General discussion

Locked

China recruiting U.S. IT grads

By jkameleon ·
China's rapid economic expansion has allowed Beijing to fund a recruitment drive targeting some of the best and brightest IT graduates from U.S. universities, according to Chinese sources.

In turn, this brain trust is being used by China both as a control on its own Internet revolution and as a potential resource for North Korea' cyberwar program.

. . .

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/front2453728.0888888887.html

Couldn't they just outsource like the rest of the world?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

38 total posts (Page 1 of 4)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

I wouldn't do it

by maxwell edison In reply to China recruiting U.S. IT ...

.
I don't trust China.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051227-124948-5253r.htm

Besides, there's just as much, or more, opportunity in the USA.

Collapse -

I agree with Max

by DMambo In reply to I wouldn't do it

I believe that China has no real interest in being a long-term ally of the Axis of Good - US, UK, Canada, Aus. In 10 years, the relationship between China and the west will more antagonistic than it is now. Unfortunately, there will be those who will cash in and help China's growth.

Collapse -

I think it is traitorous

by Cheesel In reply to I wouldn't do it

for a US citizen to work in IT over in China. The Chinese hate us. They think war is inevitable with the US. Remember back in the 90's when the US objected to their war games near Taiwan? The Chinese told us to mind our own business as they had a missile pointed at Los Angeles.

Besides, Communism and Socialism have killed about 100 million people in the last century. Enough said.....


Renee

Collapse -

100 million!?

by jkameleon In reply to I think it is traitorous

> Besides, Communism and Socialism have killed about 100 million people in the last century. Enough said.....

Yea, maybe, if you count the ones that died of an old age as well. This statistics was concocted by a group of ex pinko commies, authors of "Black Book of Communism". The guys were so grieved over the collapse of the Soviet Union, that they went into the other extreme.

When one tries to blame Christianity for witchhunts, crusades, and such, he is promptly rejected by something like "This is not religion's fault. Religions don't kill people, people kill people". The same logic should be applied to Communism as well. Christ haven't preached inquisition, and Marx haven't preached gulags.

I agree with the rest of yours & dmambo's posts, though. I think Chinese are after US technological knowledge, and they are getting it through outsourceng & stuff. I think they are following the old Lenin's principle: "When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope". Or was it Stalin? Whatever.

Collapse -

Democide has taken OVER 100 million

by maxwell edison In reply to 100 million!?

I agree with your last paragraph, but not the first two. I also believe that 100 million (or more) people have been killed, either directly or indirectly, by communism-socialism. Slave labor camps, summary executions, starvation due to the flawed system, and so on have probably contributed to MORE than 100 million deaths.

I did a search looking for, what might appear to be, a reputable source to verify the numbers.

Look at this source, and instead of dismissing it in its entirety because of some "ex pinko commies" claim, tell us which part of it is false, why it's false, and what you believe to be the alternative truth.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB1.2.GIF

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/

Taking these things into consideration, I think you might change your mind.

Collapse -

by jkameleon In reply to Democide has taken OVER 1 ...

> I also believe that 100 million (or more) people have been killed, either directly or indirectly,

VERY indirectly.

100 millions is 10% of a billion. In the 1st half of 20th century, world population was about 2 billions, if my memory serves me right. So, 100 millions is about 5% of the then world population. Number is simply too big. It's big enough to affect world population growth, but I don't think it does.

Numbers you quoted might be correct, but criteria about who is supposed to be a victim, is very questionable, and politically motivated. Opponents of Bush & American model of capitalism for example, denote hurricane Katrina victims as victims of Bush & capitalism. Neoconservatives, on the other hand, claim that victims of 2003 heat wave in France

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-09-25-france-heat_x.htm

are actually victioms of French socialism & social state. Victims of communism & socialism were counted in the similar manner.


> ... by communism-socialism.

All of that witches, heretics, indians, and victims of crusade wars were killed by Christianity then?

Collapse -

A couple of things

by maxwell edison In reply to

.
First thing:

You said that the world population 100 years ago was 2 billion, and I won't question that estimate. (It was actually 1.6 billion, however, compared to 6.2 billion today.)

But to accurately make the percentage comparison that you did, you would have to know the total number of people born into the world over that entire 100 year period, not just the current population at any given point in time. So how many people were born into the world over the last 100 years? In 1900, the world population was 1.6 billion. In 1950, the world population was 2.5 billion, a difference of plus 900 million. However, between 1900 and 1950, it's estimated that 3.3 billion people were born. And I estimate that in the 100 years between 1900 and 2000, that about 10 billion people (give or take a few dozen) were born into the world. So 10 billion new births, plus the population at the beginning of our time-line (1900), which was 1.6 billion, equals 11.6 billion total people to have lived. So you must compare the 100 million "claimed" deaths to that 11.6 billion number, not the 1.6 billion.

So instead of your 5 percent (.05) comparison, it would be closer to eight-tenths of one percent (.0086) comparison, a relatively small number.

Please feel free to double-check my math, as well as my logic.

It's estimated, by the way, that 106,456,367,669 (that's 106.5 billion) have been born into the world over the course of human history.

My source:

http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?section=2&id=1820&PHPSESSID=a5e20f496803b2269021282c06c40e21

Second thing:

You said, "...but criteria about who is supposed to be a victim, is very questionable, and politically motivated."

What is questionable about it? Don't just say it's questionable, but explain why you think so and provide some semblence of support.

And how is it politically motivated? Again, don't just say it is, but explain why you think so and/or provide some sort of reasoning and/or support.

Collapse -

couple more things

by Oz_Media In reply to A couple of things

While you claim it isn't relevant then correct the claim;
He didn't say the world population 100 years ago was 2 billion.

He said the first half on the 20th century. Which would be from 1900 through 1950.

In:
1900 the population is estimated at 1.55 billion
1910 it is 1.75 billion
1920 it is 1.86 billion
1930 it was 2.07 billion
1940 it is 2.3 billion
and by 1950 it was 2.4 billion.

These are the the LOW estimates not the highs.

So in the first half of the 20th century (1900 through 1950) the average population was nearly 2 billion.

In other words, just as the original post implied, "In the 1st half of 20th century, world population was about 2 billions, if my memory serves me right. " and that's actually pretty damn close.

So when you say "You said that the world population 100 years ago was 2 billion, and I won't question that estimate. (It was actually 1.6 billion, however, compared to 6.2 billion today.)"

You DID question it, in fact you attempted to correct it, and what you corrected was not actually implied to begin with. 1900 does not represent the first half of the 20th century.

Sorry, Max, just having a day where people are starting to get under my skin for all the little things they do.

Day is almost done though so I'll be better tomorrow.

But I wasn't questioning you anyway, just correcting you.

Collapse -

Okay, Oz, nit-pick all you want

by maxwell edison In reply to A couple of things

.
I don't care. My entire point, however, was to correct his 5 percent estimated comparison to something that was more accurate, which is ABOUT eight-tenths of one percent. If you want to comment on that, please feel free.

A usual ploy to detract from a person's real point is to nit-pick on the insignificant things, something you're quite accustomed to doing.

Collapse -

by jkameleon In reply to A couple of things

> Please feel free to double-check my math, as well as my logic.

You say, that 100 millions of extra deaths should not affect the population of about 2 billion? Well, whatever. I'd say neither you or me are experts in demographics, so we could just agree to disagree here. No matter how you turn it, 100 millions is pretty unbelievably high number.

> And how is it politically motivated? Again, don't just say it is, but explain why you think so and/or provide some sort of reasoning and/or support.

I already did, but you somehow ignored the examples I gave you. You know, that 2003 French heat wave, and Katrina.

There's another issue you are persistently avoiding: Should religion/ideology be blamed for the crimes & wars commited in it's name or not?

Nazism can clearly be blamed, because it called for extermination of Jews pretty explicitely. Christianity & Communism are not that straight. IMHO, blaming ideas for the damage they might indirectly cause, is actually a call-up for witch hunt. That's far more dangerous than ideas themselves. Militant anti-communism is therefore far worse than communism.

Back to Community Forum
38 total posts (Page 1 of 4)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums