Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mum's the Word On Google Attack At Davos

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the still-deciding-on-culprit-perhaps dept.

Businesses 217

theodp writes "BusinessWeek reports that the cyber attack on Google was the elephant-in-the-room at the annual meeting of world leaders in Davos. 'China didn't want to discuss Google,' Josef Ackermann, CEO of Deutsche Bank AG and a co-chair of this year's World Economic Forum, said in an interview. China's Vice Premier Li Keqiang made that clear, he added. Even Google CEO Eric Schmidt didn't bring up China, and Bill Gates was mum on the topic in an interview. The reluctance of companies to talk about China illustrates the pressure on them to protect their business in the country, while the US government doesn't want to upset Chinese investors, said Andy Mok of Red Pagoda Concepts LLC. 'People have their commercial interests,' explained Deutsche Bank's Ackermann."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Soooo.... (4, Interesting)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 3 years ago | (#30974612)

So they can just get away with it, right? Somehow I think what's -not- being said is far more interesting. I think the perpetrators will end up with more on their hands than they at first suspected when a bunch of IT powerhouses decide to start randomly hosing key pieces of their information infrastructure.

Re:Soooo.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30974666)

So they can just get away with it, right?

The US recently "got away" with launching two wars that have resulted in the deaths of well over a hundred thousand innocent people. Which is, if we're counting, significantly worse than anything China has done to a relative few dissidents. Superpowers play by their own rules, unfortunately, and accountability can only take place internally.

Re:Soooo.... (5, Insightful)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 3 years ago | (#30974728)

Well, subjectively, have they "gotten away with" Iraq and Afghanistan? In 20 year's time, will there be a new generation of disaffected youth with a chip on their shoulder about the US who will again launch attacks in retaliation for the suffering caused? Just because the consequences aren't immediate doesn't mean they aren't coming. So too with the cyber attacks - I doubt the likes of Google will sit idlely by when people take pot-shots at them.

Re:Soooo.... (4, Insightful)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#30975230)

Well, subjectively, have they "gotten away with" Iraq and Afghanistan?

Yes they have. The Bush administration is safe from reprisals, and will never be taken to account in any form.

Oh, you meant are Americans in general safe? "Americans in general" don't matter.

Re:Soooo.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30976216)

Oh, you meant are Americans in general safe?

Have Americans EVER been safe? Its not like the U.S. doesn't grow its own internal terrorists. Last time I checked Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma bomber, was born, raised and trained by the U.S.

Re:Soooo.... (0)

Bartab (233395) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976264)

Well, subjectively, have they "gotten away with" Iraq and Afghanistan? In 20 year's time, will there be a new generation of disaffected youth with a chip on their shoulder about the US who will again launch attacks in retaliation for the suffering caused?

Almost certainly. Just like the French and German did and do. Only the Iraqis will be doing it via cyber attacks before they get bored, go down and buy a starbucks, and crash out in front of their big screen tv.

Re:Soooo.... (4, Insightful)

The Snowman (116231) | more than 3 years ago | (#30974746)

So they can just get away with it, right?

The US recently "got away" with launching two wars that have resulted in the deaths of well over a hundred thousand innocent people. Which is, if we're counting, significantly worse than anything China has done to a relative few dissidents. Superpowers play by their own rules, unfortunately, and accountability can only take place internally.

The U.S. got away with two wars that failed to accomplish their stated goals because it accomplished hidden economic goals (opened up the flow of oil). China will get away with what they are doing because of hidden economic goals. China's economy is growing tremendously and will continue to do so: the U.S. and its corporations want a piece of that. Humans rights? Yeah, those are important until corporate profits are on the line. Then they're not.

Re:Soooo.... (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#30974830)

Oil is such a stupid, facile explanation for those wars, I can't believe people think they are reasoning when they come to that conclusion.

(It would have been quite a lot easier to do nothing, or even relax various embargoes)

Re:Soooo.... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30975170)

Ok, how about supporting the war machinery - supporting the various defense contractors. Anybody has a better reason?

Re:Soooo.... (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#30975196)

And much of the oil benefit is going to China which has stayed out their affairs. Kind of like how the US got access to their oil back in the day, when we kept to ourselves and it was Britain that was doing the nation building.

Re:Soooo.... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30975596)

Oil is such a stupid, facile explanation for those wars, I can't believe people think they are reasoning when they come to that conclusion.

Those of us with more than a lick of sense can't believe all you idiots who still think it wasn't an oil war -- and on behalf of Big Oil, not the U.S. directly. Congratulations, you're a moron.

Re:Soooo.... (1, Troll)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976196)

Those of us with more than a lick of sense...

But curiously, not the courage to claim your comment with an account name.

Re:Soooo.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30976356)

Perhaps moron like myself he would have undone his mods if he posted logged in. Pity I just ran out of points though, as if I had them you would be modded troll.

Re:Soooo.... (5, Insightful)

Xaositecte (897197) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975842)

Why did we go to war?

I mean, Afghanistan makes a wea bit of sense, national outrage and whatnot - along with the old standby of keeping the war industry healthy, but Iraq. Why the devil are we in Iraq if not for oil?

Giving them freedom is just propaganda, there are plenty of other "oppressed" nations in the world. Plenty of other nations engaged in civil wars, or on the verge of them.

"Weapons of mass destruction" didn't really pan out.

Even keeping the war industry healthy can't possibly be enough to justify all the grief politicians are going through as a result of all the wasted money from the rest of the country.

The only other reasons I can see is that we're boxing in Iran in some kind of cold-war era containment doctrine action, a message to the rest of the world that American can just go in and invade whoever we want, and natural resources, the most prominent of which is oil.

Re:Soooo.... (1)

BountyX (1227176) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975936)

According to Hans, economic ambitions are just a means not an end. Human rights; however, is a true obtainable goal. Here is the video. [wimp.com]

Re:Soooo.... (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976172)

Which is, if we're counting, significantly worse than anything China has done to a relative few dissidents.

We're not "counting".

And if you're "counting" when do you start? Do you go back to the "two wars that have resulted in the deaths of well over a hundred thousand" or do you go back to Tiananmen Square or do you go back to Viet Nam or do you go back to the Cultural Revolution where tens of millions were murdered in the name of domestic policy?

Bad is bad. Starting phony wars, imprisoning, torturing and killing dissidents...it's all evil. It's not a competition for who's the most fucked up. And believe me, if we're talking historically, it's not a competition that China wants to have. The best thing that could happen is when countries start calling each other on their shitty behavior. Air out the hypocrisy on both sides. Let's publish the names, the numbers of the dead and imprisoned. Let's have this discussion. And what the hell, since as far as I can tell Google as a corporation hasn't killed anyone yet, and has by most accounts behaved reasonably well as far as transnational corporations go, let them participate in the discussion too.

And the idea that a corporation, big or not so big, decides to call a powerful customer on their shitty behavior...I'm OK with that too. The only responsibility Google has is to make a profit. That's what "corporation" means. The fact that they're willing to do something that puts pressure on a repressive regime - no matter the motivation - is a good thing too.

I'm just tired of the "you guys did X so that means we can do Y, and how dare you criticize me for X when you've done Z" and it's all a downward cycle.

Pressure against repressive regimes, no matter from which precinct it comes from, is a good thing.

Re:Soooo.... (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976292)

Beautiful.

I'm just tired of the "you guys did X so that means we can do Y, and how dare you criticize me for X when you've done Z" and it's all a downward cycle.

It's as if we never leave the schoolyard.

ARE YOU NOW OR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30974890)

the RED CHINESE?

(Yes.)

Take this woman out back and shoot her.

(I take that back. No.)

(POW!)

Mr. Gates. Are you now or have you ever...

Re:Soooo.... (1)

furbyhater (969847) | more than 3 years ago | (#30974974)

You're talking like American "IT-powerhouses" are superheroes or something. It's all about power and self-interest with these guys. You have been lied to.

Re:Soooo.... (4, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976234)

It's all about power and self-interest with these guys.

Look, for the time being these "guys" (big corporations) own and run the world.

Until we're really ready to throw off our yokes, the best we can do is learn to discern the companies that are behaving decently and those that are not. There's a lot of information out there that we can use in the cause of this sort of discernment.

Yes, Google is "all about self-interest". But until we learn that they've done something evil like fund a coup in Nigeria or Haiti or the Honduras or plunder some third world country or poison a water supply, or contribute to the Republicans (kidding, relax), we might as well give them the benefit of the doubt and judge them on their actions.

Exxon, ADM, Monsanto, Haliburton, Blackwater, DuPont...well, it's not such a pretty picture there. But if a corporation behaves there's no reason that their "self-interest" should damn them (again, not until we're ready to throw of our yokes).

Re:Soooo.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30975012)

I think the perpetrators will end up with more on their hands than they at first suspected when a bunch of IT powerhouses decide to start randomly hosing key pieces of their information infrastructure.

You watch too much television, things are done differently in the real world. Once the rest of the world has had enough of the abuse from the Chinese, we will just unleash Chuck Norris on them. The ones he allows to survive will then be condemned to assembling iPads for the rest of their lives.

Re:Soooo.... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30975078)

The interests of capitalism and nationalism may overlap, but they are never the same.
What may favor commercial interests may not work well for a given nation or nations.

"Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains."
Thomas Jefferson

Re:Soooo.... (3, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976270)

The interests of capitalism and nationalism may overlap, but they are never the same.

I'm not sure "nationalism" is the word you want to use there.

I'm trying to come up with a single case where "nationalism" turned out to be a good thing.

I'm still thinking, but maybe somebody can offer one.

Re:Soooo.... (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#30975178)

So they can just get away with it, right?

This was not a military attack; it was espionage. These types of things have been going on for decades without direct, public reprisals.

Re:Soooo....THE USA = COMIE BASTARDS EH? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30975898)

yup we know who now wheres the pants
now when i speak of american ceos ill have to always mention Panties they wear at least once

Re:Soooo.... (4, Insightful)

Unoriginal_Nickname (1248894) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976476)

IT powerhouses decide to start randomly hosing key pieces of their information infrastructure.

IT powerhouses are publicly traded: it will never happen. Eric Schmidt wants to keep doing business with China even though they were hacked. Walmart will keep buying Chinese baby formula. Toys R Us will keep stocking Chinese toys. Purina will keep buying Chinese dog food.

American investment and corporate ownership is a maze. Ideally a corporation is directly liable to its shareholders - meaning that, if the shareholders didn't want to do business with China, they would be able to influence the company in that direction. However, in reality, the 'shareholders' of a major corporation are large holding companies and mutual funds, which are also publicly-traded and owned by other large holding companies and mutual funds. If an executive takes actions that do not maximize profits, they will be removed or possibly sued by the soulless corporate automaton that owns them.
The fact that Google got the consent of its shareholders to take any action about China is *incredible*, but Google's a huge exception in the IT world for the share of the company that's self-owned or owned by its employees. The rest - Cisco, Microsoft, Apple - are all in for the long run.

Wow! The leadership is amazing! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30974616)

Obama finally figured out we need to do something about the federal deficit only one year into his term. And I thought Dubya was dumb.

Of course... (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#30974638)

Of course no one wants to bring up politics in an interview. When companies do, or even have speculation about certain political affiliations usually they are boycotted by one group or another.

nerd? (5, Funny)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 3 years ago | (#30974664)

Davros is attacking a meeting of world leaders?

It seems like the Daleks are always doing that. That gods Jon Pertwee was there before. What are we going to do now?

Re:nerd? (3, Insightful)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 3 years ago | (#30974714)

It seems like the Daleks are always doing that. That gods Jon Pertwee was there before. What are we going to do now?

I suggest reversing the polarity. It's always worked before.

Remember What Secretary of State Clintain Said (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30974668)

it's NOT about ( establishing) human rights in China. ( it's about money ) .

Yours In Astakhan,
K. Trout

Re:Remember What Secretary of State Clintain Said (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 3 years ago | (#30974682)

an so it goes...

Disclosure At the Table (5, Insightful)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#30974670)

This just goes to show what levels of disclosure and topics of discussion will be sacrificed in the name of securing commercial and privatized interest. Business as usual, nothing to see here folks, move along...

This is the nature of the beast, and the trend in globalization. I am seeing countries continually regressing in the moral and ethical obligations, a degradation of honesty, transparency, and openness all in the name of making more money. Will we ever see the end of these practices? I don't believe in my lifetime, if ever.

Re:Disclosure At the Table (3, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 3 years ago | (#30974696)

A fundamental question here is whether or not commercial interests will also influence political decision making to the point where war becomes untenable because of the disruption it will cause to commerce.

Re:Disclosure At the Table (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30974762)

Limited war is good for business.

Re:Disclosure At the Table (5, Insightful)

furbyhater (969847) | more than 3 years ago | (#30975042)

Waging war is like continuously hitting the jackpot for the part of the economy profiting from the vastly increased military spending.

Re:Disclosure At the Table (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976362)

A fundamental question here is whether or not commercial interests will also influence political decision making to the point where war becomes untenable because of the disruption it will cause to commerce.

A more fundamental question is whether or not commercial interest will also influence political decision making to the point where politics, free speech, free thought and any public protest becomes untenable because of the disruption it will cause to commerce.

I don't think the biggest corporations worry that much about war being bad for business. War hasn't been bad for business so far, why should it start now?

Re:Disclosure At the Table (5, Insightful)

Paktu (1103861) | more than 3 years ago | (#30974794)

I am seeing countries continually regressing in the moral and ethical obligations, a degradation of honesty, transparency, and openness all in the name of making more money. I hear this mantra repeated on /. and elsewhere that the whole world is in moral and ethical decline. Really? Please give me a time period, anytime in world history, where nations were upstanding, moral, open, and fair to everyone. It's fine if you want to argue that globalization has negative consequences that outweigh its positive effects. But don't act like there was some bygone golden age in the past where everything was awesome. Societies act solely in their own self interest, always have, always will.

Re:Disclosure At the Table (2, Insightful)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#30975022)

I had a feeling I would get at least one response along these lines. Let me clarify the situation, IMO.

"continually regressing in the moral and ethical obligations"
I am not proclaiming that there was a bygone golden age where everything was awesome. The word "regress" was chosen carefully for the sole fact that, yes, in this year 2010, there has been significant progress made in the United States and across the world in regards to the treatment of humanity on an ethical and moral scale. Each year that transpires produces an ever increasing sum of philosophical ideologies that could increase the standard of living for most of mankind. Amidst these discoveries and continual improvements by societies intellectuals, world governments continually ignore or simply forget these quality addendum's to the standard moral code of human life in the sake of profit. There never was a golden age of humanity. There probably never will be. But the fact remains that countless individuals and organizations refine and better our understanding of sociological problems on a yearly basis, yet world governments pay little to no regard to these developments.

So, this "mantra" rings true in my opinion. In a world that is always increasing its intellectual capabilities through technology, increasing its ability to disseminate academic information, increasing its ability to research, study, examine, and postulate different solutions to different problems, there is a moral and ethical decline in part of the governments, and it is in fact a regression, a back tracking, a one-step-forward-to-steps-back, because it seems regardless of any ideological developments being made, their implementation is residually ignored over time in leu of the motivation of profit.

Re:Disclosure At the Table (4, Insightful)

ajs (35943) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975636)

there has been significant progress made in the United States and across the world in regards to the treatment of humanity on an ethical and moral scale.

No, there has not.

I just don't buy it.

the fact remains that countless individuals and organizations refine and better our understanding of sociological problems on a yearly basis, yet world governments pay little to no regard to these developments.

As far as I can tell, this is a null statement. You've actually made no claim here that can be proved or disproved. Care to try again?

In a world that is always increasing its intellectual capabilities through technology, increasing its ability to disseminate academic information, increasing its ability to research, study, examine, and postulate different solutions to different problems, there is a moral and ethical decline in part of the governments, and it is in fact a regression, a back tracking, a one-step-forward-to-steps-back, because it seems regardless of any ideological developments being made, their implementation is residually ignored over time in leu of the motivation of profit.

Your thesis here seems to be "we can communicate better, so the fact that the world hasn't become a better place is an ethical regression." Unless I've misunderstood what you were trying to say, I think you've just re-defined all of your terminology in ways that are not compatible with English.

Re:Disclosure At the Table (1)

hackingbear (988354) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976556)

The word "regress" was chosen carefully for the sole fact that, yes, in this year 2010, there has been significant progress made in the United States and across the world in regards to the treatment of humanity on an ethical and moral scale.

The same can be said for nation in the center of this -- China. It may sound like news to you given that you only have censored front-page news [slashdot.org] . No matter how bad you think China's human rights situation is today, it is still much much better than 30 years ago or earlier, comparing to periods like Cultural Revolution or Great Leap Forward or the Qing Dynasty. It may not be up to the American standard (which wasn't that good either before the 1960's); but calling it regressive is simply ignorant. And most of the progress should be attributed to their international trades.

Re:Disclosure At the Table (1)

furbyhater (969847) | more than 3 years ago | (#30975056)

The problem are people acting solely out of self-interest while disregarding the impact of their actions to the rest of society.

Re:Disclosure At the Table (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 3 years ago | (#30975062)

Personally, I would have hoped that humanity would get better. We seem to be staying the same at best, with even that being questionable.

Re:Disclosure At the Table (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#30975378)

Ok, then let's maybe say they're regressing in honesty. At least the emperors and kings didn't claim they gave half a shit about their people's opinion, and exploiting colonies was fair game, after all, we gave them civilisation (we call it freedom today, but it's still the same BS).

Re:Disclosure At the Table (1)

iammani (1392285) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976116)

Its like claiming ignorance was bliss. :)

When people grow up they become more and more aware of inethical behavior happening in various parts of the world (including the ones happening at their own country/neighborhood). They have an uneasy feeling about these and wish the world was as good as before (ie, wish the world would be as they imagined when they ignorant).

I bet if given the option, quite a lot of people will prefer ignorance to awareness/knowledge.

Re:Disclosure At the Table (5, Insightful)

TheNarrator (200498) | more than 3 years ago | (#30975342)

China's strategy for regaining it's hegemonic strategy is pretty simple and utilizes a basic weakness in American democracy.

U.S Corporate lobbyists command massive influence politics in the united states.

U.S lobbyists are controlled by U.S corporations.

China can easily exert influence over U.S corporations by giving them preferential or non-preferential treatment with their China operations. They can even tell them to get their lobbyists to tell the politicians in Washington to do what China wants.

Therefore China can easily exert influence on Washington.

Re:Disclosure At the Table (1)

ajs (35943) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975586)

This just goes to show what levels of disclosure and topics of discussion will be sacrificed in the name of securing commercial and privatized interest. Business as usual, nothing to see here folks, move along...

Google has been very vocal and very public about this. If they were staying mum to secure their business interests, then they really, really screwed up.

Only in the politics of global business news would holding a press conference that triggered comments from both your own Secretary of State and China's official news outlet and then letting that play out rather than continue to rant, be considered "staying quiet."

Re:Disclosure At the Table (1)

salesgeek (263995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976498)

I am seeing countries continually regressing in the moral and ethical obligations, a degradation of honesty, transparency, and openness all in the name of making more money.

You've obviously skipped political science and political philosophy courses. There are a few things that have not changed since man started scraping symbols on stone tablets:

* Justice rarely triumphs over power.
* The victor writes the history books.
* Self interest is the only value that matters to nation-states.

Don't plan on it changing because we are using electrons instead of chisels.

One might argue that the 20th century was the least repressive in history with the democratization of the west, the end of most slavery, and the establishment of the UN, GATT and World Court. Of course, this does not mean that the world is not a very brutal, oppressive place.

Oh, and transparency does not mean what all you transparency idiots think it does. It has opposite meanings: invisible and "not hiding anything". Unfortunately, when a political leader says "we are being transparent" you have no clue which meaning they intend. "Transparency" is the most perfect "double-speak" word in history. Of course, my ranting won't stop the Starbuckistan delegation to the UN from demanding more transparency.

The Manchurian Candidate is to GE's presidency, (5, Insightful)

OpenSourced (323149) | more than 3 years ago | (#30974712)

People have their commercial interests

Well, yes, I guess that's what was missing in the Cold War. If Russia was making cheap plastic toys for Wal Mart, perhaps the US would have permitted the placement of missiles in Cuba, in order not to make people nervous. Dumb Russians, they really lost the Cold War because of Communism. Chinese are seemingly smarter, and have understood that they can do anything as long as they provide with cheap labor to the West's consumers. I guess in a couple of years they'll be able to invade Taiwan with no more consequences than some really stern speeches from various so-called world leaders.

Re:The Manchurian Candidate is to GE's presidency, (4, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#30974874)

If Russia had been making plastic toys instead of trying to export Stalinist revolution, there WOULDN'T have been anything to fight about.

"I guess in a couple of years they'll be able to invade Taiwan with no more consequences than some really stern speeches from various so-called world leaders."

Who the fuck wants to die for Taiwan (excepting bunch of geezers nostalgic for bar girl poonannie) now that the mainland isn't supporting regimes that endanger the West, and why shouldn't the strong in Asia be its masters?

Do YOU want to die for the Kuomintang? If so, share why, and share why Americans should want their sons and daughters to die too?

Fuck them. If they wanted to be separate from Beijing they'd acquire nukes instead of consumer goods. The cult of US suicide for Chinese needs to have a stake driven through it's heart. The US has an obligation to AMERICANS it forgot during the fascination with Madame Chiang and Pearl S. Buck propaganda (youngsters, look it up for some fun).

Time to let Asians run Asia and concentrate on problems we neglected near to home, such as Mexico, and Latin and South America.

Re:The Manchurian Candidate is to GE's presidency, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30975238)

Do YOU want to die for the Kuomintang? If so, share why, and share why Americans should want their sons and daughters to die too]

So you are willing to sacrifice your firstborn for the inbred farmers of Intercourse, Kentucky and Armpit, Nebraska who suck you dry with their welfare and farm/corn ethanol subsidies, but you are not willing to stand up for your brothers in arms who held back the communists for the last 60 years and manufacture all your laptops and microchips? Screw you.

For Gods sake, all it would take is to rent out a handful of nuclear MIRVs to the Taiwanese...

Re:The Manchurian Candidate is to GE's presidency, (4, Informative)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#30975404)

Do YOU want to die for the Kuomintang? If so, share why, and share why Americans should want their sons and daughters to die too?

Nope. But maybe you could shed some light on something, being a foreign politics expert. Why again was it allright for the US sons and daughters to invade Iraq and die there too?

Re:The Manchurian Candidate is to GE's presidency, (1)

Afforess (1310263) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976060)

Actually, the US has a legal obligation due to a treaty with the Chinese Nationalists to defend Taiwan. If they get in trouble we HAVE to help them, or no one will ever trust us as a country.

Re:The Manchurian Candidate is to GE's presidency, (2, Insightful)

evilviper (135110) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976130)

Time to let Asians run Asia and concentrate on problems we neglected near to home

Ah yes, good old isolationism. Because that's worked out so incredibly well throughout history, right??? Am I right???

Re:The Manchurian Candidate is to GE's presidency, (1)

goga_russian (544604) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975660)

damnit. i never got my Stalin Bobble head doll for +100XP, +5y in Gulag and +3 rad

Re:The Manchurian Candidate is to GE's presidency, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30975750)

Dumb Russians, they really lost the Cold War because of Communism.

Neither Russia nor China were ever actually socialist/communist. They just used those ideals to gain the support of the people. Kind of like the US is not actually a constitutional democratic republic, but the average brain-dead American believes it is.

Get used to it. (5, Insightful)

Gorobei (127755) | more than 3 years ago | (#30974736)

The extent of this attack was unclear, but figure every major US corporate/government net was at risk. Figure any intranet relying exclusively on firewall rules was penetrated (1 man on the inside with a USB rootkit and you are compromised.) Compare the cost of one M1A1 tank to an intern at a US company.

If this was a government sponsored attack, figure half the major US intranets are now compromised to some degree.

Careful! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30974942)

> The extent of this attack was unclear

If you were dislexic, a faux pas could start a unclear winter...

Re:Get used to it. (3, Interesting)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 3 years ago | (#30974954)

Imagine also the impact as an economical attack of Google saying "China won't let foreign companies do profit against local competitors, that's why we pulled up."

Re:Get used to it. (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 3 years ago | (#30975112)

And imagine how thoroughly bugged anything in China has to be right now, or are you thinking any secret service worth its salt would sit idle and not trying to figure out what's really going on in China?

Re:Get used to it. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975428)

Sending interns to US companies? Are you nuts, why the expense? Those saps let you produce their hardware and increasingly their software too. They'll even pay you to infect them!

Google already made their point... (2, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#30974756)

...by the fact that China had to request that they not talk about it. China had to acknowledge the "elephant in the room" even to avoid talking about it.

might *does* make right (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30974778)

China is already manufacturer to the world, and within a few decades they will lead *everything* - scientific research, they'll be the biggest economy, the biggest market, and the most powerful military.

It's idiocy to get on their bad side or lock yourselves out of their market. Smart players will play by China's rules and not try to upset them.

The thing a lot of people don't get is that morals don't matter in international politics and business. "Might makes right" *does* matter. It's nice to have warm fuzzy morals, but when those morals come up against reality, that and fifty cents will get you a cup of coffee. It's not the "right" side that wins, it's the most powerful side. China knows this - they're nothing if not smart and forward thinking.

The only question is whether the USofA will fall from its position as the world's superpower with any kind of grace, or whether it'll make life hard for everyone else as it falls.

Re:might *does* make right (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30974912)

The only question is whether the USofA will fall from its position as the world's superpower with any kind of grace, or whether it'll make life hard for everyone else as it falls.

Sorry, no. The real question is whether or not your new Chinese overlords will put up with the same silly European bullshit the US has. I seriously doubt they will.

Precedent (2, Interesting)

copponex (13876) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976254)

I'd say the US will have hung itself with it's own rope. All China will have to do is claim that the United States has the capacity to conduct terrorism, and then if it has the means, China can setup a blockade, wage a currency war, or invade under the precedent we set a few years ago. Since we've destroyed the power of the UN and the World Court, we won't even have symbolic legal recourse.

The Golden Rule ain't for nothing. You can call it silly European bullshit I guess, but you also seem like the sort of person who fantasizes about nuclear war. Too bad.

Re:Precedent (4, Insightful)

Bartab (233395) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976412)

Since we've destroyed the power of the UN and the World Court, we won't even have symbolic legal recourse.

Neither of those entities have ever -had- real power. The UN has had some very minor paper power - that which people like to point to and mumble about "international law" (a non-existent fallacy) - but the world court is nothing.

There is no legal recourse at the sovereign level. That's the meaning of the word. The only recourse is militaristic, and China will not be invading the US. Nor will the US be invading China. Both are sad, pathetic, fantasies of bizarrely twisted and broken minds.

Indeed... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30975190)

While it is certainly true that might makes right, as you also said, in the not too distant future they'll also have the most powerful military.

Fact of the mater is, there are quite a few of their rules that I don't really care to be subjected to and the more complacent we are here and now, the more dismal the future may well become.

Not spending-wise...the US is by far #1 (4, Informative)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 3 years ago | (#30975336)

and the most powerful military.

The US spends more money in total than the next dozen or so nations combined: http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#InContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestoftheWorld [globalissues.org]

Note how the US is just slliiiiiiiightly less than half of that pie chart, and the United states spent 5.8 times what China did in 2008. Let's also not forget who is embroiled in two wars- Iraq and Afghanistan.

Per capita for the US, looks to be about $2500 in 2004, now $3200: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PerCapitaInflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG [wikipedia.org]

Why not have a look at where that places us relative to everyone else? For some reason "Nationmaster" doesn't list the US, but here you can see that figure is $1000 more than the next-highest, Israel (all the figures are from 2004): http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_exp_dol_fig_percap-expenditures-dollar-figure-per-capita [nationmaster.com]

GDP-wise, America outspends at a percentage twice the world average; Russia actually beat the US relative to GDP on a couple of occasions, but that probably has more to do with Russia's GDP being in the toilet.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ms_mil_xpnd_gd_zs&idim=country:USA:CHN:GBR:RUS&tdim=true&tstart=567993600000&tunit=Y&tlen=20

Re:Not spending-wise...the US is by far #1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30975424)

Did you miss these words in the post you're replying to? "within a few decades".

Right now the US economy is larger than China's. That will not continue to be true and there will be no way the USA will be able to keep up with what China can do in the future, either in military spending OR in military technology.

Re:Not spending-wise...the US is by far #1 (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30975850)

Extending a curve on a graph onward "a few decades" is unreasonable when there's such a poor record of being able to predict things even two years ahead. Even more so when the bit of curve you want to extend a few decades is shorter than a few decades long.

Predictions of dominance based merely on population size tend to be wrong (otherwise India and the EU would individually be towering over the US, economically and/or militarily). Predictions of dominance based on will and opportunistic ruthlessness have often been wrong too (in the late 70s, the soviets were going to eat our lunch! in the early 80s, the soviets were waiting in long lines for bread).

China's growing at 10% (of a smallest total) whereas the US is growing at 4% (of a big total) TODAY, but China's growth is driven by technological catchup and a wide price differential. China's GDP is still only around 1/3 that of the US. As the tech catch-up continues, there is less tech to catch up to and the catching up becomes much harder. As the price differential narrows, there is less artificial incentive to buy Chinese and the growth rate slows. China overtaking the US would require a drastic shift in strategy that has not yet even begun - and thus doomsday predictions based on this cannot yet be made.

IMO, China won't get much past half the US GDP; the trade balance shifts by then to other countries being cheaper than China.

Re:might *does* make right (2, Interesting)

janimal (172428) | more than 3 years ago | (#30975338)

It's idiocy to get on their bad side or lock yourselves out of their market. Smart players will play by China's rules and not try to upset them.

The thing a lot of people don't get is that morals don't matter in international politics and business. "Might makes right" *does* matter.

So, by your logic, the appropriate response to Hitler's Germany was to keep mum, because it was a superpower? By what most commenters to this article in general, it seems it was OK for IBM to supply Hitler the machines for the German census as well. History repeats itself indeed.

Re:might *does* make right (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975462)

It's idiocy to get on their bad side or lock yourselves out of their market. Smart players will play by China's rules and not try to upset them.

You mean, China is the new USA? Because 'til now it was "play by the US rules or be shut out of the world economy, look at Cuba for reference".

Re:might *does* make right (1)

Bartab (233395) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976452)

You mean, China is the new USA? Because 'til now it was "play by the US rules or be shut out of the world economy, look at Cuba for reference".

You mean the Cuba that regularly exports its only product to the max of its production capacity? Where non party members are not allowed to partake of that product?

Cuba's economic problems stem from poor economic meddling by a gov't that is also too costly. The US (and ONLY US) embargo doesn't even touch it on a worldwide scale. Dropping that embargo would do nothing, positive or negative, and yet continues to exist because it both major US parties want to appease a large minority faction in Florida.

However, certain groups in the US should look to Cuba. It's a fine example of the end result of the current trillion dollar per year expansion our gov't is "enjoying".

Re:might *does* make right (1)

strangelovian (1559111) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975524)

My theory is that we’re moving into a post-progressive, negative sum, Malthusian paradigm, and China is way ahead of the curve. The neoliberal notion that the U.S. has some supreme model of socioeconomic organization that will inevitably spread to the entire world is looking more and more delusional to me. China plays hardball because they’re smart; the West is led by people like Obama and Clinton who try to be the “good guys”, which the rest of the world interprets as weakness. We’ll eventually wake up when things really start to go downhill and competition for the planet’s remaining resources becomes a matter of survival. That’s when the peaceful acceptance of China’s rise will end, and World War III will begin. Unless one side collapses like the U.S.S.R. did, I see this outcome as almost inevitable.

Re:might *does* make right (1)

Oddscurity (1035974) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976178)

On the bright side, it will finally be the year of the (Red Flag) Linux Desktop. ;)

Invest more in India? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30976436)

I just can't understand why the West doesn't invest more in India, a proven democratic, if somewhat chaotic country. It seems that the only thing China has (or "had" to speak on hindsight) going for it is (or "was") is a big population, that is, a momentarily cheap pool of labor. Both China and India have it (and Indian labor should by now be cheaper than China's). And for what it's worth many more Indians speak a form of Western language (English). The major languages of India are even distantly related to the major languages of Europe (Indo-European). What is it that China has that India has less of?

Well, duh (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 3 years ago | (#30974836)

You don't bad-mouth your friends or people you need.

Why would business be any different?

Re:Well, duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30975600)

They aren't my friends, and I certainly don't need melamine in my food, or lead, arsenic or other toxins in my kid's toys.

Re:Well, duh (1)

ajs (35943) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975664)

You don't bad-mouth your friends or people you need.

Why would business be any different?

Ah... so your claim, here, is that someone stayed silent? Didn't Google hold a press conference and threaten to pull out of China? Isn't that the ONLY reason we know this happened?

China is super precious... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30974878)

They have no real restrictions there like enforced copyright laws.

In the west everything is lost to restrictions.

China is a free country.

And the best thing: Only very few realize that fact.

You see... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30974902)

This whole situation is a lot like a car.

Nuff said...

World Economic Forum co-chair representatives (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30974924)

USA - 4
Germany - 1
India - 1
UK - 1

China - 0

http://www.weforum.org/en/events/AnnualMeeting2010/Sun31/index.htm

even more interesting (1)

NynexNinja (379583) | more than 3 years ago | (#30974996)

not to discuss this story after today's story about evidence the chinese government has been hacking britian government and companies [timesonline.co.uk] for some time.

Re:even more interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30975286)

I have a Huawei [huawei.com] router that was given to me as a gift by a friend when I was in Hungary and I haven't used it at all because I'm afraid it contains some kind of backdoor or sniffer. I searched for info on reports of suspicious Huawei products, but couldn't find anything useful. Does anyone here have any info on this?

Ackermann? World leaders? (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 3 years ago | (#30975002)

Josef Ackermann, CEO of Deutsche Bank AG

How exactly is that criminal a world leader? What is he doing there?
I guess we’re really in a industrial feudalistic global system already...

Re:Ackermann? World leaders? (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 3 years ago | (#30975132)

He controls money. That's what he's doing there. And he is a Swiss citizen, so he has all the rights of Switzerland to be in Davos, Switzerland.

Re:Ackermann? World leaders? (1)

furbyhater (969847) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975476)

Well, sadly most other Swiss citizens don't have the right to circulate freely in Davos for the duration of the WEF.

Re:Ackermann? World leaders? (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975490)

Didn't you get the memo? The new definition of a world leader is "a criminal with corporate backing". They struck the "politician" between criminal and with, because they ain't really important anymore, you can move and replace them as you see fit.

What are they going to say about it anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30975024)

What are they going to say about it anyway? At least we know about it and can talk about it. It's not revisionist history yet...

This is a slippery slope to hell (5, Insightful)

janimal (172428) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975434)

Not to be the devil's advocate here, but wasn't it also extremely profitable to be helping out Hitler once upon a time? Are commercial interests really a good justification for what's going on?

This is not an area for business to make judgements on. Business will do what is legal, and no more. This is an area for governments to step in. Why not make it illegal for corps to engage in business practices that would be considered unlawful outside the jurisdiction? That would fix a lot of these ethical problems. The way it is now, a moral corp cannot afford to be outdone in China by an amoral one.

Corps should not be left alone in making judgements on ethics. The most recent lesson on that isn't Nazi Germany, btw. It happened as recently as this decade, when Mr. Greenspan trusted banks to make the right decisions.

As far as I can see, there is no grey area here.

Re:This is a slippery slope to hell (1)

yacc143 (975862) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975736)

Well, technically, yes, some US companies delivered that data management technologies that made the holocaust even possible.

Interestingly, they were not punished in any way. Well, yes, up to the moment where the US entered the war, it was clearly a simple legal business transaction, and afterwards it only complicated slightly the situation, the company that I'm thinking about just setup they're corporate entities up in a different way, ...

Money makes the world go round... (1)

allcoolnameswheretak (1102727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975824)

...and there are those with alot of money who are not interested in changing that.

Re:This is a slippery slope to hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30976466)

Godwin's Law ... you lose.

*SPLUTTER* THE US GOVERNMENT DIDN'T WANT TO... (0, Troll)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975682)

UPSET CHINESE INVESTORS? WTF???

Who owns this country? Yeah, it's pretty self-evident from that statement. The Chinese do.

Welcome to the Communist States of China,folks, and let's all salute our leaders for pissing away the farm. Huzzah!!

Re:*SPLUTTER* THE US GOVERNMENT DIDN'T WANT TO... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30975922)

You're an idiot. If the you owe the bank all of the money it took to buy your house, they own you. However, if one sovereign nation holds the notes to currency that another sovereign nation dispenses at its pleasure, the borrower owns the lender. If the US decided to negate that debt (which they can do), who would be worse off? It's not like the Chinese holders of these treasuries can somehow "foreclose" on the United States. Sure, the U.S. would have trouble selling treasuries after that (for a while), but they just made trillions of dollars of Chinese money disappear *overnight*. It's a liability for them to a much greater degree than it is to the U.S.

It makes sense (3, Interesting)

Dr. Hellno (1159307) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975690)

not to challenge China, an important global market, about cyber-attacks on google when there's no significant evidence that they were responsible. The first thing we did was accuse them, but since they deny culpability, and there isn't any evidence [slashdot.org] to contradict them, bringing it up again is at least arrogant and probably xenophobic too. If proof of their involvement surfaces, maybe then we'll have something to talk about.

Much Easier to Trash the USA (4, Interesting)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976222)

It truly is a back-handed complement that people have no qualms trashing America in their public comments. It's as if they are saying "we don't like you or some of the things you do, but you aren't truly big enough bastards to retaliate against us."

Truly evil regimes like China and Russia get different treatment.

And if you are truly idiotic like Hugo Chavez, you get visits from Sean Penn and kudos from Oliver Stone.

Re:Much Easier to Trash the USA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30976472)

What breathtaking ignorance your post shows.

I havent noticed China and Russia illegally invading any countries recently, or propping up
mass murderers like Israel.

The US has bombed 16 countries since WW2, an China and Russia are evil?

If you took your head out of your ass for a minute yoy might see whats going on.

Exports (1)

deanston (1252868) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976548)

For decades USSR exported communism, and US try to export democracy, but we really export capitalism. The offspring is China, a single party empire that knows how to take advantage of capitalism and is more ruthless than anything witnessed in the West. China will run into problems, but mostly it will not be from external pressures, but as a result of trying to bring Western consumer standards to their entire populace. So I supposed we'll still have the last laugh, but I wonder if Google will still be significant by then.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?