Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Singapore Urges U.S. to Accept China's Rise, Spare Other Nations

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–209 of 209 posts

Re: Singapore Urges U.S. to Accept China's Rise, Spare Other Nations

#201

Post by genmud »

low_poly_shiba wrote: post #144
dkbrk wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IP is not some basic, natural law. It's a relatively recent invention, ostensibly invented to promote certain economic incentives. Why is china morally obligated to respect it? > At any given point in time, the biggest effect of an IP system is how it affects the current portfolio of patents & copyrights. That's what tends to dictate the rules. When copyright law is updated, it's the impact on Disney's IP asset por…

Wasn't it the case that Facebook, one of the biggest American companies, bought Onavo precisely to spy on other tech companies and steal their business?

There is a HUGE difference between doing analytics/business intelligence (albeit a bit of a sketchy app, though users consented) and directly hacking into competitors with the express intent on stealing IP, which is more of the issue at hand.

Re: Singapore Urges U.S. to Accept China's Rise, Spare Other Nations

#202

Post by genmud »

sinuhe69 wrote: post #171

I wonder why Singapore didn't say such things decades ago when the confrontation between US and the Soviet Union hit up? Because today confrontation still looks very much similar: between the free democratic bloc and a communist aggressive country (or bloc, maybe). Admittedly, the current conflict involves a lot of money and trade but most of all it's about geopolitical power, not soybeans or chips.

Because they didn't have nearly the developed economy that they do now? They probably also didn't have as much influence and maybe weren't really seen as a regional player?

Re: Singapore Urges U.S. to Accept China's Rise, Spare Other Nations

#203

Post by teknologist »

A2017U1 wrote: post #181
teknologist wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would just like to say that contactless chip cards are ubiquitous, do not require a battery, are more secure (no reliance on QR codes) and have been around for years in the West.

My contactless card works nowhere outside my small home country. Meanwhile Chinese tourists are there seamlessly buying food from 7/11 with alipay whole I go through the full pin and card thing. As the other reply says too, any shop can set this up easily. I challenge you to take contactless payments in your home country, it's nothing like simply getting a qr payment and involves merchant banking. I've seen tiny remo…

I've used contactless Visa to buy things in Japan, Singapore and several other places. It's a UK card though so maybe there's something different going on there

Re: Singapore Urges U.S. to Accept China's Rise, Spare Other Nations

#204

Post by teknologist »

njepa wrote: post #89
teknologist wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would just like to say that contactless chip cards are ubiquitous, do not require a battery, are more secure (no reliance on QR codes) and have been around for years in the West.

It isn't the same thing by any means, and doesn't really offer much over cards other than a slight improvement in convenience. Mobile payments in China are essentially peer-to-peer and universal. The closest equivalent is probably something like MobilePay or Swish, but that isn't as good or as widespread.

Peer-to-peer in the same way that PayPal is peer-to-peer. There's still a central entity somewhere holding all the money and data.

Re: Singapore Urges U.S. to Accept China's Rise, Spare Other Nations

#205

Post by njepa »

teknologist wrote: post #204
njepa wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't the same thing by any means, and doesn't really offer much over cards other than a slight improvement in convenience. Mobile payments in China are essentially peer-to-peer and universal. The closest equivalent is probably something like MobilePay or Swish, but that isn't as good or as widespread.

Peer-to-peer in the same way that PayPal is peer-to-peer. There's still a central entity somewhere holding all the money and data.

Sure, but cards are even more centralized.

The "feature" of WeChat is that it can be used for almost anything. It is a cash successor more so that a card alternative. Anyone can print, display or scan a QR code. Doesn't matter if it is a store, a friend or a random person. Doesn't matter if it is in the physical world, on a website or in a chat. And it is easy to do. And almost everyone uses it.

Contactless cards only matches WeChat in the same way something like Apple Pay does.

Re: Singapore Urges U.S. to Accept China's Rise, Spare Other Nations

#206

Post by agent008t »

kipchak wrote: post #193
agent008t wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rhetoric- and you believe it! Don’t you know where those slogans come from? Well-paid researchers - how do you say it? - "think tanks," funded by big businesses. What is that? A "think tank"? China is the last sovereign country in the world. Authoritarian but willing - unlike U.N.-governed countries - to give its people the freedom to do what they want. The West, so afraid of strong government, now has no government.…

Our governments have limited power by design.

I spill my drink!

Re: Singapore Urges U.S. to Accept China's Rise, Spare Other Nations

#207

Post by nullwasamistake »

coldtea wrote: post #199
nullwasamistake wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free trade is like free markets. I can buy shares of nearly any public company in the world (notably, not including China). I can move my stuff for free (besides shipping cost) to many countries. That is free trade and free markets. China has neither. Free is free as in no restriction, not free to do whatever you want. Free to do whatever will make global trade more difficult for everyone as all countries will have t…

> Free is free as in no restriction, not free to do whatever you want. Well, the term (and its proponents) should not hijack the concept of freedom them. One could call it "open" (or sometimes "forcefully open" market, e.g. like when the British waged war on China so that they are free to sell opium there). Free as in freedom should include the freedom not to trade. > China has neither Well, despite that is one of th…

I'm on the fence about "free trade". It helps globalization and probably the human race to technologically advance as a whole, but harms a ton of local industry.

I also agree that open trade is a better name

Re: Singapore Urges U.S. to Accept China's Rise, Spare Other Nations

#208

Post by teknologist »

njepa wrote: post #205
teknologist wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peer-to-peer in the same way that PayPal is peer-to-peer. There's still a central entity somewhere holding all the money and data.

Sure, but cards are even more centralized. The "feature" of WeChat is that it can be used for almost anything. It is a cash successor more so that a card alternative. Anyone can print, display or scan a QR code. Doesn't matter if it is a store, a friend or a random person. Doesn't matter if it is in the physical world, on a website or in a chat. And it is easy to do. And almost everyone uses it. Contactless cards onl…

I am not seeing the value in being able to print QR codes unless your business is selling fruit on the street (to be fair, a lot of businesses in China are just this).

The more secure analogy comparable in price would be solutions like Square and PayPal Here. Smartphones are ubiquitous.

Re: Singapore Urges U.S. to Accept China's Rise, Spare Other Nations

#209

Post by low_poly_shiba »

genmud wrote: post #201
low_poly_shiba wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't it the case that Facebook, one of the biggest American companies, bought Onavo precisely to spy on other tech companies and steal their business?

There is a HUGE difference between doing analytics/business intelligence (albeit a bit of a sketchy app, though users consented) and directly hacking into competitors with the express intent on stealing IP, which is more of the issue at hand.

According to whom?

I find them different ways of accomplishing the same thing: securing a business edge

Onavo, a VPN that secretly did device-wide spying, doesn't count as a "hack" because...?

Post reply on HN