This is rubbish. China has more slaves than US has prisoners.

The US has very few prisons which operate as factories. Nearly all that do, pay wages. These prisons are usually more desirable for prisoners because it allows them learn skills and to bank money while incarcerated. China just has forced labor, no pay. They call it "re-education".

There are a lot of sources. The one is quite credible credible: http://www.globalslaveryindex....

The global slavery index only includes people that are known to be slaves. This doesn't include the mass amounts of dormitory employees that, due to economic conditions manufactured by the government, work for nearly nothing and can't afford to live outside their factory camps.

So you are saying that slave labor is OK because China's economy isn't as big as the US and EU?

Have you been to China and seen what those factories look like? They too have automated systems, its just the people setting it up are working below US minimum wage. China can get people to work far cheaper. The Chinese can duplicate just about anything designed and built in the US or anywhere else. The materials are cheaper because China has far less concern for how they treat the environment, and the supply chain also has equally cheap labor and, essentially, vertical integration.

There is no trick. It is simply a race to the bottom. And North America is being led into this race by a Communist country who for years had stated it was bent on destroying capitalist systems. We'd be best to leave China alone. Unfortunately, greed (Walmart profit margins) and some skewed dogma about "specialized labor" is making it difficult for most to see the big picture here.

I urge anyone that gets the chance to visit factories in China to take it. It really is an eye opener and will change your opinion, if you are one to think US manufacturing is safe because we "work smarter".

So you are agreeing with me, just with a side of attempted insult?

If you think this is about memory or knowledge, then you kind of missed my point: The TSA isn't necessary to stop hijackings. As you went all internet flamebait to explain, hijackings were already being stopped by the security we had. Yes I agree, that was my point.

The TSA isn't going to stop anything new. It is theater - in the most facist sense.

“It would be devastating if one of our major banks was hit, because they’re so interconnected.”

Is that NSA for "It be a shame if you had trouble with the health department in this fine establishment"?

Seriously? Aside from the obvious event that justified this nonsense, I don't remember a lot of planes getting hijacked in the US before the TSA showed up. And we didn't need the TSA to stop those 9/11 fuckers - we just needed some FBI agents to put down their donuts and respond to reports of shady characters learning to fly planes while not giving a damn about landing them. Better cockpit doors and armed pilots would also have stopped them...

Doubtful the TSA would have done much to stop the "terrorists that want to take our freedoms" on 9/11. But the TSA has gotten real good at the "take our freedoms" part.

Reminds me more of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

...Microsoft didn't share the source code?

I'm no Microsoft fan, but this is what bothering to do business with China gets us. China with its essentially a rigged economy based on something close to slave labor. The only way to compete economically with that is to become that. The cheap shit at Walmart just ain't worth it.

They aren't monopolies, just all subsidiaries of the same organization.

Can drug testing be performed through simulation and modeling? Can drugs tested on genetically engineered tissued?

This is bunk. The safety standards are dictated by federal law which is already in place.

The law instructed the Nevada DOT to "regulations authorizing the operation of autonomous vehicles on highways within the State of Nevada". And the Nevada DOT regulations have been written: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NAC...

Maybe you got Nevada confused with California. The California law has instructed the DOT to set standards by 2015. Those aren't written yet. Currently, Google in California is operating under NHTSA guidelines which allow for testing of autonomous vehicles. Why are these guidelines in place? Maybe the NHTSA realizes that autonomous cars are safer than drivers?

Nevada was first to pass the law. This is a good site on the issue of legality: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/w...

Right now, Google has special dispensation from the state to drive the Lexus SUVs. Anyone who has spent significant time on Bay Area freeways has probably seen them. But these are more or less research vehicles piloted by engineers. Deployment of a production fleet of driverless Google cars in California may be a different matter, as the state has to come up with regulations to allow for this, and that may for at least another year.

Since legalizing it, Nevada has amended their laws in such a way that makes deployment of the Google car easy. Hence all the speculation and rumor that Google may be deploying in Vegas around the next CES/LV Auto Show conventions.

Hopefully our new overloads will not be humorless automatons.

The US has had this for a while.

Nevada legalized driver less cars a couple of years ago. Google will be running an autonomous taxi service in Vegas: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tec...

The drivers will be our robot overloads (I, for one, will welcome them).

I'm shock that nobody questioned this un-cited fact for this important book about a servant and her duties. Is anyone thinking of the children? This does not bode well for our civilization.