Chinese/Others stealing U.S. intellectual property

[SteadyMercury]

21D being operationally effective is mostly rumors and theory, there are a lot of pieces in the technology chain that would have to work perfectly to pull it off. It would hardly prevent the USN from operating in the Taiwan Straits.

 

[R.C. Christian]

I hope you're right. If they can work some bugs out, get some more sats in the sky before we can counter that tech then it could be bad.

 

[SteadyMercury]

We do still have Chuck Norris.

 

[Osomir]

I hope you're right. If they can work some bugs out, get some more sats in the sky before we can counter that tech then it could be bad.

I don't see how it "could be bad." At least not in any dire sense of the term. We aren't at all likely to go to war with China either way.

 

[R.C. Christian]

I hope you're right. If they can work some bugs out, get some more sats in the sky before we can counter that tech then it could be bad.

I don't see how it "could be bad." At least not in any dire sense of the term. We aren't at all likely to go to war with China either way.

Russian and China have put their own line in the sand in Syria and Iran. Don't underestimate the seriousness of what could transpire there. Just saying. I don't believe Taiwan will happen anytime soon but there is a lot of tension, as always, between the Japs and the Chinese so we could also see a decent arms buildup there to highlight existing global tensions.

 

[rdean]

I thought Republicans hate intellectuals.

They do but its a problem for them because they can't even recognize intellectualism.

Read Steady Mercury's post. Apparently he doesn't know that, thanks to an incredulously stupid US prez by the name of shrub, US schools teach to the test.

He also doesn't seem to know that China graduates more science majors than we graduate people of any major.

And, it was another rw here who stated that too many US citizens are going to college. Several have said that universities and colleges are just chocked full of intellectual LIB-rules.

They don't get it and never will because they value stupid and ignorant. Anyone who doubts that only has to look at their politicians and presidential candidates.

They are proud because they thing they aren't "snobs".

 

[Vox]

They don't come up with ideas. That's simply not what China is good at.

We do because we are.

Rs refuse to back US efforts to keep up with the world so China, and others, take our ideas and run with them.

they don't come up with ideas because of their regime.

Ideas can not grow in a cage. even if the cage is golden.

Actually, although it sounds good and I really do mean that, your first statement isn't true.

But if it were, it wouldn't matter because, to use your metaphor, the idea would be stuck in a cage.

Its moot.

it's not. Chinese have had great ideas throughout history.

Just not for the last 50 years.

because of the regime.

 

[Whereisup]

I haven't quantified this, which is why my statement was vague. I was also being generous.

If one looks at the research literature in various fields, one finds that the vast majority of the research is just to confirm a previous finding, or makes small variations. In the social sciences, people sometimes just rename a variable on which there has already been researched, and then claim that they have discovered something new because they have given it a new name.

The number of real and significant new discoveries is very small. In the Arts, one can see or hear the strong influence of an existing school. Rarely does someone come up with a new genre.

In an informal survey I did, a number of researchers said that when they wanted to do research, they went and looked at the list of research projects an agency wanted done, and then they applied for a grant for one of those.

The effect is probably skewed somewhat because research granting agencies won't give grants for something genuinely new. They call that a "fishing expedition". The head of a medical research department at Harvard, sent me their standard sheet they give to professors wanting to do research. Among other things, the sheet pointed out that if one's grant application is seen as a fishing expedition, that was a kiss of death.

Another researcher, whose name I wouldn't give you but fortunately I have forgotten his name sp it couldn't be forced out of me, said that the granting agencies won't give grants for creative new research ideas, so when he applied for grants for noncreative research, he diverted some of the money into his creative research.

Etc.

I think the problem is that there are some members of Congress who strongly attack research grants. So the rest of Congress and the granting agencies have become defensive. To keep out of trouble, every research project has to show results

But think about it. The only way to ensure that all research projects are successful is to only do research which copies successful research which has been done before, with perhaps a few small variations.

Jim

 

[American_Jihad]

If the Chinese are reduced to copying us then how are they pulverizing us?

They don't come up with ideas. That's simply not what China is good at.

We do because we are.

Rs refuse to back US efforts to keep up with the world so China, and others, take our ideas and run with them.

Edited to add - We have become a bedroom community of China. Can anyone say they didn't alreadyknow that's where the R is taking us? Obama wants more tax breaks for companies who bring their business back home. Do you rw's object to that?

Puddly, U B full of...

 

[Whereisup]

Let me comment that I have seen reports of some very good and creative Chinese research, and I haven't even made a full study of what the Chinese are doing. Of course, the American news media doesn't report Chinese scientific ongoing research, so of course, most Americans don't know about it.

China has not over history been very warlike, so we should be able to work out an equal partnership with China if we try and do it right. I doubt that either Republican or Democratic politicians would do it right, but I think it is possible.

First, we need to work out economic arrangements which are balanced and benefit both nations simultaneously. That is something China and we have never done before, but we could put some creative minds to work on it.

Then, we need to approach China in the way she respects best -- extremely cultured sages.

I'll only give one example. Once in awhile, heads of state, and cabinet officials, might meet in a wonderful mountain pavilion, with a couple of tables of highly interesting antiques to look at when they take a break from talking.

Jim

 

[SteadyMercury]

I haven't quantified this, which is why my statement was vague. I was also being generous.

Sure you did. You said there are just tens of thousands of Americans who are creative. You quantified the number of creative Americans as being less than 0.1%, using a measure "not creative" that is also not definable in any way that could be useful to measure.

You have then defended the numbers you pulled out of thin air with further clarification that this extremely inexact swag was being generous.

 

[SteadyMercury]

But back on topic, it is well known that employers in China have a difficult time finding qualified young people despite the high number of graduates.

Education Reform in China: What the educators think | OECD Insights Blog

Since Deng Xiaoping opened China to the world in the late 1970s, the free market, the Internet, and globalization have all come to China, each with its own particular set of promises and perils. Employers, both domestic and foreign, complain they cannot staff their companies, even though over half of China’s university graduates cannot find employment. It has become clear that a system where 50 students in a class together memorize textbooks from dawn until midnight for multiple-choice examinations cannot produce the management and creative talent needed by a global knowledge economy.

On attempts at reform:
Lessons to Learn on Education Reform

The author pointed out the traditional patterns of education, particularly exam-oriented teaching and learning that focuses on centralized textbooks and exams, have greatly restrained the creativity and potential of students.
...
Chinese experts agree it is easy to identify challenges in education reform, but more difficult to overcome them. "Whether it is the vaunted concept of quality education or the reform of the exam-oriented system, I would say education reform is the most unsuccessful of all reforms in China since the 1980s," said Xu Haoyuan, a psychologist who started an online training program to help teachers solve their psychological problems last year.

On standardized tests
Chinese Top In Tests, But Educators Call For Reform : NPR

The teacher teaches, the students repeat, and even the principal admits the feared final high school exam that gets you into college — known as the gaokao — is all simply about memorization and rote learning. That principal, Liu Jinghai, though he is proud of his students for testing well, says the West shouldn't worry about the PISA results.

"Developed countries like the U.S. shouldn't be too surprised by these results. They're just one index, one measure that shows off the good points of Shanghai's and China's education system. But the results can't cover up our problems," he says.

Liu is very frank about those problems — the continuing reliance on rote learning, the lack of analysis or critical thinking — and he says the system is in dire need of reform. "Why don't Chinese students dare to think? Because we insist on telling them everything. We're not getting our kids to go and find things out for themselves," he says.

These are views from inside China, this isn't some startling revelation. China's education system does not foster creativity, and their wealthy/powerful will do whatever they can to have their children educated in the west.

 

[Whereisup]

I apologize anyway. When I use the word "quantify" I consider that to be fairly accurate, not an estimate. Apparently, I have higher standards than many people, however, and I should try to be clear to people who don't have such high standards.

The estimate, however, was not pulled out of the air. It is based in part on the sample research articles and works in the Arts I have looked at. It is based in part on the survey of researchers. It is based in part about the number of discoveries and works which are written about with some awe due to the breakthroughs they have been.

In any case, regardless of the numbers, the very fact that the United States is in trouble means that we don't have enough highly creative people.

I think that a much larger percentage of the population could be highly creative, but they have been squashed down by others, or have been diverted to other activities because they had a limited choice in jobs, etc.

A few psychological theories hold that the majority of people would be highly creative if they had been brought up being encouraged to be creative, rather than discouraged.

I don't know whether or not that many people really do have that potential, as we don't have enough research. However, I think those theories might be true.

But the point is that we probably have no more highly creative people working professionally than China, at the moment, and we may well have fewer highly creative people at the moment than China.

We should address this possibility rationally if we want to survive as a major nation. This isn't a time to let ego get in the way.

Jim

 

[SteadyMercury]

I apologize anyway. When I use the word "quantify" I consider that to be fairly accurate, not an estimate. Apparently, I have higher standards than many people, however, and I should try to be clear to people who don't have such high standards.

The definition of "quantify" has nothing to do with standards of you or others. If you are attempting to use numbers to measure a quantity you are quantifying, whether it is using a range or down to an exact digit.

The estimate, however, was not pulled out of the air. It is based in part on the sample research articles and works in the Arts I have looked at. It is based in part on the survey of researchers. It is based in part about the number of discoveries and works which are written about with some awe due to the breakthroughs they have been.

Hooray for academia. Sorry but I'm usually pretty skeptical of people who back up their claims with "I read it once" and that goes even further for vague references to surveys of researchers.

In any case, regardless of the numbers, the very fact that the United States is in trouble means that we don't have enough highly creative people.

A serious stretch of correlation even if your premise was provable. First you are again trying to apply proofs with nebulous terms like "in trouble" and "creative people" then you make an amazing leap of attribution.

But the point is that we probably have no more highly creative people working professionally than China, at the moment, and we may well have fewer highly creative people at the moment than China.

Probaly and may well have. Good stuff professor.

I'll repeat: China's education system is well known for not fostering creativity, individuality, or critical reasoning. This is recognized in China and despite talk of reform little has been accomplished, resulting in extremely high unemployment among college graduates in China despite a skilled labor shortage.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Also = I've taught technical classes in China, I speak mandarin, I won't be in China again until this September, I've had many a long discussion with locals in China about their education system and its flaws. You are not going to convince me that the Chinese education system fosters creativity with your claims of having seen some research somewhere.

 

[rdean]

Since Republicans hate "intellectuals", do they know what "intellectual property" is?

 

[American_Jihad]

Obama, Clinton Selling Out U.S. Sovereignty in Secret

May 21, 2012

• Obama, Clinton work in secret to surrender U.S. sovereignty

By Victor Thorn

Is the Obama administration secretly negotiating treaties with globalist bodies, in violation of the Unites States Constitution? That’s the question on the minds of a number of political watchdogs, who argue that the White House is doing an end run around Congress and the American people in order to lock the country into agreements on the environment, fishing rights and even gun ownership with the United Nations (UN).

On February 7, former Bill Clinton campaign manager Dick Morris dissected a host of international “sneaky treaties” that, he says, “Once signed and ratified, have the same status as constitutional law and cannot be altered or eclipsed by Congress or state legislatures. And their provisions must be enforced by U.S. courts.”

The most egregious of these would be U.S. membership in the International Criminal Court (ICC). This tribunal that has jurisdiction across the globe could prosecute elected U.S. leaders for entering into a war without UN approval. These “crimes of aggression”—even if approved by Congress under an official declaration of war—could still land the president or cabinet members in prison. The ICC’s reach supersedes the rulings of any U.S. court, thereby posing a serious threat to constitutionally-guaranteed trials by a jury of our peers.

A lesser-known aspect of this treaty involves, ironically, the use of America’s military to wage aggressions against those deemed war criminals by the ICC.

...

Learning the ropes from Washington, D.C.’s former fixer extraordinaire—longtime Bilderberg luminary Vernon Jordan—Hillary has always nurtured a comfortable relationship with Wall Street bankers and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Indeed, during a July 17, 2009 CFR address, Hillary revealed, “We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”

With the Obama administration pursuing a number of globalist treaties that undermine American sovereignty, it’s clear that Hillary Clinton is the driving force behind these moves as she travels from country to country. According to the elitist’s worldview, individuals should be subordinate and powerless to collectivists, while nationalists are viewed as a distraction to be folded into the globalist whole.

During a July 17, 2009 CFR address, Hillary revealed: “We get a lot of advice from the council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”

Obama, Clinton Selling Out U.S. Sovereignty in Secret | American Free Press

 

[rdean]

And yet, it was Bush and the Republicans putting together business subsidies to help move millions of jobs to China. Funny thing about recent history. It's difficult to "re-write".

 

[American_Jihad]

And yet, it was Bush and the Republicans putting together business subsidies to help move millions of jobs to China. Funny thing about recent history. It's difficult to "re-write".

Dear Retarded Dean...

The ceremony capped years of negotiations with Beijing and an intense debate at home among the Clinton administration, business and labor interests. It will open China's mammoth market to U.S. businesses and pave the way for China's entry into the World Trade Organization -- it also ends a 20-year-old U.S. ritual of annually reviewing China's trade status.

...

Some opponents worried that the U.S. would be unable to influence Beijing over human rights concerns without a yearly vote on trade. To counter those concerns, the legislation calls for setting up a congressional-executive commission to monitor human rights in China and create a so-called surge mechanism to help American industries and workers hurt by an increase in Chinese imports.

Clinton signs China trade bill, - October 10, 2000

--------------------------------------

Clinton has been heavily criticized for overseeing the creation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which made it more affordable for manufacturing companies to outsource jobs to foreign countries and then import their product back to the United States. This policy caused a significant decrease in the amount of unskilled jobs in the United States.

Some liberals and progressives believe that Clinton did not do enough to reverse the trends toward widening income and wealth inequality that began in the late 1970s and 1980s.
...

Clintonomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


...