Every year they need regular maintenance is a year a few more people have jobs within their capacity. In a lot of areas I think high level decisions are made to keep people busy. I'm fairly positive they give huge subsidies for hiring employees, because if you walk in a grocery store every aisle has a couple idle employees. By our standards that can't make sense but for them right now I think the main goal is keeping unemployment low.
Wealthy Africans get malaria too, and besides, even the poor will be getting smart phones soon.
It's going to be like cell phones which were pretty ubiquitous in the third world years ago when it wasn't even the case here. They bypassed landlines and went straight to cell, and the same will probably be true of computers and smart phones.
I used to ride the Raleigh-Charlotte route often and regular riders would show up 2 hours late because they knew that's when it would get there from D.C.
Not a marketing campaign, a joke. If you've never done it, you might not think it's worth the effort (and it isn't but it's addictive). When I was in high school, I used to get a thrill out of pretending to be the dumbest person alive and having tons of people make fun of me on the internet. Luckily I'm through that phase but I like to think I can spot a fellow troll. As long as they're not being racist, mean, or abusive it's all good fun. If he took money it's wrong, but I doubt his company has any clients.
I hope some smart people are trying to figure out how our economy is going to work when transportation is outsourced to robots. Obviously it'd be great but the idea that everyone needs a job is going to start unravelling.
The Chinese government is banking on having a smarter working population being more valuable than a larger working population. With more and more blue-collar work being automated it will get harder to find jobs for everyone.
It's nice that we have freer enterprise and I'm happy to see SpaceX doing well, but China is pivoting hard. It's not a zero-sum game so it doesn't really matter who wins but they're not planning on being just the manufacturers forever. We have freer markets, but they have a big edge too in that they value education a lot more, especially now with the one child policy.
None of this nor the OP applies to me. Not just the smart part, but when I see the work awkward, I think of a different set of problems. I get along with people just fine and I'm not confrontational, but I can never really relax when I'm around people without an agenda because I don't know what I'm supposed to be talking about. That's what I'd hoped to read about.
I don't know how well more trains would work in America, but I was not impressed at all by his arguments. No countries make a direct profit on their transportation systems. He also throws in corruption which seems like a separate issue.
I can likewise give some anecdotal evidence that whenever I rode trains in China they were fast, convenient, cheaper than buses for longer distances, and most importantly, completely packed with people who weren't burdening the roads.
Even if it were the case, you can't argue around China's policies with legalese. They have much more free reign to do what they want than other governments.
Thank you bubbles for allowing people to either have work or study. There's all this bubble talk, but when it comes down to it, if everyone really was just doing useful non-bubble stuff most of us in the first world wouldn't have anything to do. Our economists aren't ready for that.
This bill is ridiculous. They ignored the small towns, the small towns got their own connections and very good ones at that, and now they want to be the only players. As an NC resident I think this is a bill most people left and right could agree is bad, but unfortunately the only party who cares enough about it and has clout is Time Warner Cable, so it'll get through.
A lot of the financial industry though today works so many layers above actual loans it's hard to see how they contribute and even harder to see why they make so much more money than everyone else. I'm not an expert, I'm sure there is some justification, but it's not obvious to most people and that's why, sometimes, we the laypeople wonder.
I don't think renovating a nuclear power is difficult to stir up popular support for if the experts want it renovated badly. I doubt private industry would have had any more foresight.
Obviously its not just Facebook and Twitter, but those global media you refer to are getting their leads from and even literally reporting tweets and Facebook stuff for a large portion of their broadcasts.
I think the VP and the parliament chair have exhausted any trust too as they've been trying to demonize the protesters for a week. Military guy + committee of OK ministers and opposition is probably going to happen
I wouldn't be surprised. Desperation move but I suspect someone if not him specifically has been trying to do this since this whole thing started. They violently defended themselves on the night of Feb. 3/4 but immediately went back to peaceful when the attacks stopped. Another expected reaction would be rioting, burning, and looting, which has yet to happen.
I hope they can restrain themselves this time too until Mubarak wakes up from his dream, but there is a ton of anger now.
Three to four days ago was very near the low point (besides the night they fought the mobs). There weren't many people and I kind of feared it would fizz out too because it wasn't clear if most Egyptians bought the propaganda. But then there was the Ghonim interview and Tuesday there was no more doubt.
I'd imagine after all the publicity that got, this one was built to higher standards. They claim to go well beyond the standards, and I don't doubt it for this particular project since they are using it for marketing.
The problem with the building that fell was obviously the foundation, which has to be done way in advance anyways.
I saw this a couple days ago and was turned off of her opinion just by the arrogance of her tone.
She is very extreme. It's a case where something "works" for her kids though I'm not sure the end goal, so she jumps to all kinds of conclusions. Besides the obvious questions of whether her kids are actually going to be happier or more successful in the longrun, she thinks that every part of what she's doing is what makes it work. I think not owning a TV is good for kids, but I can't see where most of this other stuff would help the child.
From my experiences watching high schoolers in China I am very happy I had lax western parents. Many will study 14 hours a day and are not allowed to date or hang out with friends.
I can't think of a big company more ambitious than Google or one that gets involved in such a variety of new projects. As a result they are bound to fail a lot but the money is still rolling from their main products, and young engineers are still attracted by that ambition. No mojo lost.
Amazon and ebay need a lot more infrastructure than youtube/google/twitter and have therefore never really put in a big effort on China. I'm sure they aren't very successful in most developing countries. Those other ones would be competitive like they are everywhere else in the world if they had a chance.
Google was the one that really invested in China and though not in the same league as Baidu yet, it was definitely moving up in market share until the government turned hostile on them. They definitely "understood" how to do business in China: they had a big Chinese staff, they even had a music search like Baidu which surprised me because it seems like something RIAA would go nuts at, and they made their own very good pinyin input system.
I'm guessing if Amazon or ebay got successful and competitive with their players, China would suddenly notice some pro-Tibet book on there and use it as an excuse to give them the boot.
There would be many more using Facebook if it wasn't blocked. I'm not sure how it's doing now but I remember lots of students last year were joining xiaonei which is just a facebook duplicate for Chinese students only.
IMO many of these sites are blocked in China so Chinese companies can dominate the domestic market rather than for political reasons.
I would have to think some of his defeat was because France was just depleted. It had undergone what was probably the most violent couple decades in history to that point, starting with the revolution, and during his second run, there wasn't much room for error.