<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Armed and Dangerous</title>
	<atom:link href="http://esr.ibiblio.org/?feed=comments-rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://esr.ibiblio.org</link>
	<description>Sex, software, politics, and firearms. Life&#039;s simple pleasures...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 10:30:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The &#8220;Plain Jane&#8221; timing GPS is real by Winter</title>
		<link>http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4335&#038;cpage=1#comment-380468</link>
		<dc:creator>Winter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 10:30:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4335#comment-380468</guid>
		<description>@JAD
&quot;Minimum wage in Shanghai is $194 a month, and most people earn above the minimum, so if someone is earning $200 a month, he is one of the unlucky ones, at least in Shanghai.&quot;

My numbers were quoted two years back, and they were not for the coastal region, but more inland. So, I guess they will be higher in current day Shanghai.

@JAD
&quot;Your argument can explain where they are at. It fails to explain how they got to where they are at, or where they are going to from where they are at. &quot;

Oh, that is simple and complex at the same time. The Chinese kept productivity rising faster than wages. They raised productivity by channeling capital into improved machinery, education, and infrastructure (I was told a new power station was brought online every week). They kept wages low by controlling work migration, always making sure there were more workers than work. 

The USA did the wages thing, by letting a continuous stream of immigrant workers into the USA to increase labor competition. The USA botched the productivity raising thing, big time.

The Chinese keep going up the value chain by forcing existing companies to compete with ever more new upstart companies in more rural areas where wages are always lower than at the coast. And by reinvesting money to improve productivity and quality. Moving up the value chain is actual government policy.

@JAD
&quot;Your explanation fails to explain cars on the streets and air conditioned buildings.&quot;

The upper 1% of the Chinese is 15 million people. The upper 10% is 150 million people. That is an awful lot of cars and luxury goods.

@JAD
&quot;And it fails to explain how Eric got the best GPS he has seen in two weeks from design to product on his desk.&quot;

Fast companies? That is 1980&#039;s Japanese stuff. 

Channel high volume exports through big, global players who can bargain. But let them be supplied by local (very) small shops. And do not take long term contracts. Most of the German industrial export is from medium sized (~5000) companies no one has ever heard of. 

Maybe US firms are organized differently? It is difficult to milk many small companies for cash/shareholder value/bonuses, so that might be a motivation to coagulate them?

And, obviously, Chinese engineers are well educated and willing to work for their customers. I saw the same approach in Germany. But I also have met badly educated people who only wanted to get my money, preferably without doing anything in return. 

Which approach is stimulated in the USA? I know the UK have bet on the financial industry for economic growth, at the detriment of the whole world.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@JAD<br />
&#8220;Minimum wage in Shanghai is $194 a month, and most people earn above the minimum, so if someone is earning $200 a month, he is one of the unlucky ones, at least in Shanghai.&#8221;</p>
<p>My numbers were quoted two years back, and they were not for the coastal region, but more inland. So, I guess they will be higher in current day Shanghai.</p>
<p>@JAD<br />
&#8220;Your argument can explain where they are at. It fails to explain how they got to where they are at, or where they are going to from where they are at. &#8221;</p>
<p>Oh, that is simple and complex at the same time. The Chinese kept productivity rising faster than wages. They raised productivity by channeling capital into improved machinery, education, and infrastructure (I was told a new power station was brought online every week). They kept wages low by controlling work migration, always making sure there were more workers than work. </p>
<p>The USA did the wages thing, by letting a continuous stream of immigrant workers into the USA to increase labor competition. The USA botched the productivity raising thing, big time.</p>
<p>The Chinese keep going up the value chain by forcing existing companies to compete with ever more new upstart companies in more rural areas where wages are always lower than at the coast. And by reinvesting money to improve productivity and quality. Moving up the value chain is actual government policy.</p>
<p>@JAD<br />
&#8220;Your explanation fails to explain cars on the streets and air conditioned buildings.&#8221;</p>
<p>The upper 1% of the Chinese is 15 million people. The upper 10% is 150 million people. That is an awful lot of cars and luxury goods.</p>
<p>@JAD<br />
&#8220;And it fails to explain how Eric got the best GPS he has seen in two weeks from design to product on his desk.&#8221;</p>
<p>Fast companies? That is 1980&#8242;s Japanese stuff. </p>
<p>Channel high volume exports through big, global players who can bargain. But let them be supplied by local (very) small shops. And do not take long term contracts. Most of the German industrial export is from medium sized (~5000) companies no one has ever heard of. </p>
<p>Maybe US firms are organized differently? It is difficult to milk many small companies for cash/shareholder value/bonuses, so that might be a motivation to coagulate them?</p>
<p>And, obviously, Chinese engineers are well educated and willing to work for their customers. I saw the same approach in Germany. But I also have met badly educated people who only wanted to get my money, preferably without doing anything in return. </p>
<p>Which approach is stimulated in the USA? I know the UK have bet on the financial industry for economic growth, at the detriment of the whole world.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Engineering zero-defect software by bbot</title>
		<link>http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4340&#038;cpage=1#comment-380466</link>
		<dc:creator>bbot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 07:55:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4340#comment-380466</guid>
		<description>I have only the most superficial understanding of the topic, but KCC is a static analyzer that John Regehr talks about quite a lot: https://code.google.com/p/c-semantics/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have only the most superficial understanding of the topic, but KCC is a static analyzer that John Regehr talks about quite a lot: <a href="https://code.google.com/p/c-semantics/" rel="nofollow">https://code.google.com/p/c-semantics/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The &#8220;Plain Jane&#8221; timing GPS is real by James A Donald</title>
		<link>http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4335&#038;cpage=1#comment-380465</link>
		<dc:creator>James A Donald</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 07:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4335#comment-380465</guid>
		<description>Winter
&gt; Chinese factory workers earn $100-200 a month. And those are the lucky ones. 

Minimum wage in Shanghai is $194 a month, and most people earn above the minimum, so if someone is earning $200 a month, he is one of the unlucky ones, at least in Shanghai.

But you have a point, even though you exaggerate.  Chinese wages are low, though rising fast.  

This may well explain them assembling stuff cheaply.  It does not explain the fact that China is moving up the value chain, exporting stuff whose main ingredients are not cheap labor.  Your argument can explain where they are at.  It fails to explain how they got to where they are at, or where they are going to from where they are at.  Your explanation fails to explain cars on the streets and air conditioned buildings.  It explains all those people on bicycles living in tiny little rooms, but fails to explain the rapidly increasing number of people in cars.

And it fails to explain how Eric got the best GPS he has seen in two weeks from design to product on his desk.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Winter<br />
&gt; Chinese factory workers earn $100-200 a month. And those are the lucky ones. </p>
<p>Minimum wage in Shanghai is $194 a month, and most people earn above the minimum, so if someone is earning $200 a month, he is one of the unlucky ones, at least in Shanghai.</p>
<p>But you have a point, even though you exaggerate.  Chinese wages are low, though rising fast.  </p>
<p>This may well explain them assembling stuff cheaply.  It does not explain the fact that China is moving up the value chain, exporting stuff whose main ingredients are not cheap labor.  Your argument can explain where they are at.  It fails to explain how they got to where they are at, or where they are going to from where they are at.  Your explanation fails to explain cars on the streets and air conditioned buildings.  It explains all those people on bicycles living in tiny little rooms, but fails to explain the rapidly increasing number of people in cars.</p>
<p>And it fails to explain how Eric got the best GPS he has seen in two weeks from design to product on his desk.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Engineering zero-defect software by Winter</title>
		<link>http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4340&#038;cpage=1#comment-380463</link>
		<dc:creator>Winter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 06:34:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4340#comment-380463</guid>
		<description>@Jeff Read
&quot;That said, from time to time I still like to tell the Tale of the Breakfast Food Cooker as prophylaxis against any latent grand architecture-astronautics ideas.&quot;

Good story. But most readers seem to miss the difference in underlying problem spaces. 

An (electrical) engineer takes raw stuff that does nothing useful, and combines it to do something useful. The less stuff is used, the better.

A Computer Scientist takes a Universal Turing Complete device, and has to cut it down to make is usable. Because, a raw UT machine can potentially do everything, but is next to useless.

So, an engineer creates value by adding capabilities. A CS creates value by taking away capabilities. It is logical for an engineer to limit the number of capabilities to add, as it is logical for the CS to limit the number of capabilities to remove.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Jeff Read<br />
&#8220;That said, from time to time I still like to tell the Tale of the Breakfast Food Cooker as prophylaxis against any latent grand architecture-astronautics ideas.&#8221;</p>
<p>Good story. But most readers seem to miss the difference in underlying problem spaces. </p>
<p>An (electrical) engineer takes raw stuff that does nothing useful, and combines it to do something useful. The less stuff is used, the better.</p>
<p>A Computer Scientist takes a Universal Turing Complete device, and has to cut it down to make is usable. Because, a raw UT machine can potentially do everything, but is next to useless.</p>
<p>So, an engineer creates value by adding capabilities. A CS creates value by taking away capabilities. It is logical for an engineer to limit the number of capabilities to add, as it is logical for the CS to limit the number of capabilities to remove.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The &#8220;Plain Jane&#8221; timing GPS is real by Winter</title>
		<link>http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4335&#038;cpage=1#comment-380462</link>
		<dc:creator>Winter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 06:04:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4335#comment-380462</guid>
		<description>@JAD
&quot;Everything you write rests on the position that our ruling elite is wise benevolent and constructive, except that they should have more power and more wealth so that they can be more benevolent and constructive.&quot; 
... and much more along these lines

You are so funny. You seem to be unable to read and will only project your own troubled thoughts onto whomever you argue with. Your writings give us a good view on your mind. And it is a true horror story.

I think the ruling elite of the USA is best described as a mix of hyenas and vultures (btw, most elites are like that), but somehow, the population they rule seem to see them as role models. The rest of the argument goes downhill from this.

Try to find the places where I wrote anything about China and the Chinese that would justify your accusations.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@JAD<br />
&#8220;Everything you write rests on the position that our ruling elite is wise benevolent and constructive, except that they should have more power and more wealth so that they can be more benevolent and constructive.&#8221;<br />
&#8230; and much more along these lines</p>
<p>You are so funny. You seem to be unable to read and will only project your own troubled thoughts onto whomever you argue with. Your writings give us a good view on your mind. And it is a true horror story.</p>
<p>I think the ruling elite of the USA is best described as a mix of hyenas and vultures (btw, most elites are like that), but somehow, the population they rule seem to see them as role models. The rest of the argument goes downhill from this.</p>
<p>Try to find the places where I wrote anything about China and the Chinese that would justify your accusations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The &#8220;Plain Jane&#8221; timing GPS is real by Winter</title>
		<link>http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4335&#038;cpage=1#comment-380461</link>
		<dc:creator>Winter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 05:48:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4335#comment-380461</guid>
		<description>@JAD
&quot;The question at issue is why is Chinese business more flexible and faster to react than US business: The US, not China, is the issue we are discussing.&quot;

OK. I was discussing China, but if you want, I will lay down my over-simplistic &quot;One size fits all&quot; analysis of the USA economy. 

I think the USA is losing business to China for two reasons. 

1) Americans are too expensive. 
Chinese factory workers earn $100-200 a month. And those are the lucky ones. They can actually live off this pittance (it is an enormous improvement over what they earned only a decade ago). You can have outdoor lunch in China for $1 (I did for less). You can cook a healthy diner for $1. For that money, you literally starve in the US. Therefore, Chinese companies can produce many products much cheaper than US ones. 

There are good reasons for this difference. One is, much more money is spend to raise a US American in terms of education, health care, food safety, building quality and safety, law enforcement etc. An American simply has to earn much more to repay for all this investment. 

Trying to reduce wages and living standards in the USA to those of China to try to compete on their terms is ridiculous. The solution is to raise productivity to levels that would make the USA competitive again. 

This brings us to the next factor:

2) The USA did not invest in higher productivity
Germany invested heavily in moving to producing high-tech, high-value products by improving education, technology research, and innovation. As a result, the Chinese produce all these cheap products using German machinery and German tools. The USA spend all that money on increasing consumption (and the Matthew effect). As a result, too many US companies compete head-on with China on price. With the above result.

As I have heard no one in the US, whatever political views, addressing these two factors, I think these US developments happened with near unanimous support in the USA.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@JAD<br />
&#8220;The question at issue is why is Chinese business more flexible and faster to react than US business: The US, not China, is the issue we are discussing.&#8221;</p>
<p>OK. I was discussing China, but if you want, I will lay down my over-simplistic &#8220;One size fits all&#8221; analysis of the USA economy. </p>
<p>I think the USA is losing business to China for two reasons. </p>
<p>1) Americans are too expensive.<br />
Chinese factory workers earn $100-200 a month. And those are the lucky ones. They can actually live off this pittance (it is an enormous improvement over what they earned only a decade ago). You can have outdoor lunch in China for $1 (I did for less). You can cook a healthy diner for $1. For that money, you literally starve in the US. Therefore, Chinese companies can produce many products much cheaper than US ones. </p>
<p>There are good reasons for this difference. One is, much more money is spend to raise a US American in terms of education, health care, food safety, building quality and safety, law enforcement etc. An American simply has to earn much more to repay for all this investment. </p>
<p>Trying to reduce wages and living standards in the USA to those of China to try to compete on their terms is ridiculous. The solution is to raise productivity to levels that would make the USA competitive again. </p>
<p>This brings us to the next factor:</p>
<p>2) The USA did not invest in higher productivity<br />
Germany invested heavily in moving to producing high-tech, high-value products by improving education, technology research, and innovation. As a result, the Chinese produce all these cheap products using German machinery and German tools. The USA spend all that money on increasing consumption (and the Matthew effect). As a result, too many US companies compete head-on with China on price. With the above result.</p>
<p>As I have heard no one in the US, whatever political views, addressing these two factors, I think these US developments happened with near unanimous support in the USA.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The &#8220;Plain Jane&#8221; timing GPS is real by James A Donald</title>
		<link>http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4335&#038;cpage=1#comment-380458</link>
		<dc:creator>James A Donald</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 23:12:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4335#comment-380458</guid>
		<description>Winter:
&gt; Contrary to your obsessive writing, I do not think about the US when I write about China, or any other topic. 

The question at issue is why is Chinese business more flexible and faster to react than US business:  The US, not China, is the issue we are discussing.

Is it because China&#039;s unregulated capitalism allows the evil capitalist overlords to oppress And exploit the masses, (your story) or is it because they are less weighed down by a statist bureaucracy that thrusts its tentacles deep into every orifice of every business, as manifested by HR among others (my story - for which the peculiar sex ratio of HR is compelling evidence)

Everything you write rests on the position that our ruling elite is wise benevolent and constructive, except that they should have more power and more wealth so that they can be more benevolent and constructive.

Hence you are outraged by the fact that a Chinese graduate with an undergraduate degree in business administration from a low status rural university cannot get a job administering business in Peking, due to competition from people with high status degrees from Peking universities, and consider that it illustrates the fact that Chinese flexibility is attained by exploiting and oppressing the masses, while mass murder, artificial famine, and near universal slavery did not trouble you at all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Winter:<br />
&gt; Contrary to your obsessive writing, I do not think about the US when I write about China, or any other topic. </p>
<p>The question at issue is why is Chinese business more flexible and faster to react than US business:  The US, not China, is the issue we are discussing.</p>
<p>Is it because China&#8217;s unregulated capitalism allows the evil capitalist overlords to oppress And exploit the masses, (your story) or is it because they are less weighed down by a statist bureaucracy that thrusts its tentacles deep into every orifice of every business, as manifested by HR among others (my story &#8211; for which the peculiar sex ratio of HR is compelling evidence)</p>
<p>Everything you write rests on the position that our ruling elite is wise benevolent and constructive, except that they should have more power and more wealth so that they can be more benevolent and constructive.</p>
<p>Hence you are outraged by the fact that a Chinese graduate with an undergraduate degree in business administration from a low status rural university cannot get a job administering business in Peking, due to competition from people with high status degrees from Peking universities, and consider that it illustrates the fact that Chinese flexibility is attained by exploiting and oppressing the masses, while mass murder, artificial famine, and near universal slavery did not trouble you at all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on John Carter: the movie by Jeff Read</title>
		<link>http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4185&#038;cpage=1#comment-380457</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Read</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 21:38:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4185#comment-380457</guid>
		<description>Say what you will about China Miéville; &lt;a href=&quot;http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2012/05/14&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PA certainly hasn&#039;t held back&lt;/a&gt;.

What I do know, though, is that he is absolutely the future of SF.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Say what you will about China Miéville; <a href="http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2012/05/14" rel="nofollow">PA certainly hasn&#8217;t held back</a>.</p>
<p>What I do know, though, is that he is absolutely the future of SF.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The &#8220;Plain Jane&#8221; timing GPS is real by David Gerard</title>
		<link>http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4335&#038;cpage=1#comment-380456</link>
		<dc:creator>David Gerard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 18:18:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4335#comment-380456</guid>
		<description>Eric - off-topic - but in &lt;a href=&quot;http://eric.s.raymond.usesthis.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this interview&lt;/a&gt; you note that 16:9 displays are stretched horizontally too annoyingly. Have you tried putting your monitor in portrait mode? I do this at work and it makes everything &lt;i&gt;ridiculously&lt;/i&gt; better: everything I look at (web page, email, terminal, spreadsheet, gVim window) is a document sorta thing, so is so much more usable in portrait. The &lt;i&gt;one&lt;/i&gt; thing landscape is better for is movies, which I don&#039;t watch at work. Try it, you won&#039;t go back.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Eric &#8211; off-topic &#8211; but in <a href="http://eric.s.raymond.usesthis.com/" rel="nofollow">this interview</a> you note that 16:9 displays are stretched horizontally too annoyingly. Have you tried putting your monitor in portrait mode? I do this at work and it makes everything <i>ridiculously</i> better: everything I look at (web page, email, terminal, spreadsheet, gVim window) is a document sorta thing, so is so much more usable in portrait. The <i>one</i> thing landscape is better for is movies, which I don&#8217;t watch at work. Try it, you won&#8217;t go back.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Engineering zero-defect software by Jeff Read</title>
		<link>http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4340&#038;cpage=1#comment-380455</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Read</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 18:02:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4340#comment-380455</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;I’ve been in industrial control for 15 years, and the worst thing I ever heard was a software guy saying “why do you muck around with these PLCs? Just put in a Linux box and we’ll program the control sequence.”&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Madness! Hopefully he was a buck n00b? :)

Maybe it&#039;s because I work in robotics, and there&#039;s just so much data going into and out of various devices that it would be impossible for the main CPU to handle all that I/O and the high-level logic, even assuming a hard-RT OS and 100% software reliability (neither of which, of course, we actually have). But I&#039;ve NEVER heard that from a colleague; and if I did... well, at minimum they&#039;d have to put a dollar in the &quot;Just Jar&quot;. :)

That said, from time to time I still like to tell &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/toaster.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the Tale of the Breakfast Food Cooker&lt;/a&gt; as prophylaxis against any latent grand architecture-astronautics ideas.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>I’ve been in industrial control for 15 years, and the worst thing I ever heard was a software guy saying “why do you muck around with these PLCs? Just put in a Linux box and we’ll program the control sequence.”</p></blockquote>
<p>Madness! Hopefully he was a buck n00b? :)</p>
<p>Maybe it&#8217;s because I work in robotics, and there&#8217;s just so much data going into and out of various devices that it would be impossible for the main CPU to handle all that I/O and the high-level logic, even assuming a hard-RT OS and 100% software reliability (neither of which, of course, we actually have). But I&#8217;ve NEVER heard that from a colleague; and if I did&#8230; well, at minimum they&#8217;d have to put a dollar in the &#8220;Just Jar&#8221;. :)</p>
<p>That said, from time to time I still like to tell <a href="http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/toaster.htm" rel="nofollow">the Tale of the Breakfast Food Cooker</a> as prophylaxis against any latent grand architecture-astronautics ideas.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

