China Bans U.S. Electronic Scrap 308
ReverseC writes "Think twice before you throw that those computer parts in the garbage. Do you really know where it's going? The Guardian reports China has banned US's electronic junk." We did a previous story about the U.S. dumping electronic scrap in China.
USAF junk ? (Score:5, Funny)
Part of a Bigger Problem (Score:5, Interesting)
The new administration doesn't seem too concerned with the power of China, and that may be a grave folly. Not that this is any worse than Clinton practically getting into bed with the Chinese and selling secrets and favors, but it will be morbidly interesting to see how this potentially enormous future conflict develops.
Re:Part of a Bigger Problem (Score:2, Informative)
More tolerant than you'd think. While I was in the Navy, I saw more than a few Chinese/Russian ELINT outfitted trawlers out in SoCal. Never heard of China or Russia running airborne ELINT ops off our coast, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Re:Part of a Bigger Problem (Score:2)
The gov pumped it into a bigger issue than it otherwise would be from a press perspective.
The US gov said it was an accident and the Chinese gov says it wasn't. Unless they have evidence that we did it on purpose, they should have given the US some benefit of doubt in their press.
IOW, they are using mass media to stir frenzy, similar to how Yugoslovia turned neihbor against neihbor. They bussed in students to protest and (probably) riot. It is as if they *want* tension. It is not that different from Osama bringing up hotpoint issues and alleged conspiracies over and over again instead of emphasizing coorporation and similarities.
(* Then to ease the world's mind, we say that everyone does these things, but I do wonder how tolerant we'd be of a Chinese plane flying off the coast of California collecting data. *)
Who said they don't? (I don't think they need to since it is far easier to plant human moles in the US than the other way around.)
Re:Part of a Bigger Problem (Score:2)
I am not quite sure what you mean. Could you please clarify?
It was not a mechanical failure, but a human error.
(* USA had been very unfriendly with us since 1989. *)
Any specifics? Tienamen Square killings were inexcusable. Killing people just because they want political reform is *not* acceptable these days.
Re:USAF junk ? (Score:2)
Re:USAF junk ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Never Underestimate the power of stupid people is large groups
Yeah and you are at the forefront of that group...Once more you prove that collectively, Americans are as dumb as an Ox. Oh yeah and one more nugget for you: A recently published study said that 40% of American scientist and engineers are naturalized citizens (foreigners).
English (Score:2)
Re:Not at all (Score:2)
There's no gender in chinese either.
- complex concepts can be explained simply by connecting lots of simple words, without any form of connection between the words but a space. In other languages you have difficult forms of connection between the simple words (I'm thinking of german here).
Same as in chinese
- although there are plenty of ways to cnojugate a verb, you can cover all times with very little conjugations.
Chinese has no conjugations what so ever. No tenses either.
Chinese grammar is much simpler then english. You don't even have connecting words like 'the' or 'is' to stick in sentances. Something like "I want to go to the store" in english is "wo xiang chu shangdian" in chinese, literaly "I want go store". Much simpler.
Re:USAF junk ? (Score:2)
Re:USAF junk ? (Score:2)
Once more you prove that collectively, Americans are as dumb as an Ox
You seem to suffer from the usual "i'm not an american and all I know is that the united states is full of drug-using, enviroment destroying, waste producing, underachieving, fat, lazy, arrogant idiots" syndrome. Dude, get over yourself. Yeah america is fucked in some ways (DMCA, Bush) but so is everywhere else. I have the usual anti-america angst just like the next guy, but when I sit down and think about I ponder well, whats better. And frankly not much... yeah other places have some things better. But all in all America is just as good as anywhere else.
A recently published study said that 40% of American scientist and engineers are naturalized citizens (foreigners).
This may be one of the stupidest points I've ever heard. All I can say is "yeah so". And do you question why they came here? Maybe the scientist from India, China, Europe or wherever find America to be a much easier place to innovate and create new products. Maybe they can make more money for their families. Either way, (I suspect its a matter of both) they're here. I work with a lot of different people (IBM) and we all get along and work together. As for 40% being foreigners, well probably about 99% of that other 60% are descendants of foreigners in the last 2-6 generations. Except for Native Americans who have been here for thousands of years, most of us have roots from everywhere. And you know what? It makes us stronger as a nation. So bash america as stupid. Bash america as lazy. Bash america as egotistical. We don't care. There are some damn brilliant people over here. People fighting good causes and actually trying to make the world a better place. Our population as a whole can be slow at times, but thats the same everywhere. Anyway, I'm not going to change your mind at all... but I'm so sick of hearing this anti-america shit that I figured it was time to speak up.
-powerlinekid
No, we call taiwan the "republich of china" (Score:2)
(btw, no American would be bothered by the term "republic of california" or whatever because just calling california a seperate country wouldn't make it so)
Re:USAF junk ? (Score:2)
You did. You forced it to land.
What is your feeling when Chinese send our spy planes to California? Or Washington?
Stay in international airspace and it won't bother us a bit. The Soviets used to do it all the time. We kept an eye on them, of course, but it's not like we ever tried forcing them down and creating an international incident.
How about calling "Republic of California"?
Again, it's no big deal to us. Texas-boosters commonly refer to their state as the Republic of Texas.
Re:USAF junk ? (Score:2)
Yes. Get used to it.
But one brave Chinese did!
"Brave" isn't exactly the word I'd use. "Careless" is more like it. The guy was hotdogging; like driving two feet behind someone else's bumper - there's no time to react if the person in the other car does something you're not expecting. You can accept it or not, but your pilot would still be alive today if he'd been flying a safe distance away from the American aircraft.
And lastly, don't try to play word games here. We all know that Mr. Bush's "Republic of Taiwan" is referring to an independent country, right? Don't tell me that you don't know, even a three-year old kid kows that!
Frankly, as far as I'm concerned Taiwan is a separate country. They have a different economic system than the mainland, a modern capitalist economy, their own military, free elections, etc. And over the past fifty-plus years they've done well for themselves.
Despite the usual lip service from politicians about the desirability of reunifying China and Taiwan at some future date, the vast majority of Taiwanese I've met - particularly younger Taiwanese - have zero interest in being reunited with mainland China given the political system there. There is absolutely no way China will ever convince Taiwan to reunite except by gunpoint. China would do well to consider why that is.
Re:USAF junk ? (Score:2)
I have. We have a little thing here called a free press. Check into it sometime. And it's interesting to note that you're apparently incapable of discussing the incident without resorting to name-calling.
Just look at the result of their election in 2000, only 39% goes to Chen Shui-bian, who supports independence.
You're confusing the election results of a pro-independence candidate with a referendum on independence itself. They're not the same thing. In any event, I didn't say that a majority of Taiwanese are necessarily pro-independence, but that the vast majority of Taiwanese I've met don't want to reunite with China. There's a difference. Taiwanese are nothing if not practical - they know that an outright declaration of independence would mean war with China within a week. Personally, I suspect that the majority of Taiwanese would choose outright independence if China withdrew the threat of war, but they likely find present status quo - in which Taiwan at least runs their own affairs - acceptable for the time being, though granted, that's based purely on my gut feeling.
Think about it logically for a second. Yes, China and Taiwan have a lot in common - language, history, family ties, etc. I can understand some sentiment for reunification on that level. But as time has passed you've seen two - going on three - generations of people born on Taiwan since the late '40s who have no memory of the mainland; just stories from their parents and grandparents. Maybe they find China intriguing, or maybe they don't. But they have no direct connection with it. And this isn't even taking into account the ethnic Taiwanese who have an even longer history on the island and make up the majority of the island's population.
And incidentally, Shui-bian Chen still won that election.
In a demonstration held last Saturday, 30% of the protesters are undergraduates. They all want to be unified.
Oh please. I can look at any newspaper in the world and find accounts of demonstrations where some group wants something or another. A single demonstration isn't a particularly reliable measuring stick for judging what a population as a whole does or doesn't want.
Only 28 governments recognise it as an independent country(And all of them are very small and poor country)
True as far as it goes. But official recognition isn't terribly important in the grand scheme of things, except maybe as an ego-booster. The U.S. and several other countries refused to recognize the U.S.S.R. until the '30s, but that doesn't mean that the U.S.S.R. didn't exist until then. Or consider the history of recognition of your own country's government, for that matter. What's really important - the things that will make or break a nation-state - are trade relations, banking, investment, and things of that sort. And Taiwan has all of that in spades; none of which is subject to Chinese law.
Incidentally, are you really saying that the diplomatic recognition of a small, poor nation is less valid than that of a big, rich one? Because that's sure how it looks.
and even the constitution of TAiwan does not call Taiwan as a country, but rather a province of China.
Yeah, y'know, I've seen you mention that in several other Slashdot posts, but the constitution of Taiwan is actually the 1947 constitution that was written for all of China, at a time when the nationalists were still running both the mainland and Taiwan. The nationalists simply continued using it after they were forced off the mainland in '49; presumably because they still considered themselves the legitimate government of China. In any event, their constitution has been amended on several occasions since then (all in the 1990s, in fact), and the question of independence would be dealt with similarly. But make no mistake - the Taiwanese constitution is not immutable.
More interestingly, there was a survey conducted last year, and 60% of the citizens in Taiwan even support the "One country, two system".
A poll like this is meaningless at the point of a gun, even putting aside for a moment the fact that you don't attribute a source for the poll, the size of the population sampled, or the statistical margin of error. Withdraw the threat of invasion if Taiwan were to declare independence, then take a poll of that sort and I think you'll see some very different results.
Re:USAF junk ? (Score:2)
They never have, of course. To have done so would have been counterproductive to the nationalists' stated goal of defeating the communists and returning to power on the mainland. The fact remains that the two cultures have diverged a great deal over the past five decades, and they're not going to be growing any closer together in the coming years.
No one recognise it, and the UN did not accept it, means that it is not a LEGAL government.
Does that mean that your country's government wasn't legal until 1971 when the Chinese seat at the UN was taken from Taiwan and given to China? You can't have it both ways.
I admit that those people who was born in Taiwan may not have a memory of China. But don't neglect the power of education.
I don't, but at the same time I think you're placing too much hope there. When I was growing up in New England we were taught British history since we had originally been a British colony and we have that shared history in common. But it's not like any of my classmates were filled with a desire to be reunited with Great Britain.
The same holds true in other countries; Canada with its British and French roots. Latin America with Spanish and Portuguese origins. But an interesting thing happens: cultures split as a result of time and distance. At some point British colonists started thinking of themselves as Americans. At some point Spanish settlers realized they were Mexicans. And something like that has been happening on Taiwan for several years, with native Taiwanese and Chinese refugees (and their children) starting to think of themselves as Taiwanese in a national sense. It doesn't happen all at once, and not everyone starts thinking in those terms (there were considerable numbers of British loyalists even during our war of independence). But as the people who originally came from the mainland die off, reunification is going to seem a lot more abstract to the people on Taiwan: "Reunify with China? Why? I've never even been there. Anyway, what have they ever done for us except fire missiles around the Straits of Taiwan whenever we have an election coming up?"
Oddly enough, China's relationship with Taiwan reminds me a lot of a guy who's just never been able to get over the fact that his ex-wife broke up with him years ago. And he shows up at her house every once in while, yelling stuff up at the window like "I love you! Come back to me! You still love me - I know you do! If you don't come back to me...I'll kill you!" Which is both pathetic and scary at the same time. Trust me, you catch more flies with honey.
So you mean that people are forced to tell lies in a survey?
Not exactly, but people can feel intimidated in that kind of situation depending on how the questions are phrased and who's asking the questions. For example, imagine a poll conducted by, say, a news magazine in which the survey question is this: "Yes or no - Do you favor the creation of a national secret police force which would be answerable only to the President?" It's pretty safe to say that most people would answer "No." On the other hand, imagine that you're called at home by someone who identifies himself as working for the government and are asked this question: "Yes or no - You wouldn't be opposed the creation of a national secret police force which would be answerable only to the President, would you?" Subtly different, yet intimidating.
In any event, I took about a half-dozen statistics courses in college and part of my job has to do with statistical analysis. For that reason I'm always suspicious of surveys unless I know the source, the methodology, the sample size, and the way the questions were phrased. In the case of the independence question, that puts an additional twist on the survey since a threat of war enters into the equation.
The best proof of Taiwan is not independent come from those pro-independence guys. They held a demonstration as well last month, calling the government to annouce independence. If Taiwan is independence, do the government to annouce it again? It is the best proof that Taiwan is NOT independent because even themselves did not recognise themselves as independent.
Hair-splitting. Taiwan has never formally declared independence, and doing so would require a constitutional amendment. But, in fact, "the best proof" that Taiwan is independent is that it enjoys all the trappings of any other nation; its own laws, its own military, schools, industry, free and regular multi-party elections, and international trade (including WTO membership), none of which answers to China. As a result, Taiwan enjoys a sort of de facto independence.
Lastly about free media. That's the most interesting one. Does free media mean to tell big lies on the newspapers.
Media outlets in the U.S. have the freedom to do that, though that freedom comes with the responsibility of accepting the legal and economic consequences in the case of libel or if the paper is just flat-out making up stories. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that the press in the West is perfect. My biggest complaint is that corporate interests take priority over honest journalism more often than I'd like. But by the same token, an American reporter will likely keep his job even if he questions an official government account of some event. And even if ABC won't do a story that paints Disney in a bad light, the New York Times probably will. The fact that the press isn't government-controlled here means that a story will probably get out eventually, no matter what.
Well, for myself, I've seen many cases that western medias is not reporting the truth, or only half of the truth. The news about Taiwan and mainland is one of them. The plane incident is one. Tiananmen is one. And the attack to our embassy is yet another one.
Well, I doubt that you and I are going to agree on much about those issues. But you seem annoyed about China's treatment from both the U.S. government and the media. Fair enough. But you might want to ask yourself sometime if they might not have a point or two that's worth paying attention to.
Re:USAF junk ? (Score:2)
You're conveniently avoiding my original point. Again - Taiwan held the China seat at the UN until '71. They were recognized as the legal government of China until that time. In other words, from '49 until '71 China - your China - was in much the same position that Taiwan is in now. And yet it's clear that China didn't vanish into a black hole during that time.
My point is that you're relying far too heavily on this whole UN/legal recognition thing. Nationhood doesn't boil down to a piece of paper with an official seal on it, and nations oftentimes exist in fact before being recognized by the rest of the world. Events don't hold still just so they can be rubber-stamped by a bureaucrat.
You keep avoiding this point, so I'll say it once again: Taiwan's culture has split from China's in a number of ways over the past fifty years. They're capitalist, your country is communist (albeit a heavily modified form of communism). They have a political process with several parties where you have one. They have freedom of religion where the mainland does not. They have a relatively free press while China's is subject to state control. Most importantly, they don't take orders from Beijing. Yes, there are cultural similarities in a number of areas, but one can say the same of the US and Canada. It still doesn't mean that they should be joined at the hip. I'm sure that there's considerable sentiment for reunification, though from what I understand there are few in Taiwan who want to be part of a united China that's communist. So that leaves the status quo and independence as viable options. In any event, the final choice is up to the Taiwanese.
Then they are not independent. No country in this planet became independent even before they have annouced it.
They have a de facto independence since they're certainly not under the control of China. Heck, let Beijing try to order the arrests of a bunch of Falun Gong members and anti-communist rabble-rousers in Taipei. What's that you say? They can't? Case closed.
That's different. You learnt history of Britain like learning a foreign history. But Taiwanese taught their kids in the way that this is their own country's history. That's a major differentce.
Not really. Before independence we were British subjects from 1620 to 1776. British history up to 1776 was also our history, and it was more or less taught to us that way since their prior actions led eventually to the settlement of North America.
So now we come to a conclusion. Taiwan is a "country", but it never annouced independent, the people there refuse to believe they are living in China, but yet call themselvs Chinese. They say that htey are Taiwanese, not Chinese, but yet they are taught with Chinese history text. They are recognised only by 28 countries and not accpted by any international organisations, and yet Taiwan is a country. What an odd country it is!
Taiwan participates in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, the Asian Development Bank, the Central American Bank for Economic Integration, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the International Olympic Committee, the Wildlife Conservation Law, and the World Trade Organization. They all sure sound like international organizations to me.
An odd country it might be, but a country it is nonetheless. It's one of the world's 20 largest economies and they've built a vibrant, modern society with a standard of living comparable to many European nations. They've earned their place in the sun.
Re:USAF junk ? (Score:2)
What do you mean "discovered the problem?" You mean they didn't realize until 1971 that something on the order of 800 million people weren't recognized by the UN? C'mon, don't be disingenuous. You're more intelligent than that.
So what you mean is that if China became democratic, Taiwan became one part of China and once it is a communist country, Taiwan is not a part of it.
More or less. Taiwan doesn't take part in the day-to-day affairs of the Chinese government and the reverse is also true.
These organisations are different. They do not require its member to be an independent country. Hong Kong is the member of these organisations as well. Macau is a member of these organisations.
As are also a number of legitimate nations. In any event, you're being evasive. First you say that Taiwan belongs to no international organizations. Then, when given a list of international organizations that Taiwan does belong to, you sidestep the issue by saying that, yes, Taiwan belongs to those organizations, but that they don't count. So which is it?
They will not. Actually they are the best example of how democracy will affect one country's economy when the country is not ready. Just look at their news, there are fights between election candidates everywhere, there are news about illegal political trade everywhere.
Believe it or not, that sort of behavior isn't entirely uncommon in democracies; particularly in relatively young ones like Taiwan. It's unfortunate (though sometimes kind of funny), but not indicative of a country that's falling apart because democracy was introduced too soon.
In the past two years when the new government come to power, they have already used up the money they saved for more than fifty years. The biggest problem for Taiwan is that they have democracy before they have a strong middle class. Their economy will collapse if this kind of situation continues.
I sincerely doubt it. Admittedly, capital flight is something of a problem for the Taiwanese, but I haven't seen anything that would lead one to believe that the country's economy is in danger of imminent collapse because of it. In any event, far poorer countries than Taiwan have made democracy work, and far richer ones have managed to screw it up.
Re:USAF junk ? (Score:2)
What, it took them 22 years to reach that conclusion? For people who are supposedly pretty smart, they sure are slow learners.
They realised that the legal government of China is the People's Republic of China since 1949.
Hilarious. Listen, Taiwan would still be sitting in the China seat at the UN if Nixon and Kissinger hadn't come up with the idea of cozying up to China as a way of making the Soviets behave. The prospect of a billion or so future consumers buying western products also had a bit to do with it. But don't delude yourself with the notion that the consciences of the members of the UN were bothering them. After five years, maybe. I'd even go with ten years. But the UN ignored the PRC for 22 years because it was convenient to do so. And they've ignored the ROC for the past 31 years because it's similarly convenient to do so.
You are certainly more stupid than I think.
Tsk tsk tsk.... Namecalling again. To quote Molière, "A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation."
When I refer to "International organisations", I definitely refer to UN, WHO, and something like these. They are the organisations that require their members to be a COUNTRY. But for those you've listed, like WTO and IOC, their members need not to be a country.
But that's not what you said, is it now? Your original comment on that was "They are recognised only by 28 countries and not accpted by any international organisations[.]" You didn't qualify the definition of "international organizations." Sidestepping your original line of argument isn't a particularly effective way of conducting a debate.
I'm not sure whether Taiwan will be successful in the future. But I know they failed at the present.
How? Their standard of living is four or five times higher than on the mainland. They have a free press, free elections, freedom of religion, a healthy balance of trade, and are a center of international shipping. Doesn't sound like much of a failure to me. They're not without problems, but I could say the same of the mainland.
And for mainland China, it cannot fail a single second. It is a country with 1.3 billion. Once it collapse, the whole world will suffer. Can you image 1.3 billion people that do not anything to eat? Do USA wanna accept 1.3 billion people in starvation?
How in the world do you reach the conclusion that because I believe that Taiwan is independent (in all of the ways that are important) that I'd like to see China collapse and 1.3 billion people starve? Seriously, look back at what I've written over the past week. Believe me, I am not a fan of the PRC's system of government, but the collapse of China isn't a desirable alternative.
Indonesia is one of the example. It achieved 10 to 12% economical development in the past, but unfortunetely, it is now one of the poorest country in Asia. All thanks to democracy that comes to early.
Heh. Indonesia has a lot of problems, but too much democracy isn't one of them. It'd be more appropriate to link the country's economic problems to corruption, difficulties with their banks, a weak legal system, a huge foreign debt, and a few other problems like assorted secessionist movements. Not to mention the usual problems you'd expect when 230 million people are spread out over 6,000 or so islands.
Let's take Taiwan as an example. More than 75% voted in the presidential election. TRell me what's the number in US. In US, this number is less than 60%, sometimes even less than 50%(in France). Why? because they are "democrazy"!
I'd be the first to agree that low voter turnout is a problem in the US. Opinions as to why vary, though a few of the main theories are as follows:
1) Cynicism. The notion that all politicians are crooks and that things will be about the same no matter who's running things. A variation on this theme is that even if not all politicians are crooks, their handlers and advisors are so dependent on polls and focus groups that the real candidate is never given a chance to emerge.
2) Apathy. The notion that what the politicians are talking about has nothing to do with me, as well as the problem that really charismatic politicians who can inspire a nation the way Kennedy did are either hard to come by or when they do emerge, people are cynical about them (see #1). One of the negative effects of both Watergate and Bill Clinton's presidency on American politics was that it's easier to not get your hopes up than to actually be enthused about a candidate and end up feeling disappointed and betrayed in the end.
3) Disenfranchisement. The feeling on the part of some voters (usually those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder) that their vote really doesn't matter, and, in fact, that there are those in power who would be altogether happier if they didn't vote at all.
There's a certain amount of sour grapes at play in any of these reasons, and particularly in #3: "My guy didn't win, so somehow the system was set up against him." And there might also be some truth to all three reasons.
Re:USAF junk ? (Score:2)
China [king5.com] is [bayarea.com] polluting [chicagotribune.com] the [sciencenews.org] USA [nwsource.com] soil [cnn.com]. Actually, a lot of the pollution is their soil. Fortunately, they have a large population to reduce the pollution per capita.
Re:USAF junk ? (Score:2, Informative)
But then, this isn't the first time the U.S. has thrown itself in over its head and had to demand that prisoners be released. Remember that little incident in Bosnia? There was a little tiff brewing in Bosnia where U.S. soldiers had been stationed that hardly got media play. If it did, it was always the last or next to last story on the news, coming just after the local story about the kitten being rescued from a tree. While on a training mission, traveling in Hummers, some soldiers accidentally crossed the border by several miles. When they did, they were captured. Suddenly it was the top story, and U.S. officials were practically calling for blood. The sentiment was "How DARE you capture and detain our soldiers who were illegally trespassing on your soil?!" Bosnian officials said that they were pondering trying these doughboys for their crime. Under the threat of harsh U.S. aggression, they were finally released and allowed to return home. The point here is that is was a non-story for Americans until 3 American soldiers were captured. Little did it matter that Bosnian civilians were dying daily from U.S. bombing missions that were hitting civilian marketplaces, and at one point, the Chinese Embassy. Its this kind of blind, stupid patriotism that gets us into trouble with the world community, and makes even our allies hesitate before hopping into military operations with us.
Re:USAF junk ? (Score:5, Interesting)
The real problem here is that strong-arming smaller countries makes us look worse every day to the world community. I constantly hear talk on the major news sources about Muslims hating us because of our extravagant lifestyle, and that may play some small part, but the real cause for their anger is the things we do that meddle in other countries' politics. I heard an interview on Pacifica with a Palestinian girl who said that she went out for a walk one day after a vicious Israeli attack, and she found a fragment of a missile with USA stamped on the side. Sometimes we supply a rebel group or government with weapons and it works out well for us, but far more often, as was the case with supplying Israel and other Arab enemies, we end up with skyscrapers acting as landing strips. Not that I condone those terrorist acts, but Osama bin Laden would not have NEARLY the popularity in the Arab community with regular people if we weren't meddling, and we wouldn't have dead civilians.
Still don't believe the trouble we cause for ourselves? Consider Cuba. It used to be a resort with gambling and beautiful beaches and hotels. Then someone in U.S. foreign policy decided that we didn't like the government that housed it, and the United States government armed a young revolutionary named... can you guess? Fidel Castro. Shortly thereafter, Castro overthrows the government, establishes communist rule, and points medium range ICBM's at us.
Or perhaps something a little more modern? In the 70's Russia had a border dispute with Afghanistan and decided to invade. There was a group of fighters known as the mujahadeen who was trying unsuccessfully to fight off the more experienced Russian troops. Lo and behold, the United States forks over some heavy duty weapons, and Russia spends 10 years of failure trying to penetrate Afghanistan. High in the ranks of these mujahadeen is a now heavily armed man named Osama bin Laden. Oops.
You asked my point. I suppose its that we would be wise to take a far more isolationist view in our foreign policy and stop letting other countries' troops fight wars that are in our interest.
Now that's funny (Score:2)
I've got a good idea where it goes. (Score:3, Informative)
"Think twice before you throw that those computer parts in the garbage. Do you really know where it's going?"
Why yes, yes I do.
If I put it in the trash it goes to a dump.
If I take it to a recycle center it is more likely to be shipped to China.
just where *do* we take them? (Score:3, Interesting)
Where *are* we supposed to take it? It is harder to get rid of an old PC than it is to get a new one.
Nobody wants them. Sometimes there are public funded events to pick them up, but you have to go out of your way to find them, and they don't happen very often.
Although I hate taxes, one interesting idea is a disposal tax on each machine or motherboard sold to pay for collection and disposal costs. It is kind of like the aluminum can tax in some states. It generally works.
Re:just where *do* we take them? (Score:2)
But a new machine might be 10+ times more powerful than an old one. It is probably a lot more cost-effective to babysit 10 newer machines instead of 100 old ones. Plus, the 10x electricity costs one would be dealing with. And the rent costs, and nags from your wife/room-mate/land-lord.
Re:just where *do* we take them? (Score:2)
You seem to be reaffirming the original claim. It will cost money and runaround time to demand such conditions. They will likely tack on the disposal effort to the total price. I doubt it will be the "lowest bidder" who is the most recycle-friendly.
toxic junk (Score:3, Insightful)
Christ, I just said I wish we were as proactive as China. Has hell frozen over or something?
Re:toxic junk (Score:3, Interesting)
No it won't. In the next couple decades molecular nanotechnology will be quite mature.
Once we have the ability to build things molecule-by-molecule (pollution-free), that would imply we'll also have the easier ability to take things apart and sort then store the basic molecular building blocks for later reuse.
The ultimate in clean recyclability isn't that far off...
<futurist>Your home 'trashcan' in 2030 will probably be more like a compost heap on speed, with pipes carrying away the constituent molecules into a future "feedstock grid"</futurist>
Sorry for going off on a tangent... I can't help myself sometimes. :)
--
Technofix will cure everything (was Re:toxic junk) (Score:4, Insightful)
Technofix.
When I was a kid, people built nuclear power stations. 'Don't worry', they said, 'in the next couple of decades nuclear reprocessing technology will be quite mature'. Now it's time to pull the bloody things down, and still no-one has come up with a safe solution to the waste problem. But never mind. Tachnology will fix everything. It's just around the corner.
And there will be jam for tea tomorrow.
Re:Technofix will cure everything (was Re:toxic ju (Score:2)
Well, since you bring it up, there is a much better solution to handling nuclear waste than simply burying it in limestone, and better even than placing it near subduction zones in the ocean and waiting for the Earth to gobble it up.
What is this "unrealistic" technofix you ask? geopolymerization -- we bind the liquid/solid waste in micron-sized "cages" which taken as a whole is like synthetic rock. It's many times safer than current containment; safe enough even to put on a playground (unless you completely pulverize the thing). Break a conventional waste container and it's game over; break the rock and you only release minute quanities from the cages shattered near the breakline.
Glad to meet you Pessimist. I'm an Optimist. Balance the two of us and we get Reality eventually.
--
Re:toxic junk (Score:2)
Here's how you make bad predictions (from UTF [foresight.org]):
--
China bans toxic American computer junk (Score:1, Informative)
Beijing has announced a clampdown on the import of electronic junk from the US and other developed countries which is being stripped by Chinese peasants in primitive and dangerous conditions.
The ban follows an outcry by western environmental groups and in the Chinese press about reports that young children are employed to smash up computers and that local water supplies have been poisoned by toxic waste.
A new list of banned items will include "TV sets, computers, Xerox machines, video cameras and telephones", according to the national environment agency.
Visitors to villages near Guiyu town in the southern province of Guangdong have seen printed circuit boards and other junk"cooked" over open fires to extract valuable metals.
One Chinese reporter saw a four-year old girl prising copper coils out of shattered components. "Completely unprotected, without even basic safety goggles, the girls pound away and laugh as bits of metal and plastic fly."
In Beilin village, the reporter noted, women armed with pliers worked in front of small furnaces "to retrieve chips from circuit boards immersed in pools of molten solder".
Raising fears that China was becoming a "dumping ground" for electronic junk, the country's environment agency said this week that police would crack down on "the smuggling of dangerous wastes". However, it appeared to leave a loophole by saying that if "proper methods" were used, the environment need not be harmed.
The trade in so-called e-waste in Guangdong has persisted in spite of claims last year that the provincial government was taking effective action.
Local dealers say they suspended work while inspections were being made, and residents claim that police officials have been paid off.
A Shanghai reporter who visited the Guiyu area under cover was threatened with violence when local bosses discovered his identity. Earlier one of the bosses had told him that the local water was so polluted "that our faces come out in scabs if we wash in it".
Villagers say they know the health risks but have no alternative because the financial yield from farming is so low. In any case the land is now too poisoned to grow crops.
The environmental groups Basel Action Network and Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition said in a report this year that up to 80% of electronic waste from the US was shipped to countries in Asia including India, Pakistan and China.
The report cites three reasons why so much waste is exported from the US: labour costs in Asia are very low, environmental and occupational codes are poorly enforced, and US law does not impose any controls on such exports.
The US is the only industrialised country to have failed to ratify the 1989 UN Basel convention which calls for a total ban on the export of hazardous waste.
Most e-waste in Guiyu comes from the US with smaller amounts from Japan, South Korea and Europe. The report describes how printer cartridges are ripped apart to extract toner and aluminium, and cathode-ray tubes are hammered open for their copper yokes.
Because of ground water pollution, drinking water has to be trucked in. Irrigation canals have been filled with broken monitor glass laden with lead, and plastic e-waste.
Chinese press accounts suggest that up to 100,000 people may be employed in processing e-waste in Guiyu. Hundreds of truck journeys every day bring in supplies from the port of Nanhai - close to the provincial capital of Guangzhou - where the waste arrives in container loads.
Some operations were halted after earlier revelations in the Hong Kong press, and tougher controls are expected after the new ban. Even if these are effective the problems of resulting unemployment and land contamination remain to be tackled.
Don't throw it in the trash (Score:1, Funny)
It's kind of like throwing out old furniture. You know someone will drive past it and wonder why it's being thrown away, and then they pick it up and take it home.
Re:Don't throw it in the trash (Score:2, Funny)
Put a sign that says "$100" on it and it'll be gone in two minutes.
Re:Don't throw it in the trash (Score:2)
Re:Don't throw it in the trash (Score:2)
I don't know about that. It seems NASA might have use for them:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/29/212220 &mode=thread&tid=160 [slashdot.org]
There has got to be a way to break this shit down (Score:2)
Of course, the above suggestions are useless, but how much effort has actually been put into figuring this problem out anyway?
END COMMUNICATION
There is (Score:2, Interesting)
The trick is to make manufacturers design this possibility into the products. There is little point to know how to take care of the different materials if you can't separate them cleanly, or if you can't identify the material. In the EU, car manufacturers (and by and by, other product manufacturers) have to take disposal into account, by considering disassembly, marking materials with a material code and so on.
/Janne
Can't break down heavy metals (Score:3, Interesting)
It is potentially possible to extract and reuse them however, although doing this probably involves taking recycling (and preferably the cost of recycling) into account when designing the computer.
Re:Can't break down heavy metals (Score:2)
If you think about it, mercury and lead come from *somewhere*. We are not creating *more* of it than already existed on the planet. Only nova's can do that (so far).
Therefore, the solution appears to be to put it back where it came from, the ground.
Besides, it is usually much more cost effective to simply burry it in the desert. Somebody estimated that the total hard-to-recycle waste of the US for the next 200 years could fit into an area roughly about 40 x 40 x 0.5 miles in the desert. I don't remember the exact numbers, but there is plenty of land just sitting there doing nothing.
Maybe in 2000 years we will find a cheap way to lunch it toward the Sun or something.
Anyhow, it came from the ground, so lets simply put it back in the ground. Nobody complained about it before it was dug up. So put it back in a place similar to where it came from.
Re:Can't break down heavy metals (Score:2)
You seem to be suggesting that 1 + 1 = 5
If you mean that the *concentration* was originally more diluted, then dilute the scrap. Grind it up.
I intuitively feel that my suggestion is probably impractical somehow, but I have yet to figure out exactly why. The math seems right.
Re:Can't break down heavy metals (Score:2)
A lot of the stuff that is mined is found in what are naturally quite inaccessible forms such as ores in rocks, which is unlikely to get into the rest of the environment on its own. Concentrations exist because they are trapped where they are relatively stable, otherwise they would have already been scattered.
We come along and extract the stuff by crushing the rocks and refining the ore (quite often doing a considerable amount of damage such as open cast mining in the process).
Having done this, there is no way of 'putting it back' as we can't go and embed it back where it was found. We don't seem to be able to create containment that doesn't leak (or perhaps we just don't want to afford to).
Re:Can't break down heavy metals (Score:2)
Okay, so I think what you are saying is that it is *chemically merged* with other compounds in its original source such that it is less likely to seep into the water supply or air.
Okay, that makes sense.
And, I suppose it might be cheaper to recycle than to "re-merge" it into its original form.
Thanks.
Re:Can't break down heavy metals (Score:2)
Okay that makes sense.
Now, what if the residents had to pay a fee to have the original stuff mined out, since miners are removing it from their drinking water source etc.
Then that same money could be used to recycle the stuff later.
Somehow, I don't think that will work either.
Okay then, dig a big hole in the Earth and dump it into the molten core.
Re:Can't break down heavy metals (Score:2)
Oh, Oh, I know, I know! We could burn them and mix them up with dirt and send them to big holew in the ground, such as abandoned lead mines, then mine them again. Then again, we could just smelt the solder, mix it wit some rosin and roll it up on spools.
Re:There has got to be a way to break this shit do (Score:2)
Squalor (Score:2)
Re:Squalor (Score:2)
Oh yeah, like that time the Boy Scouts caught Mr. Burns playing "hide the ooze..."
Re:There has got to be a way to break this shit do (Score:2)
There's still plenty of uses for mercury and lead, so it would be nice if it were recycled too. I don't know how cost-effective that is, though.
question (Score:5, Funny)
Computer Garbage (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean if they were trying to block old 486's from coming in, why don't they let them in and build a Beowulf parallel tasking computer that would rival that of NASA's supercomputers.
Or perhaps this is just china trying to say 'we don't need the USA. The USA needs us. We are in control' as china is shipping us tons and tons of computer parts, and etc that will be 'junk' within the year.
If you don't try, you will never gain the opportunity to fail.
Medevo
Re:Computer Garbage (Score:2)
Where? If you're paying that much for electricity, you're getting ass-raped. I'd figure that $0.10/kWh or less would be a bit more typical. (I'm paying about $0.08/kWh, and that's after substantial rate increases.)
don't we... (Score:3, Interesting)
US ban China Junk (Score:3, Funny)
Should I feel bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Should I feel bad? (Score:4, Interesting)
Obviously somebody is picking up this scrap. Somebody else in China accepts it.
I fail to understand, though, how this process can possibly be profitable for anybody! Even to paying somebody 5 cents an hour to pick copper coils off circuit boards would probably yield less profit from raw copper than I would be paying for labour!
Semiconductors pulled from PC boards have no value because they are far too unreliable to be re-used in production.
Since the 1980's, there is too little solder used on circuit boards to be of any value.
Big transformers are worth money, but it is impossible to visually tell how they are wound, so there would be a great deal of trial and error in just getting the damn things to work in anything.
Switches and pots also have reliability issues, and even switches in perfect condition generally have size issues that prevent them from being used in anything.
Computer cases contain a significant amount of recoverable metals, but they are large and heavy, so there would be little point in shipping them overseas when you could make more money by recycling them here in North America. After all somebody in China would have to make money from this, as well as somebody in North America...
Is it just me or does this just whole thing seem like an impossible business model?
Impossible? Nah.. (Score:2)
Trans-Pacific shipping costs -- not an issue (Score:2)
Dunno about now, but in the 1980s, the majority of steel construction beams used in the U.S. were made in Japan (and ALL of the lightweight beams were from Japan). Where did the Japanese plants get the raw materials? The U.S. shipped crushed automobiles to Japan, where they were melted down and molded into construction beams suitable for export (considering steelworkers union wages, this was quite cost-effective compared to domestically-produced steel).
If you've ever drilled thru an I-beam and found there are hard and soft spots, that's a direct side effect of the haphazard nature of recycled steel. (The things you learn when you build your own flatbed trailer from scratch..)
Shipping via a slow freight boat is pretty cheap, so that's not an issue.
Re:Should I feel bad? (Score:2)
Dumping waste in China, NAFTA, Sweatshops in Asia and everone just looks the other way, claiming ignorance.
"Sure we recieve a device (that takes hours to assemble) for a few cents above the cost of materials, but we had no reason to believe workers were being exploited."
"Sure were sending tons of junk to China, but we had no idea that Chinese citizens would be harmed by it."
I believe the Bad Religion song American Jesus [rockmagic.net] sums it up nicely:
Attention all Space-Cadets... (Score:2)
"Beijing has announced a clampdown on the import of electronic junk from the US and other developed countries..."
No chance yours could be one of those now, is there? Riiiighhht....
Re:Should I feel bad? (Score:2)
why not? that's like not feeling sorry for a slave whose "master" is an idiot. I think this even holds true in a democracy because it doesn't matter what the system is called, only it's empirical real-world performance. How does/is it run? If it runs in a way that the people in the country don't effectively choose who "runs the country" to any degree of control, pointing out their tools of control is a good help, but doesn't make them actually free or in control of their idiot rulers. Under multiple choice republican democracy (aka. representative democracy) each party controls the nomination, they are limited to party members on the one hand, and more or less hand picked on the other. So whatever basic beliefs the viable parties (whom are the effective parties) hold in common, is removed from the choices. To use a mathematical analogy, it's as if you have a vector that can go in any direction except negative-x-ward leaving whole quadrants unexplorable.
In contrast to this is direct democracy, where, for example, everyone votes direclty on the things that the congress would normally vote on, Bills, agenda, all of that.
Hear hear!! (Score:2)
This comment makes NO SENSE! If a country is run by idiots, that's all the MORE reason to feel sorry for its inhabitants!
Unless, of course, you're suggesting that any country whose gov't you don't like is also automatically populated by idiots. (See note about democracy above.)
What?! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What?! (Score:5, Funny)
I doubt you are married.
Simple solution... (Score:5, Funny)
The New Slashdot ... (Score:4, Funny)
First Kyoto, then this. Next we'll see that Richard Stallman's talks contribute to global warming.
Re:The New Slashdot ... (Score:2)
Re:The New Slashdot ... (Score:2)
I still don't see the link between the two environmental stories and nerds.
Recycling (Score:2, Interesting)
If electronic circuit board manufacturers used a plastic that was reasonably solid for, then so long as the board doesn't get soaked in water (which most boards aren't, right), then it'll stay together. If these boards are soaked in water, or if they are left in the open to get rained on or be buryed, then they will decompose.
This would also make it easy to recover metals from an electronic board by simply soaking it in a solution of some kind to disolve the plastic away from the metals.
The solutions are there, they just need someone with enough courage to take them on!
-JB
Re:Recycling (Score:2)
Current PC board assembly techniques subject the base material to stuff a lot more harsh than water. Laminate, etch, mask, flux, solder, and wash processes all involve either water-based baths or chemicals that are a lot better solvent than water.
The processes have improved greatly in recent years, and the worst of the harshest stuff (Carbon Tetrachloride and fluorocarbon solvents) are almost nonexistent. The trend has been very much away from the "nasty" chemicals and towards water, in fact.
Re:Recycling (Score:2)
Re:Recycling (Score:2)
Well... (Score:2)
Being an American (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Being an American (Score:2)
I am curious. What country *do* you wish to be a member of?
Where is this superb place? I am packing my bags and ready to hop in a plane to go there. I am only awaiting for you to give me the name (and maybe a little research to check your claims).
(* On the bright side I'm not a breeder so I don't have to worry... *)
Well, I am, and I will make sure my kids turn out to be aholes, just like me. You are leaving nobody to counter them.
Re:Being a Canadian (Score:2)
...err... Canada? *)
Go there. Beat it!
BTW, Canada is not signif different than the US. Osama would also flatten Canada if given a chance. He just goes after the more iconic targets first.
Re:form an Uber-country (Score:2)
Does that "better" include a 70% tax rate and double the unemployment?
If Chinese companies want to buy scrap and re-process it, that is their perogative. If their gov mis-manages it, why should we be the blame?
The US is the biggest scapegoat on the planet. When other country governments are in hot water with their citizens, the first thing they do is blame it on the US to distract attention from their own greed and stupidity.
I would rather save our "meddling power" for something more important.
Re:form an Uber-country (Score:2)
If you sell guns, you know that a certain percentage are going to be used for murder. Does this make gun sellers "guilty"?
(* But this doesn't mean we should knee-jerk to justify everything the US leadership do. Rather, it means that we should view them, like any other government, with a critical eye *)
I agree, but this is not a significant issue IMO. It is not the US gov's job to monitor businesses inside OTHER countries. We have enuf issues in our own country to worry about.
China is a relatively powerful and well-off country these days. If they can't or don't solve their own problems, then I find them the guilty party. If it was some war-torn rag tag country barely surviving, then I might have more sympethy.
(* did you know that if you are a Chinese national involved in any way in the administration of forced abortions, your immigration application is essentially screwed *)
Immigration filters like this is an issue *in* the US. You are comparing apples to oranges. IOW, it is our problem because they are coming to US soil at that point.
Other peoples junk... (Score:5, Interesting)
"Beijing has announced a clampdown on the import of electronic junk from the US and other developed countries which is being stripped by Chinese peasants in primitive and dangerous conditions."
Ladies and gentlemen, free entrerprise has come to China in a form they probably least expected. Beyond the "poor little girl poking her fingers in glass" and and "people washing in scab producing water" sypathy routine, I notice there is scarcely a word mentioned on what happens to this junk. These people are scavenging TV sets, computers, Xerox machines, video cameras and telephones, not to mention boiling circuit boards for valuble metals. Make no mistake: Money is being made by the private citizen, completely independent of the government and they don't like it one bit. Squash indepenence and bash the US in one blow, what could be better!?
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the conditions the reporters mentioned bare some truth and it's kinda sad that happens that way, but beneath this sympathy propaganda piece there is a revolution taking place.
You could be right (Score:3, Insightful)
However, it appeared to leave a loophole by saying that if "proper methods" were used, the environment need not be harmed.
As the US Internal Revenue Service is fond of saying, "All income is taxable." Proper methods, without doubt, will consist of paying a licensing fee. If all those "made in China" tags on electronic junk is a guide, the Chineese government does not mind paying an environmental price. If they are developing anything like their Former Soviet friends did, the price will be high. This blurb, like any other where there is no freedom of speech and press, is just propaganda.
China is not communist anymore. (Score:2)
Money is being made by the private citizen, completely independent of the government and they don't like it one bit. Squash indepenence and bash the US in one blow, what could be better!?
China hasn't been an officaly communist country since Mao died, the current leadership is not anti-capitalist at all.
Can't let facts get in the way of a good screed though, no sir.
Huh? (Score:2)
My ass they've been encouraged to do anything but live in fear of the government in which they live under. You just stated the total anti-thesis of communist society, which undeniably China is. Let's look at their consitution, shall we? (all definitions list from here on are from Mirriam-Webster)
Article 1
The People's Republic of China is a socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants.
Socialism 2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.
Democratic 1 : of, relating to, or favoring democracy 1a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority. b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
dictatorship 3a : a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique b : a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated c : a despotic state
I haven't even gotten past Artical 1 of their constitution and it's so riddled with inconsistencies and bullshit it's pathetic. Oh, China is led by those peasants encouraged to make money alright. Heh. Let's continue.
Article 2
All power in the People's Republic of China belongs to the people. The National People's Congress and the local people's congresses at various levels are the organs through which the people exercise state power. The people administer state affairs and manage economic, cultural and social affairs through various channels and in various ways in accordance with the law.
While it's true that the power does belong to the people, China is certainly doing their damned best to keep them from excercising it. The "people" this artical mentions is a very small group of individuals obviously cut off from reality. I'll skip artical 3 because it simply mentions governmental power distribution. Look at it on your own time.
Artical 4
All nationalities in the People's Republic of China are equal. Bullshit. The state protects the lawful rights and interests of the minority nationalities and upholds and develops a relationship of equality, unity and mutual assistance among all of China's nationalities. Bullshit Discrimination against and oppression of any nationality are prohibited; HA!!!! any act which undermines the unity of the nationalities or instigates division is prohibited. The state assists areas inhabited by minority nationalities accelerating their economic and cultural development according to the characteristics and needs of the various minority nationalities. Regional autonomy is practiced in areas where people of minority nationalities live in concentrated communities; in these areas organs of self-government are established to exercise the power of autonomy. Bullshit All national autonomous areas are integral parts of the People's Republic of China. All nationalities have the freedom to use and develop their own spoken and written languages and to preserve or reform their own folkways and customs. Bull LeShit.
Most constitutions attempt to be true to their writing. This one is a stack of lies and I'm only 4 articals deep. If the Chinese people were given as much leeway as you and their constitution claimed, I doubt they'd have the atrocious human rights record they do or that the rest of the world would have as many issues as they do with them. News flash: It ain't just America. What Mr. Xiaoping said and what actually happened are two way different things. The long and short of it is that free enterprise is happening right now and the government is stepping in to squash it. You can claim public saftey from toxic waste, but then I have to wonder why these peasants are doing it in the first place, risking their lives to recycle this crap. Greed? Somehow, I doubt it.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Here's a concept that doesn't come easily to a good segmant of the american slashdot crowd - neccessity.
Jesus you're an idiot. (Score:2)
Listen dumbass. China is not communist, you can start a bussness irrespective of the government. The chinese constitution isn't followed by anyone.
Yes, this is an instance of free enterprize being curtaled. How is it any diffrent then minimum wage and worker-saftey laws in the US?
Re:Jesus you're an idiot. (Score:2)
Live? Nah. As to the latter questions; yes and yes. I've stepped foot on it. Can you say the same?
Re:Other peoples junk... (Score:2)
Its not the fault of the United States for junk being exported. We do have very strict laws regarding wastes, where the originator is responsible of the waste "from cradle to grave." If someone generates waste, they are responsible for any harm and cleanup costs required even if they sell it to a rogue disposal service. This means if my business unloads mercury ridden waste and its discovered years later in a landfill that cannot properly manage its environment, I would be responsible for the entire cleanup.
How this law affects waste that leaves our borders would be interesting. Those who export junk are sure to have had a legal team investigating this grey area. If they had dumped it anywhere within our borders, within a few exeptions (major political bribes^H^H^H^H^H^Hdonations) it would be a guaranteed death of a company.
Did anyone else read the title as... (Score:2, Funny)
rather than
China Bans U.S. Electronic Scrap?
The U.S. Should Retaliate (Score:3, Funny)
I helped sell it to them... (Score:4, Interesting)
Chinese people showed up with money and bought container loads of unsorted scrap. Done deal, it's miller time. Honestly, we assumed without even thinking about it that it was being recycled in factories, though probably unsafe ones, or that the working stuff would go to schools or offices, where a 386 would be worth the trouble to set up. Who cares, they're doing more with it than us.
So the bottom has fallen out of the scrap market, and now monitors are toxic waste you have to pay to get rid of. But, there are still countries buying.
Is this the fault of the bad, bad US? Should we be required to keep our junk away from irresponsible people? Have we forced anyone? Or even been deceptive?
You know, people from India buy old tires by the container to ship to india. Other countries do it too. Totally bald, worn out tires. They just love 'em. You know where they wind up? ON CARS! GOD! This HAS to kill people.
We've been told that these are NEW tires, and if we're worried we should go and see what an OLD tire looks like. So are they killing people, or saving lives?
It just ain't like it is here, in most places! It may be hard for us to understand, but 'chinese peasants' with scrap to sort, and people filthy rich enough to have a car to put bald tires on, are a hell of alot better off than at least 50% of the people on this planet!
You know there's a famine in africa right now, and I don't think they care about dying of cancer in 30 years. All they can think about is keeping their children alive for just one more day. Think about that when you're in the supermarket. Go when they're throwing out the fruit. That's when I go.
I'd like to solve these problems, but it's saturday, and we've got tires to stack. Maybe we'll save a life.
=Rich
Garage Sale economics (Score:2)
My hat is off to you, man. You've probably done more for some of these peoples lifestyle than half the humanitarian organizations out there by giving them another source of income beyond the bountiful wealth they're obviously recieving from their own governments.
Re:Garage Sale economics (Score:2)
Just shows you how far ignorant lawmakers can take things...
It's like the Denis Leary joke about making the warning labels larger on cigarettes, "Holy sh!t! These are bad for you! I thought they were supposed to have vitamins and stuff!!!"
All it means for it to be illegal in China (Score:2)
Remind anyone of the "war on drugs"? Are those Chinese stealing these patented bits of governmental intellectual property from us? Or have they invented it on their own, like their nuclear program, ha ha?!
___
The US does not dump scrap in China. (Score:5, Informative)
This is a tragedy for sure, but it is not the US dumping kit. It's sent/sold for recycling and that recycling is disastrously handled because there are no facilities and legal controls over this at the ultimate destination, which is entirely dur to penny pinching scrap dealers in Asia and the gung ho local administrations.
Re:The US does not dump scrap in China. (Score:2)
Quoth the article:
Why does this not surprise me?
Re:The US does not dump scrap in China. (Score:2)
Second hand computer peripherals are NOT hazardous waste. The computer on my desk is NOT hazardous waste. If I dip it in a bath of acid and other noxious crud it might become so.
Re:The US does not dump scrap in China. (Score:2)
I think what they meant by "US" was either that the waste was coming from the US (most likely), or that the companies which ship electronic waste to China are American. No, it's not a government consipracy, but that doesn't mean that the US isn't doing it.
Nuts. (Score:2)
Re:another insidious CIA plor foiled.... (Score:2)
Philip Morris appears to be in on a similar plot. China is one of their biggest customers.....I mean victims.
Team-player? (Score:2)