Forgot your password?

Comment: Bet Google is glad they got out of China years ago (Score 4, Insightful) 102

by TheEyes (#47572471) Attached to: Chinese Government Probes Microsoft For Breaches of Monopoly Law

Frankly, anyone who does business in China should come to expect this. Stories abound about how Chinese companies "compete" with foreign companies in China: you wake up one day and find out half your manufacturing and IT infrastructure is "missing", some of which returns in a few weeks, and then three months later a new, Chinese-owned factory opens up down the street, making products that look exactly like yours minus the brand names and serial numbers, which just happen to have great contacts with the Chinese government so that factory ends up with all the lucrative government and commercial contracts while your company just continues to bleed money on its "China strategy".

This is just the next step, for companies like Microsoft and Apple that rely on their brand to sell product despite having government-owned knockoffs everywhere. A foreign company managing to actually compete with an honest Chinese company? Why, they must be cheating. And we will find cheating, whether or not it exists, and take what's rightfully ours, that is, anything that ever touches Chinese soil.

Comment: Re:It followed a few of the plot lines, but ... (Score 1) 726

"The crime rate has plummeted in recent decades, you know."

White collar and government criminals aren't being prosecuted, except for drug or sex crimes. It only LOOKS like the crime rate has plummeted.

Even if you look only at violent crime, crime rates have plummeted pretty much every year since the 1950s.

Comment: Re:Cue anti-union rage (Score 1) 467

by TheEyes (#44186343) Attached to: BART Strike Provides Stark Contrast To Tech's Non-Union World

Unions can't stop car companies from building cars that noone wants to buy. The decline in the auto industry has been a long, long time in coming. Only a very little of it came from union workers putting out a high quality product; most of it came from an entrenched, byzantine management structure that never caught on that there were other games in town other than the Big Three.

Comment: Re:What difference does it make? (Score 1) 274

by TheEyes (#44138313) Attached to: Immigration Bill Passes the Senate, Includes More H-1B Visas

To be clear, the "demand" is on the business side, and it's for IT workers that only make $8-10 an hour so the CEO can shave a few million off the personnel budget and buy himself another yacht. The evidence for that is crystal clear: wages are down, unemployment is up, and companies are still importing cheap labor because they "can't find qualified people".

Comment: Re:Good ... (Score 1) 1073

by TheEyes (#44116525) Attached to: Supreme Court Overturns Defense of Marriage Act

The right not to buy health insurance. The right not to buy some form of it I don't want.

The federal government has no business being able to tell me to buy something. That is not a power that it has been granted. It does not get to exceed the powers it's been granted.

If the states do something, or are allowed to do something, that has absolutely ZILCH to do with what is legal for the federal government.

Thus the problem of appalling civics education in America. You have idiots running around spreading idiocy that's a direct threat to the rule of law.

You are perfectly free to not buy health insurance, even under the new Affordable Care Act. The government, however, has the right to collect taxes to promote the general welfare, and having hospital emergency rooms that exist and are open to the public (and can't turn people away) is obviously promoting the general welfare, so the government has decided to assess a tax for people who act as deadbeats and don't buy insurance, yet still want to be part of a society where emergency rooms exist and are open to the public. If you don't want to be part of such a society, you are free to move to Somalia, where you can get the best health care you can buy.

Comment: Better idea: (Score 5, Informative) 564

by TheEyes (#44109661) Attached to: Why Engineering Freshmen Should Take Humanities Courses

Scientists should take courses on Rational Thinking. That's basically what you're after here, and it has the advantage of specifically targetting the problems you are trying to address, rather than taking the shotgun approach and trying to get every STEM student to become a Renaissance Man.

Comment: Re:Don't believe the hysterics (Score 1) 577

by TheEyes (#44109645) Attached to: Obama Reveals Climate Change Plan

I wouldn't trust a climatologist to do anything other than waste money writing papers about how much humans suck. When you read stories about "elite" climatologists making statements along the lines of universities shouldn't be giving out degrees related to climate studies to anyone who does not already agree that global warming is happening, is bad and is caused by humans, then you have to realize that nobody is actually doing research; they are only trying to find new ways to rewrite the same lies.

The theory behind the greenhouse effect is nearly two hundred years old at this point, having first been articulated in the 1820s by Joseph Fourier. Proof that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas is over 150 years old. That makes the principles behind anthropogenic climate change:

-older than Quantum Mechanics
-older than General and Special Relativity
-older than the theory of the electron
-older than the discovery of the DNA molecule
-older than the theory of evolution
-older, in many ways, than the germ theory of disease.

At this point, considering the enormous weight of theory and proof behind global warming, anyone claiming to be a climatologist who "doesn't believe in global warming" is essentially like an auto mechanic who "doesn't believe in internal combustion", or a doctor who "doesn't believe the brain is necessary for life." If you can't bring yourself to believe in scientific theories that have been proven by millions of people diligently applying the scientific method, then you shouldn't be a scientist. You should be something that does not require the application of the principles of rationality: you can be a priest, or a politician.

Or a radio host.

Comment: Re: Don't believe the hysterics (Score 1) 577

by TheEyes (#44109605) Attached to: Obama Reveals Climate Change Plan

Then why in the fuck are we entrusting a bunch of corrupt politicians to draft and vote on healthcare reform whom know absolutely nothing about the industry, nor why it's jacked up to begin with?! They didn't even read it which makes it all that more insulting!!!

Wrong thread; this is about the clusterfuck that is climate change regulation, not the clusterfuck that is healthcare reform.

But, to answer your "question" anyway: politicians used to be trusted because their expertise was in writing laws; the actual science behind those laws would be entrusted to expert research by the NSF and the CBO, etc. We're not getting that now because for the past thirty years or so we no longer have professional lawmakers in our legislature; we have professional fundraisers. Nobody in Congress even spends the majority of their time in the legislature anymore; they spend the majority of their time across the street, soliciting donations for their next campaign. They have to; these days, with all the anonymous money flooding the airwaves a campaigner has to spend insane amounts of money to even have a chance of controlling their own campaign messaging, let alone confronting an opponent's.

Comment: Re:Don't believe the hysterics (Score 4, Insightful) 577

by TheEyes (#44106095) Attached to: Obama Reveals Climate Change Plan

Why is it out of line to expect actual expertise from someone giving an expert opinion? I wouldn't trust a climatologist to fix my car; I wouldn't trust my mechanic to treat me if I were ill; and I don't expect a professional demagogue--like this radio host of yours--to be an expert at anything but demagoguery.

Comment: Re:bad time to be testing this (Score 1) 131

The landscape will look very different by year's end.

This can be said at any point since the invention of the cell phone. These are the facts as of today, and those are the ones that matter in a purchasing decision.

Most years, the networks in the U.S. don't change that much. This year is HUGE, though, and basing a purchasing decision on things right now would be a gigantic mistake.

But again, the same could be said of any year, especially in recent memory. 2011-12 was when AT&T deployed most of its LTE network; any tests done then would be unfair to AT&T. 2008-09 was Verizon's time for LTE; same there. 2013-14 is T-mobile's turn, and 2015-2017 is when the real synergy effects from the T-mobile/MetroPCS merger, when the MetroPCS spectrum will be finally integrated into the T-mobile network.

I came, I saw, I deleted all your files.