Shenzhen: The Silicon Valley of Hardware - WIRED Documentary

[madires]

China's Manufacturers Now Producing Copies Before Original Products Are Even Launched:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161019/08195235836/chinas-manufacturers-now-producing-copies-before-original-products-are-even-launched.shtml

Has anyone seen Batteroos or Batterizers yet? 

[Kalvin]

China's Manufacturers Now Producing Copies Before Original Products Are Even Launched:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161019/08195235836/chinas-manufacturers-now-producing-copies-before-original-products-are-even-launched.shtml

Has anyone seen Batteroos or Batterizers yet? 

Maybe they copy only those designs that actually work?

[zapta]

I liked Bernie Sanders, he seems like the only genuine American politician, and everything he said in interviews seemed sincere and thought-out. But that's exactly why he didn't fit in the American culture of populism and dirty politics.

That's and the fact that he promotes socialism and increased government control of our lives. It may seems reasonable approach for you but others have different view of the government role in our lives.

Hmm, no. But I was talking about my direct environment. In the Netherlands, the right wing is, generally speaking, populist and xenophobic, but the worst thing they call their opponents is 'naive'.

I agree, 'naive' is a wrong term in this context, 'sucker' is more appropriate, just like the people of Troy.

[coppice]

I liked Bernie Sanders, he seems like the only genuine American politician, and everything he said in interviews seemed sincere and thought-out. But that's exactly why he didn't fit in the American culture of populism and dirty politics.

That's and the fact that he promotes socialism and increased government control of our lives. It may seems reasonable approach for you but others have different view of the government role in our lives.

So, what's your choice? The current Republican agenda calls for far more control of people's lives. it puzzles me that American libertarians group themselves with the Republicans. They have almost nothing in common.

[zapta]

I liked Bernie Sanders, he seems like the only genuine American politician, and everything he said in interviews seemed sincere and thought-out. But that's exactly why he didn't fit in the American culture of populism and dirty politics.

That's and the fact that he promotes socialism and increased government control of our lives. It may seems reasonable approach for you but others have different view of the government role in our lives.

So, what's your choice? The current Republican agenda calls for far more control of people's lives. it puzzles me that American libertarians group themselves with the Republicans. They have almost nothing in common.

Our current choice is between Johnson, Stein, Trump, Clinton and Esteala La Riva (these are the names that appear on the balot I got), and each one of us evaluates which one he/she prefers, based on our political views, goals and priorities.

As for the Republicans voters, I don't know if you know, but in their last primaries they nominated an independent. Many democrat voters also tried to do that and failed.

[Rick Law]

...
So, what's your choice? The current Republican agenda calls for far more control of people's lives. it puzzles me that American libertarians group themselves with the Republicans. They have almost nothing in common.

American politics is complex.  Since you show a Chinese flag in your profile and likely not aware of the intricacies, allow me to be presumptuous and side track for a moment to share with you what I have learned.

Democrat general wants government to do more.  Republican traditionally supports small government.  Libertarians supports minimal government.  If you are for minimalist (Libertarian), small (Republicans) is thus more preferable than a big (Democrat).

You said "current Republican agenda calls for far more control of people's lives".  "Controlling people's live" would not be small government.  It is against the core of republican views which is to get government out of people's life.

The big fight really is not Republicanism vs Democrat.  It is (Trump) Constitutionalism+Nationalism vs (Clinton) Globalism+Socialism.  Trump doesn't seem to mind big government and Clinton wants big government.

"Constitutionalist" generally aligns with the Libertarians and Republicans.  A Constitutionalist wants straight adherence to the Constitution.  The US Constitution enumerates (explicitly list) powers given to the Federal Government.  All other (not enumerated) powers are reserved to the States.

"Constitutionalist" therefore is generally not aligned with big-government.  For example, if you want everyone not to smoke (as a smoker, I say not-smoking is a good thing).  A Constitutionalist would ask is that one of the enumerated power the States ceded to the Feds?  If not, it cannot be a federal issue and should be left to the States.  For a big-government person, that would be very inconvenient.  It means instead of getting one law passed at the federal level, it needs 50 laws passed in 50 different State houses.

So, "what's your choice?"

[dannyf]

"That's and the fact that he promotes socialism"

No doubt on that.

The difference however between sanders and Clinton however is fundamental: sanders seemed to genuinely believe what he preached, and wanted to do something for his base. I may not agree with his prescription but I understand his perspective.

Clinton is a polar opposite of that.

With that said, sanders talked a good game on campaign disclosure but did his best to delay his own disclosure until he dropped out of the race.

Once he did, this senator in poverty quickly and quietly bought a beach front propety, his 3rd.

[coppice]

You said "current Republican agenda calls for far more control of people's lives".  "Controlling people's live" would not be small government.  It is against the core of republican views which is to get government out of people's life.

If you look at the long list of theocratically based elements in the current Republican agenda, they are certainly trying to massively control people's lives. They just say the opposite to play to the crowd.

[zapta]

With that said, sanders talked a good game on campaign disclosure but did his best to delay his own disclosure until he dropped out of the race.

Sanders activity supports and endorses a demonstrably corrupt politician. So much for being honest. I didn't hear much from him about the recent wikileaks revelations of Hillary's corruptions, some against his own campaign. He is pathetic.

[rx8pilot]

With that said, sanders talked a good game on campaign disclosure but did his best to delay his own disclosure until he dropped out of the race.

Sanders activity supports and endorses a demonstrably corrupt politician. So much for being honest. I didn't hear much from him about the recent wikileaks revelations of Hillary's corruptions, some against his own campaign. He is pathetic.

I did not agree with much of Sanders platform, but I respected him. After he decided to stand by Clinton - no respect at all whatsoever.

[Rick Law]

You said "current Republican agenda calls for far more control of people's lives".  "Controlling people's live" would not be small government.  It is against the core of republican views which is to get government out of people's life.

If you look at the long list of theocratically based elements in the current Republican agenda, they are certainly trying to massively control people's lives. They just say the opposite to play to the crowd.

There will always be loud-mouths in any party.  They are not representative of the majority within their party.  The "go-to" document would be the Republican Party Platform.    The big "religion-based" guys were defeated as nominee anyhow.  So, it is an indication that Nationalism+Constitutionalism are more important than theocratic stuff.

I suspect I know the theocratic stuff you are referring to, but discussing them here is probably not a good thing.  Keep in mind, advocating elimination permissive federal law (where the Constitution had never given federal government such power) and/thus sending back to the States is not the same as passing laws limiting the permissiveness.

PM me and I would be glad to chat about them.  I don't want to discuss them here.  It distracts too far from electronics.