I see a lot of commenters are perhaps not very familiar with cultural (and political) differences between the US and China.
Giving a little bit of benefit of doubt on the translation, I think that what Cook has done here is perfect.
Some things to consider:
1. China isn't Adobe. It's an authoritarian regime. You cannot win a direct confrontation with them, because the courts are a joke and even if they weren't, it's not like you actually have any rights anyway. If the government there decides it wants to F you, you're F'd.
2. Ancient Art of War. Given the reality of #1, the way to fight China is sneaky and backhanded. You "apologize" in a way that makes you look good and them look bad, and make it very hard for them to point to anything in the apology that makes it clear what you're doing. Succeeding in China is all about being passive aggressive.
3. Acceptance of reality. At the end of the day, Apple may have to accept artificial constraints on how much success the company can have in China. Apple should just use back channels to discretely figure out what exactly the Chinese government wants those constraints to be.
4. Take names, remember for later. While Apple will lose any direct confrontations with the Chinese government in the short run, in the long run Apple has some real advantages (like a lot of money; the affection of Chinese consumers; and the influence over a lot of Chinese workers). Keep track of the individual a-holes in the Chinese government and media doing this, and as opportunities arise, F them over as best you can. Ie, make your own karma.
This has very little to do with authoritarian. The US government has forbidden Chinese companies buying US oil company and government agencies buying Huawei products. Is there a US court that Chinese companies can go to?
Tim Cook's tone seems a little too apologetic. This shows how dependent Apple is on China - for manufacturing and sales to end-users. Not good. This is just the beginning of more harassment by the Chinese.
Could be, however Apple has a history of ignoring local laws with regards to warranties. As such I see this as more of the same and not something unique to the Chinese. When it comes to warranties Apple really needs to be knockd over the head.
Apple has always lag with respect to warranties and in the US engages in BS like selling extended warranties as another way to milk customers. I'm still amazed at the non sense that gets posted here about the value of paying for Apple Care.
This has very little to do with authoritarian. The US government has forbidden Chinese companies buying US oil company and government agencies buying Huawei products. Is there a US court that Chinese companies can go to?
Perhaps this is far off topic, but while I agree with you that the CNOOC-Chevron deal being denied was a stupid policy move on US's part, the issue with Huawei (and ZTE) is far more complicated. You can read the Congressional report yourself -- it is public -- and it does raise some serious issues. Especially surrounding the company's opaque financials and ownership structure, and more importantly, serious worries about 'backdoor' and 'trapdoor' security issues. India disallowed Huawei's products for similar reasons. Australia is now doing the same. Canada could soon do the same.
This is also conflated with the well-known -- and now well-documented -- cyber-attacks originating from China.
It is silly of you to suggest that US courts can't be used by the Chinese to seek redress. Foreign individuals and companies use US courts to win favorable (to them) judgments all the time. In the instance of Huawei, the US party involved is the government, and they cannot be sued under international law of 'sovereign immunity' (no country's government can be sued by a foreigner -- for example, this is the reason that a cartel such as OPEC cannot be taken to court under US antitrust laws even though their actions affect US consumers).
He can bring manufacturing to other SE Asian countries like Malaysia. Just a short distance away from Intel, Texas Instruments, Philips and GE factories among others.
Perhaps this is far off topic, but while I agree with you that the CNOOC-Chevron deal being denied was a stupid policy move on US's part, the issue with Huawei (and ZTE) is far more complicated. You can read the Congressional report yourself -- it is public -- and it does raise some serious issues. Especially surrounding the company's opaque financials and ownership structure, and more importantly, serious worries about 'backdoor' and 'trapdoor' security issues. India disallowed Huawei's products for similar reasons. Australia is now doing the same. Canada could soon do the same.
This is also conflated with the well-known -- and now well-documented -- cyber-attacks originating from China.
It is silly of you to suggest that US courts can't be used by the Chinese to seek redress. Foreign individuals and companies use US courts to win favorable (to them) judgments all the time. In the instance of Huawei, the US party involved is the government, and they cannot be sued under international law of 'sovereign immunity' (no country's government can be sued by a foreigner -- for example, this is the reason that a cartel such as OPEC cannot be taken to court under US antitrust laws even though their actions affect US consumers).
Do you know that Huawei compete with Cisco? Cisco sells equipment all over the world. According to your logic and US government shouldn't every other nation be worried about 'backdoor' and 'trapdoor' security issues from Cisco?
I think your so-called "well-documented -- cyber-attacks originating from China" is purely exaggeration, distortion, and lies from some US company that depends a lot of funding from US military.
Let me be more specific. Are these cyber-attacks from Chinese government or individuals? If they are from individuals, this is pretty common. It has originated from all over the world including US. So why China is singled out? If they are from Chinese government, why is called attack? The company uses the word to imply that the attacker is trying to inflict damages. I will ask you a serious question. This is a peaceful time. Why would Chinese government attacking US organizations in order to cause damages? Please give me a reason.
Xenophobia is a fundamental Chinese cultural 'value'. Mistrust, suspicion, opportunistic behavior, all characteristic of Chinese culture. Nobody can be trusted except family. So not only are they xeonophobic with respect to foreigners, this distrust extends to everyone. The opportunistic tendencies of Chinese are well known. They are often accused of cheating, from the government officials all the way down to the street vendors. It is common practice for example for a market seller of fish to swap out a fish that a customer has selected from the display case with a lesser quality item by wrapping up the item below the field of view of the customer. Similarly farmers are accused of injecting water into their produce to make it weigh more, and they don't use clean water either. In China you won't see public street signs or traffic signs made out of aluminum or steel. They would be stolen overnight. As in third world countries, you will see bars on residential widows, but unlike other countries, in China the bars go all the way to the top of the building because otherwise thieves will scale even a tall building to break in.
I have several Chinese friends in the US. The closest friend regularly visits China and he is the one who shared this information with me.
"Every effective lie has a kernel of truth at it's center."
While it is true that there are cultural forces in China that work differently than what many westerners are used to, yours is a very stereotypical view.
Confucianist ideas (and other influences) can lead to a sort of "every man for himself" mentality and other behaviors that might seem undesirable to many. The influence of totalitarian Communism has also effectively trained people to "look out for themselves and their loved ones." This leads them to affect behaviors that seem wrong (even to the persons doing them.) But people have to put up with things and do things just to get along. While it would be mistake to ignore these factors (and many others) in trying to understand China, it's just as big a mistake to make broad generalizations based on them.
One would do well to remember that Confucius was one of the earliest advocates of what we now call "The Golden Rule," which we tend to consider a foundational western value. I can say that when I lived in China, I made great friends who I would trust with my life. I was taken into homes and treated like a member of the family. It is understandable that people in China can act in ways we "don't get," (but this is true anywhere.) In the end, wherever you go, people are people.
Wherever you are, 4% of the people you meet are sociopaths. This means some people will commit crimes, fraud, and even violence against you. It's the same in china, the US, or anywhere. A major difference between cultures is in how well their systems work at keeping those 4% from hurting the rest of us. In my view, China (despite many problems I find unacceptable) has in many respects been improving in this area, while here in the US I think we have been back slipping in many significant ways. This doesn't make people in either society better or worse.
All that said, as a businessman, I would far prefer doing business in the US or Canada to Russia or China. But this is because of problems with the legal and political structures in those countries, not a flaw in the people who live there or their intrinsic nature.
What the FRICK is this nonsense?! Screw the fricking Chinese. Don't apologize, just give them 2 years by default and kick EVERY product's price up by $50. Shut them up.
I merely stated the part about my friend as a disclaimer that I do not know these things first hand. Perhaps his characterizations are exaggerated, which might be understandable as he was originally an exiled Chinese citizen who was formerly a prominent university professor in China as was his father. His father was executed during the cultural revolution. My friend's family was finally able to move to the US. I have known him for 15 years.
It's always dangerous to repeat someone else's "experiences". You need to particularly careful when you are painting a broad stroke over the largest population of the world with such experiences.
I am quite certain that somewhere outside the US (heck, in the US), there are those who describe Americans as gun-toting, bigamous, cousin-loving, coke-snorting,religious zealots who believe humans walked on earth at the same time as dinosaurs. That would be many people's experience of Americans. Should that stereotype be perpetuated by civilized, educated folks if related by a close friend or relative?
Probably fear not hate. The US is used to being the strongest super power but China is on track to potentially overtake them in this role. Because China is not a democracy it has a fundamentally different political system than the US and that causes uncertainty. When the Chinese youth start overturning and burning US made cars and US based businesses, as they recently did to Japan, that would be a demonstration of hatred.
Sounds like you're implying that the US is a democracy. I think one can dispute that vigorously.
But since it seems to be "normal" to define "Democracy" as being what the US political system is, its probably pointless trying to discuss that with an american.
Two Keywords: Electoral College, Lobbyism on the Hill.
Or did you think it was an accident that Obama signed the "Mosanto Bill" into law ?
This has very little to do with authoritarian. The US government has forbidden Chinese companies buying US oil company and government agencies buying Huawei products. Is there a US court that Chinese companies can go to?
I very much disagree. US policy decisions are made within a system of laws. Policy decisions that are inconsistent with the law definitely can be challenged in court. People do so all the time, and they don't find their families placed under arrest because of it. In China, the government is not constrained to follow laws in the same way.
Having said that, I realize that the distinction can sometimes seem nuanced and more a matter of degree than a matter of type. And there is some truth to the notion that the differences are a matter of degree. But as with so many things in life, degree really does matter. For example, the US government can change its laws and it might be hard to see how that is different from a government not being constrained by the law at all. But the *process* of changing the law is far from easy and can only be achieved through a painstaking sequence of steps that requires agreement from many, many people. For example, if the US government decided that it wanted to divert the MIssissippi river and create the world's largest dam, displacing millions of people in the process, it would find that it's virtually impossible due to the legal processes in place to thwart such a radical move. And it's not at all a simple matter to just change those processes. No single person, or small collection of people, can decide to change or suspend the rules.
Sounds like you're implying that the US is a democracy. I think one can dispute that vigorously.
But since it seems to be "normal" to define "Democracy" as being what the US political system is, its probably pointless trying to discuss that with an american.
Two Keywords: Electoral College, Lobbyism on the Hill.
Or did you think it was an accident that Obama signed the "Mosanto Bill" into law ?
Yes I agree on the Monsanto issue, however, at least we are free to protest, sign petitions, call our congressional leaders and get it overturned without fear of being imprisoned or worse executed for peacefully opposing the government. We also have all kinds of media outlets that are uncensored to help facilitate the reversal or overturn bad legislation. By next year this will be invalidated I hope. I also agree about lobbying but there are constitutional rights that allow a certain amount of it as long as the elected official makes public all donations. A better system might be term limits for all legislators just like office of President. The electoral college serves a purpose though. It is protection against widespread public craziness. So far it has not made a difference on the outcome of any election as far as I know. States are also free to regulate the power of the electoral voting in their state.
I very much disagree. US policy decisions are made within a system of laws. Policy decisions that are inconsistent with the law definitely can be challenged in court. People do so all the time, and they don't find their families placed under arrest because of it. In China, the government is not constrained to follow laws in the same way.
Having said that, I realize that the distinction can sometimes seem nuanced and more a matter of degree than a matter of type. And there is some truth to the notion that the differences are a matter of degree. But as with so many things in life, degree really does matter. For example, the US government can change its laws and it might be hard to see how that is different from a government not being constrained by the law at all. But the *process* of changing the law is far from easy and can only be achieved through a painstaking sequence of steps that requires agreement from many, many people. For example, if the US government decided that it wanted to divert the MIssissippi river and create the world's largest dam, displacing millions of people in the process, it would find that it's virtually impossible due to the legal processes in place to thwart such a radical move. And it's not at all a simple matter to just change those processes. No single person, or small collection of people, can decide to change or suspend the rules.
Fair. I have the same position all these things are just a matter of degree. US has advanced more than China. So it seems US is right every time. But when we go back to US history then you will see that US had been like China is or worse before. For example, US government had forced one Indian tribe to move out of North Carolina. Have you heard about this story? So my position is that US is not a perfect society yet so it does not have the authority/right to criticize foreign government at will.
The US has never claimed to be "a democracy" (ancient Athens was probably the last one.) The United States is a federated democratic republic [a federation of states with democratically elected government representatives.] Lobbyists are an expression of free speech (although they have gotten out of hand lately.) The electoral college is an compromise agreement on how to elect a single office in the US (the joint office of president and vice president.) This is because it is the only office not elected at a state level. It is designed to compartmentalize the the election state by state and to prevent larger or more populated states from dominating the interests of the election. Essentially it's like tennis. The individual points are important, but they only lead to games. And the games lead to sets. Whoever gets the most sets wins (no matter how many points or games they win.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
Sounds like you're implying that the US is a democracy. I think one can dispute that vigorously.
But since it seems to be "normal" to define "Democracy" as being what the US political system is, its probably pointless trying to discuss that with an american.
Two Keywords: Electoral College, Lobbyism on the Hill.
Or did you think it was an accident that Obama signed the "Mosanto Bill" into law ?
Great, a state sanctioned, communist shake down, and Apple just apologizes.
He didn't admit any real wrongdoing. He apologized for folks not understanding the policies. Basically saying 'so sorry you are too dumb to read what you are signing' and then spelled it out.
he never admitted that everywhere else gets new phones but Apple hates China etc. He didn't agree to change the rules so they do get new phones now. Nothing has really changed. But now they can't say they didn't know the policies cause they are front
Could be, however Apple has a history of ignoring local laws with regards to warranties.
Nope not at all. Apple has a recent history of being accused of ignoring local laws but no actual cases of proven neglect have come up in 99% of the alleged issues. Just a lot of rumors etc.
In the 15 years of governing Hong Hong since the handover in 1997, the HK government has apologized for various mistakes MORE THAN THE WHOLE 150 YEARS OF BRITISH RULE. The result? this HK government has long lost its authority and credibility. These apologies are not to be used lightly. Take note Mr.Cook!
The old "I have XYZ friends and so I cannot be called racist against XYZ" line. Doesn't work. Doesn't excuse anyone from stereotyping. Doesn't belong in any discourse amongst civilized, educated individuals. Doesn't paint a decent picture of utterer.
He's right though.
I'm a half Chinese and my wife's family from mainland China by the way. When you're willing to accept the truth, it's not far from what he said.
I'm a half Chinese and my wife's family from mainland China by the way. When you're willing to accept the truth, it's not far from what he said.
There is a big difference between saying that China has a problem with corruption and Chinese people are corrupted. He chose the latter. From his own words, he didn't come by this conclusion from thorough first hand experience or research, but rather word of mouth. Words matter. More than anything, words characterize the speaker.
Furthermore, your nationality is irrelevant in this context. Personal identity and experience are entirely irrelevant when someone is painting an entire population with broad stroke. If the Premier of China stands up and states, "I am ok with that asshole on Appleinsider calling me corrupted", that still does not make the original post on this a "stand-up", respectable statement. Those who don't get this have neither studied nor learned from history. Those who have not benefited from history are ill-fitted to engage in this debate.
Finally, stereotyping any particular population is taking a step or two down a slippery slope to racism or sexism. Anyone who engages in it, regardless how generally true the stereotype may be, and defends their position repeatedly and unrepentantly really are not amongst the progressive fraction of a civilized society. Such a person is an ass. That is the truth.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor
I see a lot of commenters are perhaps not very familiar with cultural (and political) differences between the US and China.
Giving a little bit of benefit of doubt on the translation, I think that what Cook has done here is perfect.
Some things to consider:
1. China isn't Adobe. It's an authoritarian regime. You cannot win a direct confrontation with them, because the courts are a joke and even if they weren't, it's not like you actually have any rights anyway. If the government there decides it wants to F you, you're F'd.
2. Ancient Art of War. Given the reality of #1, the way to fight China is sneaky and backhanded. You "apologize" in a way that makes you look good and them look bad, and make it very hard for them to point to anything in the apology that makes it clear what you're doing. Succeeding in China is all about being passive aggressive.
3. Acceptance of reality. At the end of the day, Apple may have to accept artificial constraints on how much success the company can have in China. Apple should just use back channels to discretely figure out what exactly the Chinese government wants those constraints to be.
4. Take names, remember for later. While Apple will lose any direct confrontations with the Chinese government in the short run, in the long run Apple has some real advantages (like a lot of money; the affection of Chinese consumers; and the influence over a lot of Chinese workers). Keep track of the individual a-holes in the Chinese government and media doing this, and as opportunities arise, F them over as best you can. Ie, make your own karma.
This has very little to do with authoritarian. The US government has forbidden Chinese companies buying US oil company and government agencies buying Huawei products. Is there a US court that Chinese companies can go to?
Could be, however Apple has a history of ignoring local laws with regards to warranties. As such I see this as more of the same and not something unique to the Chinese. When it comes to warranties Apple really needs to be knockd over the head.
Apple has always lag with respect to warranties and in the US engages in BS like selling extended warranties as another way to milk customers. I'm still amazed at the non sense that gets posted here about the value of paying for Apple Care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan
This has very little to do with authoritarian. The US government has forbidden Chinese companies buying US oil company and government agencies buying Huawei products. Is there a US court that Chinese companies can go to?
Perhaps this is far off topic, but while I agree with you that the CNOOC-Chevron deal being denied was a stupid policy move on US's part, the issue with Huawei (and ZTE) is far more complicated. You can read the Congressional report yourself -- it is public -- and it does raise some serious issues. Especially surrounding the company's opaque financials and ownership structure, and more importantly, serious worries about 'backdoor' and 'trapdoor' security issues. India disallowed Huawei's products for similar reasons. Australia is now doing the same. Canada could soon do the same.
This is also conflated with the well-known -- and now well-documented -- cyber-attacks originating from China.
It is silly of you to suggest that US courts can't be used by the Chinese to seek redress. Foreign individuals and companies use US courts to win favorable (to them) judgments all the time. In the instance of Huawei, the US party involved is the government, and they cannot be sued under international law of 'sovereign immunity' (no country's government can be sued by a foreigner -- for example, this is the reason that a cartel such as OPEC cannot be taken to court under US antitrust laws even though their actions affect US consumers).
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Perhaps this is far off topic, but while I agree with you that the CNOOC-Chevron deal being denied was a stupid policy move on US's part, the issue with Huawei (and ZTE) is far more complicated. You can read the Congressional report yourself -- it is public -- and it does raise some serious issues. Especially surrounding the company's opaque financials and ownership structure, and more importantly, serious worries about 'backdoor' and 'trapdoor' security issues. India disallowed Huawei's products for similar reasons. Australia is now doing the same. Canada could soon do the same.
This is also conflated with the well-known -- and now well-documented -- cyber-attacks originating from China.
It is silly of you to suggest that US courts can't be used by the Chinese to seek redress. Foreign individuals and companies use US courts to win favorable (to them) judgments all the time. In the instance of Huawei, the US party involved is the government, and they cannot be sued under international law of 'sovereign immunity' (no country's government can be sued by a foreigner -- for example, this is the reason that a cartel such as OPEC cannot be taken to court under US antitrust laws even though their actions affect US consumers).
Do you know that Huawei compete with Cisco? Cisco sells equipment all over the world. According to your logic and US government shouldn't every other nation be worried about 'backdoor' and 'trapdoor' security issues from Cisco?
I think your so-called "well-documented -- cyber-attacks originating from China" is purely exaggeration, distortion, and lies from some US company that depends a lot of funding from US military.
Let me be more specific. Are these cyber-attacks from Chinese government or individuals? If they are from individuals, this is pretty common. It has originated from all over the world including US. So why China is singled out? If they are from Chinese government, why is called attack? The company uses the word to imply that the attacker is trying to inflict damages. I will ask you a serious question. This is a peaceful time. Why would Chinese government attacking US organizations in order to cause damages? Please give me a reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Xenophobia is a fundamental Chinese cultural 'value'. Mistrust, suspicion, opportunistic behavior, all characteristic of Chinese culture. Nobody can be trusted except family. So not only are they xeonophobic with respect to foreigners, this distrust extends to everyone. The opportunistic tendencies of Chinese are well known. They are often accused of cheating, from the government officials all the way down to the street vendors. It is common practice for example for a market seller of fish to swap out a fish that a customer has selected from the display case with a lesser quality item by wrapping up the item below the field of view of the customer. Similarly farmers are accused of injecting water into their produce to make it weigh more, and they don't use clean water either. In China you won't see public street signs or traffic signs made out of aluminum or steel. They would be stolen overnight. As in third world countries, you will see bars on residential widows, but unlike other countries, in China the bars go all the way to the top of the building because otherwise thieves will scale even a tall building to break in.
I have several Chinese friends in the US. The closest friend regularly visits China and he is the one who shared this information with me.
"Every effective lie has a kernel of truth at it's center."
While it is true that there are cultural forces in China that work differently than what many westerners are used to, yours is a very stereotypical view.
Confucianist ideas (and other influences) can lead to a sort of "every man for himself" mentality and other behaviors that might seem undesirable to many. The influence of totalitarian Communism has also effectively trained people to "look out for themselves and their loved ones." This leads them to affect behaviors that seem wrong (even to the persons doing them.) But people have to put up with things and do things just to get along. While it would be mistake to ignore these factors (and many others) in trying to understand China, it's just as big a mistake to make broad generalizations based on them.
One would do well to remember that Confucius was one of the earliest advocates of what we now call "The Golden Rule," which we tend to consider a foundational western value. I can say that when I lived in China, I made great friends who I would trust with my life. I was taken into homes and treated like a member of the family. It is understandable that people in China can act in ways we "don't get," (but this is true anywhere.) In the end, wherever you go, people are people.
Wherever you are, 4% of the people you meet are sociopaths. This means some people will commit crimes, fraud, and even violence against you. It's the same in china, the US, or anywhere. A major difference between cultures is in how well their systems work at keeping those 4% from hurting the rest of us. In my view, China (despite many problems I find unacceptable) has in many respects been improving in this area, while here in the US I think we have been back slipping in many significant ways. This doesn't make people in either society better or worse.
All that said, as a businessman, I would far prefer doing business in the US or Canada to Russia or China. But this is because of problems with the legal and political structures in those countries, not a flaw in the people who live there or their intrinsic nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
What the FRICK is this nonsense?! Screw the fricking Chinese. Don't apologize, just give them 2 years by default and kick EVERY product's price up by $50. Shut them up.
So profound. You're exceeding yourself TS /s
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
That certainly wasn't my intention.
I accept that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
I merely stated the part about my friend as a disclaimer that I do not know these things first hand. Perhaps his characterizations are exaggerated, which might be understandable as he was originally an exiled Chinese citizen who was formerly a prominent university professor in China as was his father. His father was executed during the cultural revolution. My friend's family was finally able to move to the US. I have known him for 15 years.
It's always dangerous to repeat someone else's "experiences". You need to particularly careful when you are painting a broad stroke over the largest population of the world with such experiences.
I am quite certain that somewhere outside the US (heck, in the US), there are those who describe Americans as gun-toting, bigamous, cousin-loving, coke-snorting,religious zealots who believe humans walked on earth at the same time as dinosaurs. That would be many people's experience of Americans. Should that stereotype be perpetuated by civilized, educated folks if related by a close friend or relative?
What ? You mean they're not :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan
But many Americans always hate Chinese.
Probably fear not hate. The US is used to being the strongest super power but China is on track to potentially overtake them in this role. Because China is not a democracy it has a fundamentally different political system than the US and that causes uncertainty. When the Chinese youth start overturning and burning US made cars and US based businesses, as they recently did to Japan, that would be a demonstration of hatred.
Sounds like you're implying that the US is a democracy. I think one can dispute that vigorously.
But since it seems to be "normal" to define "Democracy" as being what the US political system is, its probably pointless trying to discuss that with an american.
Two Keywords: Electoral College, Lobbyism on the Hill.
Or did you think it was an accident that Obama signed the "Mosanto Bill" into law ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan
This has very little to do with authoritarian. The US government has forbidden Chinese companies buying US oil company and government agencies buying Huawei products. Is there a US court that Chinese companies can go to?
I very much disagree. US policy decisions are made within a system of laws. Policy decisions that are inconsistent with the law definitely can be challenged in court. People do so all the time, and they don't find their families placed under arrest because of it. In China, the government is not constrained to follow laws in the same way.
Having said that, I realize that the distinction can sometimes seem nuanced and more a matter of degree than a matter of type. And there is some truth to the notion that the differences are a matter of degree. But as with so many things in life, degree really does matter. For example, the US government can change its laws and it might be hard to see how that is different from a government not being constrained by the law at all. But the *process* of changing the law is far from easy and can only be achieved through a painstaking sequence of steps that requires agreement from many, many people. For example, if the US government decided that it wanted to divert the MIssissippi river and create the world's largest dam, displacing millions of people in the process, it would find that it's virtually impossible due to the legal processes in place to thwart such a radical move. And it's not at all a simple matter to just change those processes. No single person, or small collection of people, can decide to change or suspend the rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
Sounds like you're implying that the US is a democracy. I think one can dispute that vigorously.
But since it seems to be "normal" to define "Democracy" as being what the US political system is, its probably pointless trying to discuss that with an american.
Two Keywords: Electoral College, Lobbyism on the Hill.
Or did you think it was an accident that Obama signed the "Mosanto Bill" into law ?
Yes I agree on the Monsanto issue, however, at least we are free to protest, sign petitions, call our congressional leaders and get it overturned without fear of being imprisoned or worse executed for peacefully opposing the government. We also have all kinds of media outlets that are uncensored to help facilitate the reversal or overturn bad legislation. By next year this will be invalidated I hope. I also agree about lobbying but there are constitutional rights that allow a certain amount of it as long as the elected official makes public all donations. A better system might be term limits for all legislators just like office of President. The electoral college serves a purpose though. It is protection against widespread public craziness. So far it has not made a difference on the outcome of any election as far as I know. States are also free to regulate the power of the electoral voting in their state.
Man this iPad interface sucks for posting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor
I very much disagree. US policy decisions are made within a system of laws. Policy decisions that are inconsistent with the law definitely can be challenged in court. People do so all the time, and they don't find their families placed under arrest because of it. In China, the government is not constrained to follow laws in the same way.
Having said that, I realize that the distinction can sometimes seem nuanced and more a matter of degree than a matter of type. And there is some truth to the notion that the differences are a matter of degree. But as with so many things in life, degree really does matter. For example, the US government can change its laws and it might be hard to see how that is different from a government not being constrained by the law at all. But the *process* of changing the law is far from easy and can only be achieved through a painstaking sequence of steps that requires agreement from many, many people. For example, if the US government decided that it wanted to divert the MIssissippi river and create the world's largest dam, displacing millions of people in the process, it would find that it's virtually impossible due to the legal processes in place to thwart such a radical move. And it's not at all a simple matter to just change those processes. No single person, or small collection of people, can decide to change or suspend the rules.
Fair. I have the same position all these things are just a matter of degree. US has advanced more than China. So it seems US is right every time. But when we go back to US history then you will see that US had been like China is or worse before. For example, US government had forced one Indian tribe to move out of North Carolina. Have you heard about this story? So my position is that US is not a perfect society yet so it does not have the authority/right to criticize foreign government at will.
You heard it wrong somewhere.
The US has never claimed to be "a democracy" (ancient Athens was probably the last one.) The United States is a federated democratic republic [a federation of states with democratically elected government representatives.] Lobbyists are an expression of free speech (although they have gotten out of hand lately.) The electoral college is an compromise agreement on how to elect a single office in the US (the joint office of president and vice president.) This is because it is the only office not elected at a state level. It is designed to compartmentalize the the election state by state and to prevent larger or more populated states from dominating the interests of the election. Essentially it's like tennis. The individual points are important, but they only lead to games. And the games lead to sets. Whoever gets the most sets wins (no matter how many points or games they win.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
Sounds like you're implying that the US is a democracy. I think one can dispute that vigorously.
But since it seems to be "normal" to define "Democracy" as being what the US political system is, its probably pointless trying to discuss that with an american.
Two Keywords: Electoral College, Lobbyism on the Hill.
Or did you think it was an accident that Obama signed the "Mosanto Bill" into law ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Great, a state sanctioned, communist shake down, and Apple just apologizes.
He didn't admit any real wrongdoing. He apologized for folks not understanding the policies. Basically saying 'so sorry you are too dumb to read what you are signing' and then spelled it out.
he never admitted that everywhere else gets new phones but Apple hates China etc. He didn't agree to change the rules so they do get new phones now. Nothing has really changed. But now they can't say they didn't know the policies cause they are front
and they are hardly apologizing left and right
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan
Another one is Apple not giving back the bad parts back to the customer.
Apple never gives the parts back. It's a swap. Same in all countries
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Could be, however Apple has a history of ignoring local laws with regards to warranties.
Nope not at all. Apple has a recent history of being accused of ignoring local laws but no actual cases of proven neglect have come up in 99% of the alleged issues. Just a lot of rumors etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
The old "I have XYZ friends and so I cannot be called racist against XYZ" line. Doesn't work. Doesn't excuse anyone from stereotyping. Doesn't belong in any discourse amongst civilized, educated individuals. Doesn't paint a decent picture of utterer.
He's right though.
I'm a half Chinese and my wife's family from mainland China by the way. When you're willing to accept the truth, it's not far from what he said.
http://adf.ly/M5TpW
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07
He's right though.
I'm a half Chinese and my wife's family from mainland China by the way. When you're willing to accept the truth, it's not far from what he said.
There is a big difference between saying that China has a problem with corruption and Chinese people are corrupted. He chose the latter. From his own words, he didn't come by this conclusion from thorough first hand experience or research, but rather word of mouth. Words matter. More than anything, words characterize the speaker.
Furthermore, your nationality is irrelevant in this context. Personal identity and experience are entirely irrelevant when someone is painting an entire population with broad stroke. If the Premier of China stands up and states, "I am ok with that asshole on Appleinsider calling me corrupted", that still does not make the original post on this a "stand-up", respectable statement. Those who don't get this have neither studied nor learned from history. Those who have not benefited from history are ill-fitted to engage in this debate.
Finally, stereotyping any particular population is taking a step or two down a slippery slope to racism or sexism. Anyone who engages in it, regardless how generally true the stereotype may be, and defends their position repeatedly and unrepentantly really are not amongst the progressive fraction of a civilized society. Such a person is an ass. That is the truth.