Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Yes and no. But mostly yes. (Score 1) 305

For the last 40 years, china has been at work destroying manufacturing foreign nations (which is a big part of why they are the world's worst polluter of all times).
They are somewhat copying Japan's and S. Korea's approach to their build-ups. Basically, high tariffs, heavy subsidies, then once up to par or better then others, heavy exports after dropping subsidies. The difference is that when China gets to the last part, they continue to subsidize, and the government makes heavy use of controlling the companies exports, manufacturing capabilities, etc. which are then dumped so as to destroy foreign, esp. western, industries. Steel is just one of many.

What is needed is for nations to say enough is enough and to raise strong tariffs or even block ALL imported items from China that are being dumped. For example, nations really should block ALL metals that China is trying to import directly or indirectly. Likewise, I was surprised that Biden was stupid enough to relax the PV imports from Chinese companies that simply moved to Viet Nam and other Asian nations on moderate terms with China. All of that needs to be 100% blocked.
Likewise, the batteries need a growing tariff, and to block them from manufacturing in the west, if not other nations esp with their dirty/corrupt supplies ( most of the child labor issues and low pay comes from Chinese-owned mines; this is why China and Russia are pushing coups in Africa ).

Comment Re:Makes sense (Score 2) 86

"at least it's real (leftists) talking about things (leftists) care about"

FTFY.

The only place you might be able to speak your mind for a moment before getting banned without appeal or explanation is r/unpopularopinion and even that is only a brief respite from the compulsory doctrinal lockstep. r/NeutralPolitics isn't bad either.

I mean, to be fair Reddit DOES fully align with Google's goals politically so them regurgitating each other would be on-brand.

Comment Huh. (Score 1) 116

Maybe it wasn't such a great idea to literally connect every fucking thing to the internet with tissue paper systems that were known to be blatantly insecure?

No, no, you just go ahead and connect your refrigerator, toaster, coffee machine, and front door lock to the internet for "convenience", safe in the assumption that your government is doing exactly the same thing for critical infrastructure for "reasons" that have more to do with not losing allocated budgets than any actual value.

Comment Re:Slashdot doom and gloom (Score 1, Insightful) 35

FOMO and idiots overwhelm what I would say was a reasonable prediction of how informed consumers would behave. The error here was in assuming consumers were faintly aware of their own self-interest and still retained some ability to defer gratification.

The fact is, despite people bitching constantly about not having enough money, too high of rent, and having miserable lives never able to make ends meet, they still cheerfully drop $20/mo to six different subscription services to watch movies on their $1200 phone and buy a $8 latte every morning with a credit card that is nearly maxed out.

Don't blame /.'s "unrelenting upmoderrated pessimism" for getting it wrong; in fact, I'd argue that /. posters weren't cynical enough. /. to recognize that common sense is truly dead and that the sheeple who formerly skated for free on Netflix would cheerfully and instantly buy their own account, guaranteeing that every other service is now going to implement draconian sharing-policies because it's clearly the route to big profits.

Comment Re:Oppose any new laws (Score 1) 54

This is why we need to pass a SIMPLE amendment:
We, the Citizens of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, shall have the right to amend the constitution directly, by having a simple majority of voters of three fourths of the states OR two thirds of voters in two thirds of the states, within a 10 year period of the first state passing the amendment.

A simple amendment like that would allow us to fix a large number of issues that CONgress will not do. Why will they not do it? Because they are controlled by 2 horribly corrupt parties that are controlled by rich ppl, businesses, and even foreign governments. We need to take back our government.

Comment Re:mostly fascist (Score 1) 54

????
WTF does your second url have to do with ANY of this? 2 criminals were illegally stopped, but not due to any information from above.

Fusion centers? Are you talking about information moving from local LEOs up to the FBI and DNI??
Personally, I would prefer that information to go to DNI et. al, and not FBI, but that is for judges to decide. Even if the information flows downwards, I am good with that, AS LONG as it was legally obtained and is applicable to the situation. For example, NSA did NOT tap into to Trump's calls. OTOH, they DO tap various Russian calls, of which obviously a number of trump calls BEFORE he made president was done (this is why NSA objected to giving him, his family, and certain members of his admin access to intel, but esp. to Russian intel). If NSA had learned that Trump was getting marching orders from putin to sell fentanyl on the street, that should not be allowed to be sent down. Why not? Because this is not about terrorism/spying, it is about a criminal charge, which is where NSA is NOT concerned. However, I do not know if such information IS flowing downwards. I would hope not.

Comment Re:mostly fascist (Score 1) 54

So, you do not think that NSA, DIA, etc should have the ability to know as much about Americans as China and Russia legally do?
Why is that? If you had paid attention to Snowden the ILLEGAL spying that was going on, was NOT from NSA iteself, but from individuals in there using gear that was only meant to go after terrorists, spies, etc. but instead using it on their own families/friends.

And there is a lot less sharing of information in the 5Is than you realize. To ask one of the others means that you generally have to show some sort of reason for it. Not a warrant, but certainly not the wild sharing that you seem to think is going on.

Comment context missing (Score 2) 202

What I read (between the lines, since the actual lines don't fucking explain):

- they were getting divorced anyway (both the husband and wife have different teams of lawyers)
- someone at the wife's law firm clicked basically "ok let's call this marriage done" in some online portal
- the husbands lawyers didn't see anything wrong with that
- the judge said "okey dokey, you're divorced"
- the wife's lawyers said "wait! No! We want to undo that"
- the judge said basically that the court had followed the procedures it was supposed to, and if the wife was angry, she should file against her law firm

My inference is: very wealthy couple getting a divorce, arguing over how much she should get. Her law firm accidentally said "ok we're satisfied close this case" and his lawyers instantly agree.

So yeah, her law firm is upset because now not only are they not getting a fat % of the overly optimistic alimony they probably claimed they could get for her, they absolutely are legally exposed to get sued for that full amount themselves.

The hilarious result would be if his law firm helps her sue them. Even funnier if he pays for it.

Slashdot Top Deals

New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman

Working...