Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Transportation

GE Venture Will Share Jet Technology With China 266

Posted by Soulskill
from the send-them-the-tsa-while-you're-at-it dept.
vbraga writes "This week, during the visit of Chinese president Hu Jintao to the United States, GE plans to sign a joint-venture agreement in commercial aviation that shows the tricky risk-and-reward calculations American corporations must increasingly make in their pursuit of lucrative markets in China. GE, in partnership with a state-owned Chinese company, will be sharing its most sophisticated airplane electronics (NYT reg. required, reg.-free alternative here), including some of the same technology used in Boeing's new state-of-the-art 787 Dreamliner."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GE Venture Will Share Jet Technology With China

Comments Filter:
  • Repeating history (Score:5, Insightful)

    by magarity (164372) on Monday January 17, 2011 @11:07PM (#34912006)

    Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it... see: software piracy, high speed trains, stealth fighters, aircraft carriers. Up next: commercial aircraft!

    • Here's the thing: China has become very well known for making deals to get modern and/or cutting edge technology without having to do the R&D. That is a boon for American companies for short term profits. It also significantly ups the ante for competition within the Chinese market.
      The problem that I see for China is that without having to do the R&D, they get the current tech, understand it, maybe make some improvements to that tech. However, I'm not sure if China has the capability to keep up w
      • by soundhack (179543)

        While I would agree with your assessment in the short term, China is pushing out huge numbers of engineers, PhDs and otherwise. Granted there is some question as to how competent these graduates are compared to Western counterparts, but as with anything they do, they are incrementally improving.

        Pretty soon, they will have enough of a research and development base home grown that I don't think developing cutting edge technology would be that much of a problem.

      • by Anthony Mouse (1927662) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @12:09AM (#34912424)

        The problem that I see for China is that without having to do the R&D, they get the current tech, understand it, maybe make some improvements to that tech. However, I'm not sure if China has the capability to keep up with other global companies, companies that are investing for future technologies. If China doesn't steal those plans, they'll start to fall behind again, which creates a nice purchasing loop for those global companies.

        You're assuming US companies will still have any revenue with which to fund R&D. We're not talking about microprocessors here -- the technology doesn't change that fast. The 747 is from 1969. That's the year we first landed on the moon. If China starts selling five year old technology for half price, five years worth of aircraft "innovation" isn't going to make up for the price difference.

        • by TubeSteak (669689)

          We're not talking about microprocessors here -- the technology doesn't change that fast. The 747 is from 1969. That's the year we first landed on the moon.

          Ummm.... RTFS again.
          "Boeing's new state-of-the-art 787 Dreamliner"

          G.E.'s new joint venture in Shanghai will focus on avionics -- the electronics for communications, navigation, cockpit displays and controls. G.E. will be contributing its leading-edge avionics technology -- a high-performance core computer system that operates as the avionics brain of Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner.

          P.S. The 747 has had numerous refreshes of its cockpit avionics over the last 41 years.
          2010: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Delta-Air-Lines/Boeing-747-451/1843286/L/ [airliners.net]

          • by h4rm0ny (722443) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @06:09AM (#34914082) Journal
            The GP's point is that if the 747 is still viable today, and it is forty years old (not withstanding minor updates), then even if China can't build on the new technology beyond its current point (which is debatable), then having 2010 technology could keep them a significant player for decades to come.
        • by AmiMoJo (196126)

          They can't just copy an existing design and manufacture it for half the price. Apart from the difficulty of selling such a product to other countries due to international laws on patents etc. you can't just build an aircraft and fly it. It has to be extensively tested and certified as safe. You have to develop complex documentation and procedures. There is on-going maintenance and you usually buy your engines from someone else which could present problems.

          Besides that the actual manufacturing costs are prob

      • by timeOday (582209)
        China has become very well known for making deals to get modern and/or cutting edge technology without having to do the R&D. That is a boon for American companies for short term profits.

        Except China is doing R&D, and the agreement isn't short-term:

        "a person involved in the talks said the 50-50 venture is for 50 years. G.E., the person said, is putting in technology and start-up capital of $200 million. Avic will initially contribute $700 million, the person said, including the cost of a new resear

        • by iserlohn (49556)

          Contributing to building a research facility is not the same as doing R&D. The R&D he was talking about was already done - over decades of jet engine research. What they are in effect doing is buying that expertise for a measly $700 million.

      • by Grishnakh (216268) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @01:04AM (#34912748)

        Those Chinese companies may be able to make and improve these commercial airliners, making them cheaper than anyone else, but they won't have the drop on the next new thing, which most global companies are looking for and are investing in.

        Next new thing? What's that going to be? Hypersonic aircraft or teleporters or something? Be realistic: there IS no next new thing, not for 50-100 years at least. Commercial jet airliners have been with us since the 50s now, and haven't changed significantly in that time. The only things that have changed are 1) engines are a little more efficient and quieter, but not by orders of magnitude, 2) planes are flown slower now to save fuel and keep prices low, 3) seats are packed together so that only toddlers are comfortable in them, and 4) "air rage" is now common whereas it never happened back then.

        There's been some other minor improvements of course: much better avionics (which isn't something that GE does to my knowledge), electronic engine controls (which GE does do), etc.

        But the idea that Americans or other Westerners are going to come up with huge new advances to always stay ahead of the Chinese is simply ridiculous. For instance, look at the article subject: this is about GE, which doesn't make planes, but jet engines and associated controls. Jet engines haven't changed much in 50 years, just small steady improvements. Most of the advances in jet turbines were in their early days, not any time recently; they're a mature technology, and current advances are only eking out fractions of a percent in improvement, much like automobile engines.

        GE is basically giving away their secrets here, and pretty soon there won't be a reason to buy a GE jet engine, because you'll be able to get one just like it made in China for less.

        What's worse, China's society heavily values science and engineers. America's does not. Very few people go into engineering any more, except for software engineering. When was the last time you met an aerospace engineer? Way back in the early 90s when I was in college, we joked that AEs would never find a job, because it was a pretty dead industry. Very few engineering majors went into the AE school. ME (which a lot of jet engine engineers probably have) is a little better, but still not great. Go into any major engineering school, and look at the students: most of them are Chinese and Indian, and these days, they go back to their home country when they finish their degree.

        America's days as a technology power (except maybe for web development) are almost over.

        • by timeOday (582209)

          There's been some other minor improvements of course: much better avionics (which isn't something that GE does to my knowledge), electronic engine controls (which GE does do), etc.

          Actually it is about avionics:

          G.E.'s new joint venture in Shanghai will focus on avionics -- the electronics for communications, navigation, cockpit displays and controls. G.E. will be contributing its leading-edge avionics technology -- a high-performance core computer system that operates as the avionics brain of Boeing's new

        • by tyrione (134248)

          Those Chinese companies may be able to make and improve these commercial airliners, making them cheaper than anyone else, but they won't have the drop on the next new thing, which most global companies are looking for and are investing in.

          Next new thing? What's that going to be? Hypersonic aircraft or teleporters or something? Be realistic: there IS no next new thing, not for 50-100 years at least. Commercial jet airliners have been with us since the 50s now, and haven't changed significantly in that time. The only things that have changed are 1) engines are a little more efficient and quieter, but not by orders of magnitude, 2) planes are flown slower now to save fuel and keep prices low, 3) seats are packed together so that only toddlers are comfortable in them, and 4) "air rage" is now common whereas it never happened back then.

          There's been some other minor improvements of course: much better avionics (which isn't something that GE does to my knowledge), electronic engine controls (which GE does do), etc.

          But the idea that Americans or other Westerners are going to come up with huge new advances to always stay ahead of the Chinese is simply ridiculous. For instance, look at the article subject: this is about GE, which doesn't make planes, but jet engines and associated controls. Jet engines haven't changed much in 50 years, just small steady improvements. Most of the advances in jet turbines were in their early days, not any time recently; they're a mature technology, and current advances are only eking out fractions of a percent in improvement, much like automobile engines.

          GE is basically giving away their secrets here, and pretty soon there won't be a reason to buy a GE jet engine, because you'll be able to get one just like it made in China for less.

          What's worse, China's society heavily values science and engineers. America's does not. Very few people go into engineering any more, except for software engineering. When was the last time you met an aerospace engineer? Way back in the early 90s when I was in college, we joked that AEs would never find a job, because it was a pretty dead industry. Very few engineering majors went into the AE school. ME (which a lot of jet engine engineers probably have) is a little better, but still not great. Go into any major engineering school, and look at the students: most of them are Chinese and Indian, and these days, they go back to their home country when they finish their degree.

          America's days as a technology power (except maybe for web development) are almost over.

          50-100 years? You're delusional. We have only had commercial Jet Engines for 50 years. What we see in the next 20 years will technologically dwarf what we are seeing today. You think they are selling the Farm to China? Hell no. They are giving crap that has been declassified by the US Government as old technology. You think they get to see that crap w/o the White House and the Department of Defense signing off on it first? Hell No.

          • by Grishnakh (216268)

            I think you're delusional if you think something better than jet airplanes will be around in 20 years for transporting people long distances and between continents quickly.

            We're going to be flying jets, just like we do now. They might have nicer avionics, and have better entertainment systems for the passengers, but that's it. Some more advanced countries might have high-speed trains for shorter and medium distances, but trains won't take you across oceans, and even the fastest maglevs aren't fast enough

            • by wagnerrp (1305589)

              Don't tell me you saw a program on Discovery about an evacuated undersea tube and you think they'll have those everywhere in 20 years.

              Actually, it was on NBC, and in fact it the first one will open in 2032.

      • China might own the world by perfecting Last Year's Tech. They can take things like XP and build stuff on it. They can force MS to struggle with the problems of innovation like Vista and even 7, and then when the lifecycle of XP finally draws to a close, they can make a deal for Windows 8 fresh off the shelf, because it's been vetted by 10 years of R&D. Stuff they build on Windows 8 will last for the next ten years while MS once again struggles with their first implementation of Azure Cloud OS.

    • by alchemist68 (550641) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @12:01AM (#34912356)
      This IS SO WRONG! GE must be filled with corporate hungry capitalists willing to sacrifice the well-being and safety of the United States of America! I hope some American politicians wake-up and have the balls to challenge this corporate giant. Idiots - they never learn from others' experience - they must experience for themselves at OUR expense. Where is the USA government protecting the people and interests of our country and the TAX PAYER?
      • by Grishnakh (216268)

        This has nothing to do with the US people, government, or taxpayers. GE is a private company; "publicly-owned", but it's owned by its shareholders. The shareholders are the only people it answers to. The shareholders WANT them to do deals like this, because this gives them bigger profits, and pushes up their stock price. That's what shareholders want. They don't care about long-term issues, because they'll sell off the stock when it peaks and let someone else worry about that.

        If you think the governmen

        • I'm guessing that GE will be violating the export control laws related to arms control. If not, then we need to adjust the law. We do a piss-poor job of enforcing our laws, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

          I'd toss in a charge of treason as well, and not be wimpy about serving up the punishment that is explicitly mentioned in the US constitution.

    • by c0lo (1497653)

      Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it... see: software piracy, high speed trains, stealth fighters, aircraft carriers. Up next: commercial aircraft!

      But... but... they are indeed learning!!
      Like: why spend so much in guarding your secrets, that's a huge cost. Isn't it much better to offer them secrets in return for... something... I don't know... money? Afterall, China has enough of US bonds, getting some of them back means something?

      Seriously guys: letting aside movies, music and MS Windows (in which China doesn't seem to be interested), what else have US of A to export?

    • by arivanov (12034)

      And your point is?

      Russians have licensed to the Chinese the full blueprint of Su-27 (the license is now revoked because of illegal cloning), the Chinese have bought a whole load of them. Despite all that they have failed to clone the engine. As a result the "stealth" jet fighter they have produced may be low radar profile (that is actually the easy bit nowdays), but it is still equipped with third generation engine 20 years behind US, EADS and Russia. As a result it is a piece of stealthy dead meat if it me

    • Re:Repeating history (Score:4, Interesting)

      by tsotha (720379) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @03:17AM (#34913364)

      Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it...

      More specifically jet technologies like the WS-10, an engine which is a nut-for-bolt ripoff of the Russian AL-31.

      By now Chinese companies are famous for making partnerships with foreign firms and then burning their partners once they think they can get away with it. Whoever made this decision at GE is an idiot.

  • Globalization (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JasonFlanders (1976920) on Monday January 17, 2011 @11:14PM (#34912038)
    Would China owned companies share any of their military technology with us? We are are simultaneously the strongest and most soft-headed country in the history of the world. How come talk of globalization somehow only includes us selling our shiz off?
    • Re:Globalization (Score:5, Insightful)

      by syousef (465911) on Monday January 17, 2011 @11:26PM (#34912134) Journal

      Would China owned companies share any of their military technology with us? We are are simultaneously the strongest and most soft-headed country in the history of the world. How come talk of globalization somehow only includes us selling our shiz off?

      Did you expect China to just keep selling you cheap toys and clothing? Eventually an emerging market...emerges.

    • We are are simultaneously the strongest and most soft-headed country in the history of the world.

      ... and by we you clearly mean the Slashdotters.

    • by c0lo (1497653)

      Would China owned companies share any of their military technology with us? We are are simultaneously the strongest and most soft-headed country in the history of the world.

      What else you have for sale to balance the trade deficit? I mean, what? Music? Movies? MS Windows? What else that China would be interested in buying?

      Strongest country? Stop deluding yourself... PR of C doesn't need to invade US of A... if it starts selling only 10% of the US Treasury bonds it owns and in 1 month the USD will be so weak, China will buy the entire US of A on closing-down-sale prices.

      How come talk of globalization somehow only includes us selling our shiz off?

      Because in a globalize market you live or die by the strength of your economy and not by the strenght of your

  • Yep (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ShakaUVM (157947) on Monday January 17, 2011 @11:14PM (#34912040) Homepage Journal

    Yep. This is how the Chinese have been doing their technology transfer without needing to pay billions in R&D themselves.

    They go to a company and tell them that they'd like to build some nuclear reactors or high speed trains or something. The deal they make always goes like:
    1) We'll buy the first two nuclear plants.
    2) The next two you build using our people.
    3) The ones thereafter you give us the plans to build, and we'll do it all ourselves, and pay you a royalty.

    Now China has the plans to the AP1000, one of the most modern nuclear plants being built today, as well as a trained workforce in building it, all without having to do any of the R&D work themselves, or pay much more than just the cost of a couple plants (which they get to use anyway).

    It's a very clever idea, and companies are all falling over themselves to give away their best technologies to China, since they're so eager for short-term profits, they don't realize they're shooting themselves in the foot, long term.

    • It's a very clever idea, and companies are all falling over themselves to give away their best technologies to China, since they're so eager for short-term profits, they don't realize they're shooting themselves in the foot, long term.

      It's a very clever idea, and executives are all falling over themselves to give away their corporation's best technologies to China, since they're so eager for short-term profits and the individual profits and advancement, they don't care they're shooting the corporation they work for (but don't give a rat's ass about) in the foot, long term.

      It's the mercenary attitude with which employees are treated and the reciprocal mercenary attitude of said employees that is responsible for this type of "short term is

    • It's a very clever idea, and companies are all falling over themselves to give away their best technologies to China, since they're so eager for short-term profits, they don't realize they're shooting themselves in the foot, long term.

      On the flipside, if these companies have management that's worth a damn, they will spend that money on R&D for the next generation of stuff. So far, China has been great at copying but pretty sucky at development. I remember very similar characterizations of Japan back in the 70s and 80s. Eventually Japan got good at development too, but by then they had lost the edge of low labor costs. Korea is further along that path than China is (look at LG and recent korean cars for example), but not yet wher

      • by zmollusc (763634)

        These companies will spend that money on either R&D or bonuses for the top management. It is too early to tell which.

    • by dbIII (701233)

      Now China has the plans to the AP1000, one of the most modern nuclear plants being built today

      With the greatest possible respect, it's not even the most modern nuclear plant being built in China. It's a Westinghouse dinosaur and little more than a scaled down TMI without the containment that saved the place. The old Chinese stuff is better than that so all they are getting is information on a few components that are better.

      • by ShakaUVM (157947)

        The big three designs right now are the GE ABWR, the Westinghouse AP1000, and the Areva EPR. The AP1000 is a simplified version, but it is a bit of a misnomer to call it a scaled down TMI.

        • by dbIII (701233)
          You completely forgot pebble bed and what is going on in India, France etc etc. The mainstream US nuclear industry has been doing little more than fleece the taxpayer and slap a coat of green paint on those old designs for a looong time. Ignore the dinosaurs that are way behind even South African technology.
  • by dbIII (701233) on Monday January 17, 2011 @11:14PM (#34912042)

    Boeing's new state-of-the-art 787 Dreamliner

    Shouldn't that be late-of-the-art 787 Dreamliner
    Also wasn't there a court case a while ago about Boeing getting the results of some industrial espionage into Airbus? Hasn't there been speculation that some of the Boeing problems were due to blind copying without knowing why parts of the most recent Airbus were designed that way? Are the Chinese really getting anything new that they couldn't get from elsewhere anyway?

    • by 0123456 (636235)

      Also wasn't there a court case a while ago about Boeing getting the results of some industrial espionage into Airbus? Hasn't there been speculation that some of the Boeing problems were due to blind copying without knowing why parts of the most recent Airbus were designed that way?

      Aren't the Dreamliner's problems largely due to the massive use of composites? If so, what would Boeing be learning from Airbus?

      • by dbIII (701233)

        If so, what would Boeing be learning from Airbus?

        Not enough apparently. To make things worse the US taxpayer allegedly footed the bill and provided the people for the industrial espionage. With the Chinese buying the stuff outright we at least know what they've got and that they should get it right. The second part is important because budget airlines will buy the cheapest stuff they can get their hands on and you don't want a Chinese made engine coming through your roof.

        • you don't want a Chinese made engine coming through your roof.

          Donnie Darko, is that you?

          • by dbIII (701233)
            I thought of that when I wrote this post. In the movie I seem to remember it coming vertically through his ceiling as if the plane it had been attached to had been standing still. I should have written "through your wall".
  • Turnabout? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jklappenbach (824031) on Monday January 17, 2011 @11:15PM (#34912052) Journal
    Perhaps we might start demanding that every Chinese company wanting access to American markets must locate offices here, staff them with US workers, and share their technology in turn. We did that with the Japanese...
    • The Chinese will simply sell to European middlemen who will then turn around and sell to us at even higher prices. This won't work. The Japanese dealt with the US because they needed us to defend them against foreign aggressors. Remember that Japan depended upon the United States for defense against military attack, including nuclear attack from either China (who still have scores to settle with the Japanese) or Russia, in the decades following WWII. They were willing to put up with US import quotas and tar
    • by c0lo (1497653)

      Perhaps we might start demanding that every Chinese company wanting access to American markets must locate offices here, staff them with US workers, and share their technology in turn.

      Yeap. Le'me guess China's answer: are US workers willing to get only USD200 a month? No? Well, will gladly pay them USD3000. (hmm... not that will help them too much after we'll be dumping on the financial marker all the US treasury bonds we own.... actually, might come even cheaper than the chinese workforce).

      We did that with the Japanese...

      Well, well... did the Japanase also had almost 1 trillion dollars worth of US public debt [treasury.gov] and had a trade balance in their favor of a quarter of a trillion/year [census.gov]?

    • by giorgist (1208992)
      Yep ... imagine your lifestyle with out chineese goods :-)

      This US is simply a junkie to chineese goods, that is why China can demand more and more from you.
  • This is even more bone-headed a move than Boeing farming out airframe subassemblies. This is one of the few areas where we have a competitive advantage, and they're going to give it away so that they can sell a few more engines. I don't care if the rationale is that Rolls Royce, SNECMA, P&W, or if it's the price for lower labor costs at a PRC plantsite, or whoever will do it if "we" don't.

    When a technology firm is selling off their IP, it's obvious that they are out of the business of developing new IP,

    • by b4dc0d3r (1268512)

      On the other hand, I'd like an engine at the lowest price. Are you going to sell it to me, or is Boeing? Hmm, guess I'm going with Boing. I'm a poet and I didn't even know it.

      Capitalism, it's what's for dinner. Want something else? Go be born to someone else, or embrace a different economic system. Mmm, capitalism. Goes down easy, comes up hard.

      • Capitalism, it's what's for dinner. Want something else? Go be born to someone else, or embrace a different economic system. Mmm, capitalism. Goes down easy, comes up hard.

        It wouldn't be a problem if it was just capitalism. The problem is that China is a company and a country. There is nobody there to enforce antitrust laws. You like your cheap stuff today, but what happens if they dump cheap goods on the market below cost until everyone else goes bust, and then raise the price once no one is left who knows how to make it?

  • by Jeremi (14640) on Monday January 17, 2011 @11:17PM (#34912076) Homepage

    "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

    • by PPH (736903)

      "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

      Not if we can smoke it instead.

    • Lenin might very well be correct. But, when all the capitalists are hung, how will they survive after they are long gone?

      They don't. Capitalist create and exploit resources. Under capitalism, the pie of resources grows with the system. Under communism, the system tends to partition the pie without actually growing it. Eventually, it shrinks as it's raped and plundered.

      Should the western capitalist system fall, I really hope for China's sake this all part of their bigger plan to re-take the #1 spot in Super

      • They don't. Capitalist create and exploit resources. Under capitalism, the pie of resources grows with the system.

        BWAHAHA.

        Seriously, that's funny. Resources grow with the capitalist system? I need some self-growing oil, can I subscribe to your newsletter?

        No. Resources don't grow any better under capitalism than under any other system. That's just nonsense designed to confuse people like you who don't understand physics.

        • Actually, the oil is out there. Lots of of it in fact. Once it gets expensive, coal gasification can be used to produce fuels that we would normally get from crude.

          Look, it's all elementary. The resources are out there. If and when we start to run dry on Earth, we will recycle. If that's not enough, will just bring more back from outside our planet. It all comes down to law and the rule of man. While physics plays a very *small* part in this, the primary (if not only) limitation is the type of governance th

          • by vadim_t (324782)

            Physics plays a very fundamental part:

            For how much would you buy an apple? You might pay $1. You might pay $1M, if it's the last apple on the planet. But no matter what, you woulnd't pay two apples.

            Same way, bringing oil from asteroids will cost a lot more in oil than it will bring. So at some point, oil ceases being an energy source and becomes an energy store perhaps.

    • China is more of a Fascist government than a Communist one these days and this is all very reminiscent of when some American corporations and banking institutions collaborated with the Nazi's to reap huge military buildup profits in a down global back in the 1930's.
  • by DNS-and-BIND (461968) on Monday January 17, 2011 @11:23PM (#34912114) Homepage

    China is getting a great deal on this. Not only do they get investment, but they get the tooling and most importantly first-hand knowhow to build reliable high-performance jet engines. China has had lots of trouble mastering jet engines. They are very tricky to get right, especially for them to last a long time and not be replaced every 1000 hours. Apparently just because your net.agents stole the plans from poorly-secured GE desktops doesn't mean you actually know how to use the knowledge.

    The unnamed state-owned company that GE will be giving money to isn't even identified in the article. This is because state-owned company means that it is an arm of the Chinese government. Americans unfamiliar with the Chinese SOE and searching for an American equivalent merely need think of GM: owned by the government and not so much worried with making profit as keeping workers employed and achieving national political objectives. These SOEs are a major part of the Chinese economy (even though "journalists" like to tell us that China has gone all capitalist now) and doing a JV (joint venture) with them is putting on lipstick and stockings and getting into bed with the government. Whatever happens next, you know you're getting fucked. We are all aware, of course, that under Chinese law JVs are required to be owned 51% by the Chinese partner? And that there is a long list of broken companies in the last ten years that went into JVs and ended up lying by the roadside, lipstick smudged and used condoms hanging out of their asses? Look up Danone vs. Wahaha for a well-known example. GE's slogan, "imagination at work", should serve it well as it goes shopping for lingerie and a nice water-based lube for the pleasure of its new Chinese husband.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You have a disturbing fondness for graphic rape analogies.

  • Sharing militarily-valuable technology with a potential military enemy doesn't seem wise.

  • You could research new technologies, spy for new technologies, or get in a petty war with one other race to share all your technologies with them.
  • Planes are about the only thing the US exports anymore. Soon we won't even have that.

    • by Grishnakh (216268)

      Wrong. America exports lots of other stuff, such as huge quantities of corn and coal. Oh wait, you were talking about high-value manufactured goods. No, we might as well give up on that stuff. Maybe we could sell our cutting-edge military tech to China? That's about the only thing we have left.

  • Maybe we can sell them those exploding electrical panels [flightglobal.com].
  • Of Obama has any common sense at all, he will get this stopped using ITAR.

  • by artor3 (1344997) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @12:55AM (#34912688)

    It's a bit off topic, but I don't think NYT requires registration, and I was certainly able to access their article without logging in.

  • by Fallen Kell (165468) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @12:58AM (#34912708)
    So they can't blame anyone but themselves when in 2-5 years from now China stops buying those parts because they have reverse engineered them and make them on their own now and dump you now that they have taken the tech they wanted...
  • Well think of it this way,
    all this technology is going open source :-)

    Why not, let it be that way. many things are going that way. Music CDs are dying and you can only make money through live performaces.

    Simply put China is a huge market, and so they have huge leverage ... and it works. Many countries buy weapons via technology transfers with France, Germany, Russia and the US. It's an old trick
  • ...long term pain. This is epic stupidity.

  • This story and the Goldman Sachs story convinces me of that fact. From this time forward all you will see is a few sporadic twitches and spams, but it's over.

"Card readers? We don't need no stinking card readers." -- Peter da Silva (at the National Academy of Sciencies, 1965, in a particularly vivid fantasy)

Working...