On the surface it looks like George Soros provides more
funding than policy--quite a contrast with Pat Robertson
who dictates much of the Republican policy. However
maybe Mr Soros is just more subtle.

I'll also add that from his bio it looks like George Soros made
his money honestly.


Well, I suppose if you consider bankrupting third world nations by
speculating on their currency and endangering the currencies of first tier
nations like Britain via the same approach to be making money "honestly",
then I suppose you can say that George Soros came by his money honestly.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 4 Feb 2006 09:04:30 -0800, wrote:


Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 00:59:28 -0600, "todd" wrote:

wrote in message
roups.com...
...

On the surface it looks like George Soros provides more
funding than policy--quite a contrast with Pat Robertson
who dictates much of the Republican policy. However
maybe Mr Soros is just more subtle.

I'll also add that from his bio it looks like George Soros made
his money honestly.


Well, I suppose if you consider bankrupting third world nations by
speculating on their currency and endangering the currencies of first tier
nations like Britain via the same approach to be making money "honestly",
then I suppose you can say that George Soros came by his money honestly.



Sounds like you know a lot about him. Can you point me to some
sources?

Here are some about Pat Robertson:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7027/business.html

http://www.geocities.com/djsleeve/Diamonds.html

http://www.skeptictank.org/robem2.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...2413-2001Nov30

--

FF

In article ,
says...
In article . net, Java
Man wrote:

In article ,
says...
In article . net, Java
Man wrote:

It's tough to get there when some won't acknowledge that Google has
proprietary trade secrets which they want and need to protect.

Who's done that?

Who do you think?

Cite, please? I've neither said nor hinted I believe that.

Said? No. Hinted? No. Implied? Yes.

" . . . Google isn't doing anything proprietary in its web and usenet
aggregating. You or I could start doing it tomorrow."

AND

"All Google has that you don't is a head start, a supoena to appear
before the US Congress, and $19 billion less share value than they had
a couple of days ago."

But perhaps I inferred incorrectly.

What DID you mean by the quotes above?

Rick

In article . net, Java
Man wrote:

What DID you mean by the quotes above?

I meant exactly what I wrote. No more and no less.

Google is not doing anything proprietary in their web and news
aggregating.

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

Robatoy wrote:

In article ,
Dave Balderstone wrote:


Instead, Google said "Well, we don't really like the idea, but if
you're prepared to pay us and allow us access to your market in the
future, we can be a *little bit* evil."


A little bit evil is similar to me like being a little bit pregnant or a
little bit dead.


That's absurd. If true, there would be no degrees of felony and
subsequent degrees of sentencing. Every rational person understands
there are degrees of good and evil. Every rational person understands
that sometimes the choice is not between good and bad, but bad and worse.
Every rational person understands that real world moral questions are
substantially more complex and nuanced than what you learn in Sunday School
(where the choices are obvious). Every rational person understands
that decisions to not do things carry consequences just like decisions to
do things, and that there are also incidental results to all such
(in)actions. Only ideological purists insist that no middle ground
is ever reasonable or a possible path to the desired end state.

Moreover, Google's decision to engage with the Chinese is hardly
self-evidently "evil". It is a judgment call (by us 3rd-parties - Google
have their own rationale', I'm sure) as to whether the net of this decision
is morally positive or negative. I think it will be a good thing in the
long run and help accelerate the collapse of Communism in China and the
assist the ascent of Capitalism. You may disagree, but to dismiss it out
of hand as "evil" is ridiculous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Moreover, Google's decision to engage with the Chinese is hardly
self-evidently "evil". It is a judgment call (by us 3rd-parties - Google
have their own rationale', I'm sure) as to whether the net of this decision
is morally positive or negative. I think it will be a good thing in the
long run and help accelerate the collapse of Communism in China and the
assist the ascent of Capitalism. You may disagree, but to dismiss it out
of hand as "evil" is ridiculous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Hummm, living in a neo-communist state, ruled by dictat, where the
Police use Google to monitor newsgroup activity, scan past postings for
keywords etc and then visit on the strength of what they have read (as I
have been visited recently) all I can say is your view is very nieve.

Niel.

"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage
where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the
citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest
periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force. " : Ayn
Rand in "The Nature of Government"

badger wrote:

Hummm, living in a neo-communist state, ruled by dictat, where the
Police use Google to monitor newsgroup activity, scan past
postings for keywords etc and then visit on the strength of what
they have read (as I have been visited recently)

In what neo-communist state do you live?

Joe Barta

wrote in news:1139072998.475634.136800
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

If Pat Robertson comes out against a Republican candidate,
that candiddate loses.

I didn't know Patty_boy was good for anything. Thanks for setting me
straight.

BIG GRIN

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Joe Barta wrote:
badger wrote:


Hummm, living in a neo-communist state, ruled by dictat, where the
Police use Google to monitor newsgroup activity, scan past
postings for keywords etc and then visit on the strength of what
they have read (as I have been visited recently)


In what neo-communist state do you live?

Joe Barta

The UK.
Where the prime ministers wife's father was a card carrying member of
the communist party (her name is cherry, as in "cherry red").
Where the state has the greatest number of camera systems monitoring its
subjects per-capita of any ****ry in the world.
Where the state monitors all e-mail, newsgroups and internet traffic for
deviant behaviors and sends plain clothes officers to investigate with
the message "we're not thought police" though thats exactly what they
have become.
Where they teach children to report anything out of the states version
of the norm at home and attempt to make everyone an informer with their
continuing propaganda to demonise anyone who acts differently from their
version of a good subject.
Fronted by the BBC (Bliars Brainwashing Colusionists) who resolutely
refuse to cover any news story that might bring the state into question.
"some are more equal than others" (Orwell, animal farm) covers the
reality of the UK rather well, enforcing EU dictat with a twist that the
control freak (often the faceless unelected and neither) civil (nor)
servant layers of government put in to tighten their control even further.

Han wrote:
wrote in news:1139072998.475634.136800
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

If Pat Robertson comes out against a Republican candidate,
that candiddate loses.

I didn't know Patty_boy was good for anything. Thanks for setting me
straight.


No one is completely worthless. If nothing else, he can
serve as a bad example.

OTOH, he is reason why GWB got the Republican nomination
in 2000, instead of John McCain.

--

FF

Of what I have seen though, most of the population there seems to think that
that is all right.
They are trying hard to do the same things here. The government propagnda
machine has done a surprisingly good job of making the population paranoid,
ready to give up just about anything as long as they will "keep them safe".

"badger" wrote in message
...


Joe Barta wrote:
badger wrote:


Hummm, living in a neo-communist state, ruled by dictat, where the
Police use Google to monitor newsgroup activity, scan past
postings for keywords etc and then visit on the strength of what
they have read (as I have been visited recently)


In what neo-communist state do you live?

Joe Barta

The UK.
Where the prime ministers wife's father was a card carrying member of
the communist party (her name is cherry, as in "cherry red").
Where the state has the greatest number of camera systems monitoring its
subjects per-capita of any ****ry in the world.
Where the state monitors all e-mail, newsgroups and internet traffic for
deviant behaviors and sends plain clothes officers to investigate with
the message "we're not thought police" though thats exactly what they
have become.
Where they teach children to report anything out of the states version
of the norm at home and attempt to make everyone an informer with their
continuing propaganda to demonise anyone who acts differently from their
version of a good subject.
Fronted by the BBC (Bliars Brainwashing Colusionists) who resolutely
refuse to cover any news story that might bring the state into question.
"some are more equal than others" (Orwell, animal farm) covers the
reality of the UK rather well, enforcing EU dictat with a twist that the
control freak (often the faceless unelected and neither) civil (nor)
servant layers of government put in to tighten their control even further.

In article ,
says...
In article . net, Java
Man wrote:

What DID you mean by the quotes above?

I meant exactly what I wrote. No more and no less.

You're starting to sound like Humpty Dumpty.

Google is not doing anything proprietary in their web and news
aggregating.

How does that square with your professed ignorance of what Google may
want to keep secret?

Rick

In article . net, Java
Man wrote:

How does that square with your professed ignorance of what Google may
want to keep secret?

What does anything they want to keep secret have to do with aggregating
web sites and news feeds?

----------------
aggregate
noun |?agrigit| |?øgr?g?t| |?agr?g?t|
1 a whole formed by combining several (typically disparate) elements :
the council was an aggregate of three regional assemblies.
€ the total number of points scored by a player or team in a series of
sporting contests : the result put the sides even on aggregate.
2 a material or structure formed from a loosely compacted mass of
fragments or particles.
€ pieces of broken or crushed stone or gravel used to make concrete, or
more generally in building and construction work.
adjective [ attrib. ] |?agrigit| |?agr?g?t|
formed or calculated by the combination of many separate units or
items; total : the aggregate amount of grants made.
€ Botany (of a group of species) comprising several very similar
species formerly regarded as a single species.
€ Economics denoting the total supply or demand for goods and services
in an economy at a particular time : aggregate demand | aggregate
supply.
verb |-?g?t| |?øgr??ge?t| |?agr?ge?t|
form or group into a class or cluster : [ intrans. ] the butterflies
aggregate in dense groups.
PHRASES
in ( the) aggregate in total; as a whole.
DERIVATIVES
aggregation |?agri?g? sh ?n| |?øgr??ge???n| |-?ge??(?)n| noun
aggregative |-?g?tiv| |?øgr??ge?d?v| |?agr?g?t?v| adjective
ORIGIN late Middle English : from Latin aggregat- Œherded together,¹
from the verb aggregare, from ad- Œtoward¹ + grex, greg- Œa flock.¹
----------------

Web spiders to gather page content are a dime a dozen. Capturing and
storing a news feed is trivial.

There is nothing proprietary about aggregating web site content and
news feeds.

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article ,
says...
In article . net, Java
Man wrote:

How does that square with your professed ignorance of what Google may
want to keep secret?

What does anything they want to keep secret have to do with aggregating
web sites and news feeds?

----------------
aggregate
noun |?agrigit| |?øgr?g?t| |?agr?g?t|
1 a whole formed by combining several (typically disparate) elements :
the council was an aggregate of three regional assemblies.
€ the total number of points scored by a player or team in a series of
sporting contests : the result put the sides even on aggregate.
2 a material or structure formed from a loosely compacted mass of
fragments or particles.
€ pieces of broken or crushed stone or gravel used to make concrete, or
more generally in building and construction work.
adjective [ attrib. ] |?agrigit| |?agr?g?t|
formed or calculated by the combination of many separate units or
items; total : the aggregate amount of grants made.
€ Botany (of a group of species) comprising several very similar
species formerly regarded as a single species.
€ Economics denoting the total supply or demand for goods and services
in an economy at a particular time : aggregate demand | aggregate
supply.
verb |-?g?t| |?øgr??ge?t| |?agr?ge?t|
form or group into a class or cluster : [ intrans. ] the butterflies
aggregate in dense groups.
PHRASES
in ( the) aggregate in total; as a whole.
DERIVATIVES
aggregation |?agri?g? sh ?n| |?øgr??ge???n| |-?ge??(?)n| noun
aggregative |-?g?tiv| |?øgr??ge?d?v| |?agr?g?t?v| adjective
ORIGIN late Middle English : from Latin aggregat- Œherded together,¹
from the verb aggregare, from ad- Œtoward¹ + grex, greg- Œa flock.¹
----------------

I hope you didn't Google for that! ;-)

Web spiders to gather page content are a dime a dozen. Capturing and
storing a news feed is trivial.

There is nothing proprietary about aggregating web site content and
news feeds.

IOW, you don't include processing aggregated content as being part of
"aggregating web sites and news feeds"?

Rick

In article . net, Java
Man wrote:

I hope you didn't Google for that! ;-)

No, Mac OS X comes with a built-in dictionary application as well as
the ablity to look up words on the fly.

IOW, you don't include processing aggregated content as being part of
"aggregating web sites and news feeds"?

Correct.

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article ,
says...
In article . net, Java
Man wrote:

I hope you didn't Google for that! ;-)

No, Mac OS X comes with a built-in dictionary application as well as
the ablity to look up words on the fly.

IOW, you don't include processing aggregated content as being part of
"aggregating web sites and news feeds"?

Correct.

Your literary parsimony is noted.

I hope you're also boycotting products produced in China, just to be
consistent.

Rick

In article . net, Java
Man wrote:

I hope you're also boycotting products produced in China, just to be
consistent.

In fact, yes. There are a number of countries that I refuse to buy
from, and some whose products I actively seek out.

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

Java Man wrote:

I hope you're also boycotting products produced in China, just to
be consistent.


You know, I've talked to people about that. On the one hand, they are
quick to explain all the reasons why Made in China is "bad". But then
they toddle their asses down to Walmart et al and proceed to buy
cartloads of stuff made in China and all those other bad places.

Interestingly, when confronted with such obvious hypocrisy, they
present the most convienent rationalizations... usually one of the
following...

a) Since all our "good jobs" have gone overseas to places like China,
we have hardly any money and have no choice but to buy the cheap items
made in China.

b) Since so much is made overseas, we hardly have any Made in the USA
products to choose from so we have no choice but to buy items made in
China.

It's always refreshing to see that blaming everyone but yourself never
goes out of fashion.

Joe Barta

In article , Joe Barta
wrote:

You know, I've talked to people about that. On the one hand, they are
quick to explain all the reasons why Made in China is "bad". But then
they toddle their asses down to Walmart et al and proceed to buy
cartloads of stuff made in China and all those other bad places.

At Christmas time this year, our local Co-op grocery store had Mandarin
oranges from both China and Japan, with the Chinese oranges selling for
$1.50 less per box.

I picked up a box of the Japanese oranges and was putting it in my cart
when an elderly gentleman asked "What's the difference, that you're
buying the more expensive box?"

I replied "Japan has a functioning democracy."

He raised his eyebrows, nodded, and went for the Japanese product as
well.

One box of oranges at a time...

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

Dave Balderstone wrote:
At Christmas time this year, our local Co-op grocery store had Mandarin
oranges from both China and Japan, with the Chinese oranges selling for
$1.50 less per box.

I picked up a box of the Japanese oranges and was putting it in my cart
when an elderly gentleman asked "What's the difference, that you're
buying the more expensive box?"

I replied "Japan has a functioning democracy."

He raised his eyebrows, nodded, and went for the Japanese product as
well.

One box of oranges at a time...

http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/googleaction?

In article ,
says...
Java Man wrote:

I hope you're also boycotting products produced in China, just to
be consistent.


You know, I've talked to people about that. On the one hand, they are
quick to explain all the reasons why Made in China is "bad". But then
they toddle their asses down to Walmart et al and proceed to buy
cartloads of stuff made in China and all those other bad places.

Interestingly, when confronted with such obvious hypocrisy, they
present the most convienent rationalizations... usually one of the
following...

a) Since all our "good jobs" have gone overseas to places like China,
we have hardly any money and have no choice but to buy the cheap items
made in China.

b) Since so much is made overseas, we hardly have any Made in the USA
products to choose from so we have no choice but to buy items made in
China.

It's always refreshing to see that blaming everyone but yourself never
goes out of fashion.

I was once in the "Don't buy from China -- ever!" camp because I thought
that to do so would support a repressive regime. But in 1997, I got to
tour a Chinese factory and communicate (through an interpreter I trust)
with employees when the bosses weren't around. My eventual conclusion
was that capitalism is more likely to accelerate China's evolution to a
democracy than to perpetuate the Chinese Communist Party.

Rick

Java Man wrote:

My eventual conclusion was that capitalism is more likely
to accelerate China's evolution to a democracy than to perpetuate
the Chinese Communist Party.

I'd say that's the hope and I agree. But there's a little man in my
head that does wonder sometimes if something unforseen and terrible
could come out of a really big and really rich communist/capitalist
hybrid with 1.3 billion people.

Joe Barta

In article ,
says...
But there's a little man in my
head that does wonder sometimes if something unforseen and terrible
could come out of a really big and really rich communist/capitalist
hybrid with 1.3 billion people.

Absolutely! But it won't be solved by chiding people to boycott Google
or to stop buying Chinese products at Wal-Mart. No matter how strongly
the case against buying from China is made, people will continue to buy
at record rates.

Doing something about it requires the US policy makers to recognize that
the country is sleepwalking into disaster, and must make smart and tough
changes to head it off.

To me, the biggest problem is that the government and consumers are
spending the US into debt at an unsustainable rate, and enriching China
every step of the way.

1) The US administration is spending more than it collects in taxes, and
borrowing from China (and others) to finance deficits.

2) The US-China trade deficit is gargantuan! American consumers are
buying goods at a record pace from China, financing the growth of
China's manufacturing and military might. Basically, the USA is paying
the Chinese to overtake it.

It has often been observed that native Americans gave away their land to
sharp European traders for a few beads and trinkets. This looks like
the 21st century version of the same game, only this time, the Chinese
are the sharp traders.

Google censorship and buying Chinese goods at Wal-Mart are irrelevant
distractions compared to this. What's needed is BIG, across-the-board
changes to government policy. IMHO, a smart and gutsy 2nd term US
President would be addressing this problem now, not waiting until
everyone and his dog thinks it's serious. But since the needed changes
would require pain and sacrifice, the ruling party (whether R or D)
won't act until they think it will help them win the next election, so I
wouldn't bet on anything much happening until it's too late. This is
the major weakness of democracy -- we don't respond to problems until
they balloon into crises. China doesn't have that problem.


Rick

In article . net, Java
Man wrote:

Doing something about it requires the US policy makers to recognize that
the country is sleepwalking into disaster, and must make smart and tough
changes to head it off.

So the US is the only country that can do anything?

What arrogance...

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

Java Man wrote:

says...
But there's a little man in my
head that does wonder sometimes if something unforseen and
terrible could come out of a really big and really rich
communist/capitalist hybrid with 1.3 billion people.

Absolutely!

Do you have any thoughts on how this thing might play out? What are
the dangers? What are the concerns?

Joe Barta

Joe Barta wrote:

Do you have any thoughts on how this thing might play out? What are
the dangers? What are the concerns?

Joe Barta

Hummm, as one who's salary is effectively paid by the chinese students
who attend the university where I work I can only comment:
Probably when an experiment, for which there is no risk assessment,
using bio-hazardous materials, gos wrong and something really nasty
escapes.....

In article ,
says...
In article . net, Java
Man wrote:

Doing something about it requires the US policy makers to recognize that
the country is sleepwalking into disaster, and must make smart and tough
changes to head it off.

So the US is the only country that can do anything?

What arrogance...

What arrogance?

Rick

In article ,
says...
Java Man wrote:

says...
But there's a little man in my
head that does wonder sometimes if something unforseen and
terrible could come out of a really big and really rich
communist/capitalist hybrid with 1.3 billion people.

Absolutely!

Do you have any thoughts on how this thing might play out? What are
the dangers? What are the concerns?

There are so many possibilities that I don't know where to start. But
having a totalitarian state with as much economic and military might as
the US isn't an inviting scenario to me.

Rick

Java Man wrote:

In article ,
says...
Java Man wrote:

says...
But there's a little man in my
head that does wonder sometimes if something unforseen and
terrible could come out of a really big and really rich
communist/capitalist hybrid with 1.3 billion people.

Absolutely!

Do you have any thoughts on how this thing might play out? What
are the dangers? What are the concerns?

There are so many possibilities that I don't know where to start.

Then surely you could start somewhere?

But having a totalitarian state with as much economic and military
might as the US isn't an inviting scenario to me.

You're more or less restating my point. Beyond that, I'd be interested
to hear some realistic thoughts on how it might play out.

Joe Barta