how did china build its infrastructure ?

[Martian2]

"A Two Year IQ Research by GetIQ & Ph.D. Maslow, has found Remarkable Facts about World IQ Rank

A IQ Research by Creafire Ltd has Ranked top Ten Countries with the highest IQ score which is Hong Kong, South Korea , Japan...... The Research has been taken by over 36 Countries who participated by taking IQ Test.

Seattle, Washington (PRWEB) September 12, 2009 -- The research was done by testing over 2,000,000 people from 36 countries of four continents within one and a half year. World most ranked country with IQ level is Hong Kong with 107 points, the worst IQ rank has Barbados with 68 points out of 161.

IQ is a measure of different components of intelligence as measured on a standardized test so arranged that exactly half of the people taking it score 100 (the 50-the percentile). When the IQ test is given to many people the distribution of scores resembles a bell curve, with intellectually gifted people falling on the curve's right side and their less fortunate counterparts on the left.

Amazing, but date of birth could affect human IQ either! If you are born in the last three months of the year, your IQ could be a victim of school policies. Schools usually have a cutoff dates; if you are born after one, you have to wait a year to start kindergarten. Likewise, schools also require attendance until kids are 16 or 17. But 16-year-old dropouts born after the cutoff dates get a year less of schooling than 16-year-olds born before it. And researchers have shown that each year of schooling is good for about 3.5 IQ points. So even though kids born in the last three months of the year have the same intellectual potential, school rules can come back to bite them harder than their peers if they drop out.

Other factors that could have an impact on your IQ level is the things you put in your mouth. The study of 4,000,000 students in New York City revealed that school pupils did 14 percent better on IQ tests after preservatives, dyes, and artificial flavors were removed from their lunches. The weakest students benefited the most from healthier food.

After getIQ research, top ten most ranked countries are:

1.Hong Kong 107 points
2.South Korea 106 points
3.Japan 105 points
4.Taiwan 104 points
5.Singapore 103 points
6.Austria 102 points
7.Germany 102 points
8.Italy 102 points
9.Netherlands 102 points
10.Switzerland 101 points

Still, these results are approximate due to permanent evolution and people mix around the world. You are probably "smarter" than your grandfather. At least, as measured by IQ test. If you could turn back time 50 years and take IQ test, more than 90 percent of today's scorers would rate "genius" . Meanwhile, our grandparents' score compared to today's would tend to put them in the lowest bucket. Does this mean we are actually smarter? Not so much. Rather, we have better nutrition, more schooling, better-educated parents, and lifestyles that have been enriched by computers and toys that boost that particular kind of intelligence. In other words, we test better.

More information about the following research and IQ test can be found on GetIQ.co.uk"

http://www.entrepreneur.com/PRWeb/release/21236.html

 

[Martian2]

Race and intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"IQ differences outside of the USA

According to Richard Lynn and others, racial differences in IQ scores are observed around the world.[24][25] A commonly-cited review by Richard Lynn lists IQ scores for East Asians (105), Europeans (99), Inuit (91), Southeast Asians and Amerindians (87 each), Pacific Islanders (85), South Asians/North Africans (84), Non-Bushmen sub-Saharan Africans (67), Australian Aborigines (62) and Bushmen (54).[26][27][25][28][24]"

 

[Developereo]

In other words, we test better.

Thank you for proving my point.

IQ tests measure your ability to take IQ tests.

According to Richard Lynn and others, racial differences in IQ scores are observed around the world.[24][25] A commonly-cited review by Richard Lynn lists IQ scores for East Asians (105), Europeans (99), Inuit (91), Southeast Asians and Amerindians (87 each), Pacific Islanders (85), South Asians/North Africans (84), Non-Bushmen sub-Saharan Africans (67), Australian Aborigines (62) and Bushmen (54).[26][27][25][28][24]"

I can fully believe those numbers.

A Bushman is far less likely to be prepared to take an IQ test than a Western or East Asian kid.

 

[Martian2]

Thank you for proving my point.

IQ tests measure your ability to take IQ tests.



I can fully believe those numbers.

A Bushman is far less likely to be prepared to take an IQ test than a Western or East Asian kid.

A Bushman is not taking an IQ test. Children or young adults in the same grade (e.g. at comparable levels of education) are taking identical exams.

Genetics is pretty easy to understand if a person doesn't have a closed mind. Are some populations shorter in stature than others? The answer is clearly "yes." The extreme example of pygmies in Africa come to mind. What is the cause of their height difference? Genetics.

Similarly, is intelligence a characteristic of human beings? Yes. What determines intelligence? The answer is the same. Genetics.

 

[CardSharp]

Two things wrong with that statement.

First, how do you define 'Intelligence'? Performance on an IQ test?
I would argue that the so-called IQ test is more of a measure of productivity; i.e. how well the individual is prepared to be integrated and productive within society. Raw intelligence in only a contributing factor in that score.

Secondly, and most importantly, genetics only determines you cranial capacity: your neuronal raw material, so to speak. After that, nurture takes over to determine how those neuronal connections develop over time. And any geneticist will tell you that there is far more genetic variaion within races than there is across races.

Genetic variation, classification and 'race' - Nature Genetics





Please read my post again. The quote is from the hardware business, i.e. people who use these tools eight hours a day, day in and day out, year in and year out. Reliability, endurance and workmanship matters. I am sure the quality of Chinese products is improving and may even match Western levels in some cases but, like I said, respect is earned over time through demonstration. There is no way to speed it up.

Where is speeder when you need him

 

[Martian2]

Science is an objective assessment. In the past, many people refused to believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but a scientific fact remains a fact. You may not like the role that genetics play in determining intelligence, but scientific facts do not care about your political views.

The best estimate from current science in weighing the contribution of heritability to IQ ranges from 45% to 80%. No matter how you look at it, genes play an incredibly important role in determining a person's IQ.

Heritability of IQ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Heritability of IQ

The study of the heritability of IQ is a field of research that includes biology, genomics, psychology, philosophy, sociology, and anthropology. Heritability is "an estimate of the genetic and environmental contributions to the variance of any phenotypic measure around the mean for a given population."[1] "Heritability refers to the genetic contribution to variance within a population and in a specific environment . . . ; if the environment changes, the heritability measure changes."[1]

Heritability of a trait in a particular population does not set any limit on how malleable the trait is under changes of environment, because "even highly heritable traits can be strongly manipulated by the environment, so heritability has little if anything to do with controllability."[2] The debate about IQ heritability touches on the nature versus nurture divide,[3] and there has been significant controversy in the academic community about it ever since research began in the 19th century.[4]

IQ is a polygenic trait under normal circumstances according to recent research.[5] However, destructive mutation of individual genes associated with development can severely affect intelligence, with Phenylketonuria as an example.[6]

Estimates in the academic research of the heritability of IQ have varied from below 0.5[4] to a high of 0.8.[7] A 1996 statement by the American Psychological Association gave about .45 for children and about .75 during and after adolescence.[8] A 2004 review of reports in Current Directions in Psychological Science concluded most psychological traits are substantively influenced by genetic factors.[9]

Background

Heritability is defined as the proportion of variance in a trait which is attributable to genotype within a defined population in a specific environment.[1] Heritability takes a value ranging from 0 to 1; a heritability of 1 indicates that all variation in the trait in question is genetic in origin and a heritability of 0 indicates that none of the variation is genetic. The heritability of many traits can be considered primarily genetic under similar environmental backgrounds. For example, Visscher et al. (2006) found that adult height has a heritability estimated at 0.80, when a similar environmental background is present, to control for environment the study only looked at the contribution of heritability to variation within families. The paper stated that "one can never be sure that the estimates are correct, because nature and nurture can be confounded without one knowing it. The authors got around this problem by comparing the similarity between relatives as a function of the exact proportion of genes that they have in common, looking only within families."[3] Other traits have low heritabilities, which indicate a large relative environmental influence. For example, a twin study on the heritability of depression in men calculated it as 0.29, while it was 0.42 for women in the same study.[10]

Heritability for a trait is calculated by measuring how strongly traits covary in people of a given genetic and environmental similarity. The most common method is to consider identical twins reared apart, with any similarities which exists between such twin pairs attributed to genotype. In terms of correlation statistics, this means that theoretically the correlation of tests scores between monozygotic twins would be 1.00 if genetics alone accounted for variation in IQ scores; likewise, siblings and dizygotic twins share on average half of their alleles and the correlation of their scores would be 0.50 if IQ were affected by genes alone. Practically, however, the upper bound of these correlations are given by the reliability of the test, which tends to be 0.90 to 0.95 for typical IQ tests[11] Thus, the actual heritability of IQ will tend to be slightly higher than attained by estimates derived from studies of monozygotic twins, though this effect is small.

In the case of the inheritance of IQ or a certain degree of giftedness, the relatives of probands with a high IQ exhibit a comparably high IQ with a much higher probability than the general population. In 1982, Bouchard and McGue reviewed such correlations reported in 111 original studies in the United States.[12] The mean correlation of IQ scores between monozygotic twins was 0.86, between siblings, 0.47, between half-siblings, 0.31, and between cousins, 0.15. From such data the heritability of IQ was estimated at anywhere between 0.40 and 0.80 in the United States. The reason for this wide margin appeared to be that the heritability of IQ rises through childhood and adolescence, peaking at 0.68 and 0.78 in adults, leaving the overwhelming majority of IQ differences between individuals to be explained genetically.[13]

The finding of rising heritability with age is counter-intuitive; it is reasonable to expect that genetic influences on traits like IQ should become less important as one gains experiences with age. However, that the opposite occurs is well documented. According to work by Robert Plomin, heritability estimates calculated on infant samples are as low as 20%, rising to around 40% in middle childhood, and ultimately as high as 80% in adult samples in the United States.[14] This suggests that the underlying genes actually express themselves by affecting a person's predisposition to build, learn, and develop mental abilities throughout the lifespan.[citation needed]

Estimates and caveats to them

In 2006, The New York Times Magazine reported that while the previous century of research indicated that about three quarters of a person's IQ is due to heredity, current research indicated that these results only hold for children of wealthy parents. For children who grew up poor, family background played a bigger role than genetics.[15] A 2004 meta-analysis of reports in Current Directions in Psychological Science produced estimates ranging from .54 to .88 for adults from affluent Western societies.[9] Previously, the 1996 statement by the American Psychological Association gave about .45 for children and about .75 during and after adolescence.[8]

The 2006 edition of Assessing adolescent and adult intelligence by Alan S. Kaufman and Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger reports correlations of 0.86 for identical twins raised together compared to 0.76 for those raised apart and 0.47 for siblings.[16] A 1994 review in Behavior Genetics based on identical/fraternal twin studies found that it is as high as 0.80 in general cognitive ability but it also varies based on the trait, with .60 for verbal tests, .50 for spatial and speed-of-processing tests, and only .40 for memory tests.[7]

There are a number of points to consider when interpreting heritability:

* A high heritability does not mean that the environment has no effect on the development of a trait,[2] or that learning is not involved. Vocabulary size, for example, is very substantially heritable (and highly correlated with general intelligence) although every word in an individual's vocabulary is learned. In a society in which plenty of words are available in everyone's environment, especially for individuals who are motivated to seek them out, the number of words that individuals actually learn depends to a considerable extent on their genetic predispositions.[8]

* A common error is to assume that because something is heritable it is necessarily unchangeable. This is wrong. Heritability does not imply immutability. As previously noted, heritable traits can depend on learning, and they may be subject to other environmental effects as well. The value of heritability can change if the distribution of environments (or genes) in the population is substantially altered. For example, an impoverished or suppressive environment could fail to support the development of a trait, and hence restrict individual variation. This could affect estimates of heritability.[8] Another example is Phenylketonuria which previously caused mental retardation for everyone who had this genetic disorder. Today, this can be prevented by following a modified diet.

* On the other hand, there can be effective environmental changes that do not change heritability at all. If the environment relevant to a given trait improves in a way that affects all members of the population equally, the mean value of the trait will rise without any change in its heritability (because the differences among individuals in the population will stay the same). This has evidently happened for height: the heritability of stature is high, but average heights continue to increase.[8]

* Even in developed nations, high heritability of a trait within a given group has no necessary implications for the source of a difference between groups.[8][17]

* In addition to strong evidence for heritability increasing with age, some studies suggest that heritability increases with social class [18], [19]. Differences among children with higher than average social status are almost entirely due to inherited differences, while among very low social class groups, most of the differences in IQ-scores (at least in children and young adolescents) are attributable to differences between families (shared environment - see Twin study).

* Even among close groups such as families, different individuals—such as siblings—will still experience different environments, which matter in determining intelligence scores.[20]"

 

[Developereo]

Children or young adults in the same grade (e.g. at comparable levels of education) are taking identical exams.

Are you saying they gave an identical exam to a kid in New York and Beijing and in the Kalahari desert? You've got to be kidding!

Genetics is pretty easy to understand if a person doesn't have a closed mind.

Nobody's denying that genetics plays a part in IQ scores. The only question is whether brain size is a reliable indicator of IQ performance and, from the same wiki article,

According to an analysis by Jelte Wicherts, if race differences in brain size are genetic in origin, they still leave 91–95% of racial IQ gap unaccounted for

Are some populations shorter in stature than others? The answer is clearly "yes." The extreme example of pygmies in Africa come to mind. What is the cause of their height difference? Genetics.

Except that the variation in human brain sizes is not as dramatic as that. In any case, I am not sure what you are trying to prove anyway? I am saying that the higher IQ scores of certain groups, including East Asians, are due to environmental factors including culture. You are discounting Asian culture and claiming the scores are mostly due to genetics. It's like a star athlete saying her success is all due to genetics and has nothing to do with her hard work and training.

In 2006, The New York Times Magazine reported that while the previous century of research indicated that about three quarters of a person's IQ is due to heredity, current research indicated that these results only hold for children of wealthy parents. For children who grew up poor, family background played a bigger role than genetics.

There you go. The researchers contradict themselves!

In any case, the whole article is irrelevant since it is comparing individuals in similar or identical cultural environments. In other words, the article is measuring the effect of genetics, all other factors being equal. It makes no statement about the relative merit of genetics v/s culture on the IQ debate.

 

[Martian2]

I will repeat my point one more time. If you still don't get it then there's nothing that I can do.

The best estimate from current science in weighing the contribution of heritability to IQ ranges from 45% to 80%. No matter how you look at it, genes play an incredibly important role in determining a person's IQ.

The best estimate from current science is that genes determine 45% to 80% of a person's IQ. This implies that the environment, which includes culture, may only affect as little as 20% of a person's IQ.

I believe that the true figure is somewhere in the middle of the estimates. A reasonable person would select 62.5% as the average proportion that genes contribute to a person's IQ. While culture and nurture are important, they can only influence 37.5% of a person's IQ.

In conclusion, genes are a dominant factor (e.g. 62.5%) in determining a person's intelligence and the environment is a minor factor (e.g. 37.5%).

Are you saying they gave an identical exam to a kid in New York and Beijing and in the Kalahari desert? You've got to be kidding!

Seattle, Washington (PRWEB) September 12, 2009 -- The research was done by testing over 2,000,000 people from 36 countries of four continents within one and a half year. World most ranked country with IQ level is Hong Kong with 107 points, the worst IQ rank has Barbados with 68 points out of 161.

IQ is a measure of different components of intelligence as measured on a standardized test so arranged that exactly half of the people taking it score 100 (the 50-the percentile). When the IQ test is given to many people the distribution of scores resembles a bell curve, with intellectually gifted people falling on the curve's right side and their less fortunate counterparts on the left.

I'm not sure what you are complaining about. Of course the researchers gave identical exam(s) in the native language to the school children in different countries. Are you claiming that the children in the Kalahari desert received an IQ test on calculus and the Taiwanese children were tested on arithmetic?

 

[below_freezing]

We all know that IQ is mostly hereditary. What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter. Einstein probably can't do chemistry. I've heard he needed tutoring for differential equations because he didn't get it. Once he got it, he became great at theoretical physics, but not until then. IQ is not correlated with specific skills, only with the rough ability to learn some of those skills, and you'll only be good in what you learn, and nothing else.

 

[Developereo]

I will repeat my point one more time. If you still don't get it then there's nothing that I can do.

No, my friend, you are reading what you want to read, not what's written there.

Let's say you want to study the effect of A, B, C and D on some result R. First you want to focus on A to find out its standalone effect on R, leaving other factors constant.

How will you do that? Clearly, you will devise an experiment (or study) where you keep B, C and D constant across your samples while you vary A and see the effect on R.

This is what the researchers did. They were not interested in comparing the relative effects of nature v/s nurture; they only wanted to measure the correlation of nature on IQ scores while keeping nurture constant. Here is the relevant sentence in the study:

The paper stated that "one can never be sure that the estimates are correct, because nature and nurture can be confounded without one knowing it. The authors got around this problem by comparing the similarity between relatives as a function of the exact proportion of genes that they have in common, looking only within families."

I'm not sure what you are complaining about. Of course the researchers gave identical exam(s) in the native language to the school children in different countries. Are you claiming that the children in the Kalahari desert received an IQ test on calculus and the Taiwanese children were tested on arithmetic?

Aren't you mixing up studies here? This is the British study for the earlier numbers you posted, not Lynn's numbers comparing Bushmen with East Asians.

 

[Martian2]

No, my friend, you are reading what you want to read, not what's written there.

Let's say you want to study the effect of A, B, C and D on some result R. First you want to focus on A to find out its standalone effect on R, leaving other factors constant.

How will you do that? Clearly, you will devise an experiment (or study) where you keep B, C and D constant across your samples while you vary A and see the effect on R.

This is what the researchers did. They were not interested in comparing the relative effects of nature v/s nurture; they only wanted to measure the correlation of nature on IQ scores while keeping nurture constant. Here is the relevant sentence in the study:





Aren't you mixing up studies here? This is the British study for the earlier numbers you posted, not Lynn's numbers comparing Bushmen with East Asians.

You can believe whatever you like. I am not about to post more articles, including studies from respected Harvard scientist(s), European researchers, etc. and which are written in well-known books such as "The Bell Curve." Buy the books, read them, and decide for yourself whether the research methods and results are fair.

It is important to note that most, if not all, IQ studies are being conducted by respected Caucasian scientists. It makes no sense for Caucasian researchers to place Caucasians lower on the IQ chart than East Asians. This is a testament to their scientific and personal integrity. Facts may be uncomfortable, but too bad. That's life.

The Bell Curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Bell Curve is a best-selling but controversial 1994 book by the late Harvard psychologist Richard J. Herrnstein and American Enterprise Institute ..."

IQ and Global Inequality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"IQ and Global Inequality is a controversial 2006 book by psychologist Richard Lynn and political scientist Tatu Vanhanen.[1] IQ and Global Inequality is follow-up to their 2002 book IQ and the Wealth of Nations[2], an expansion of the argument that international differences in current economic development are due in part to differences in average national intelligence as indicated by national IQ estimates, and a response to critics. The book was published by the controversial Washington Summit Publishers."

IQ and the Wealth of Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"IQ and the Wealth of Nations is a controversial 2002 book by Dr. Richard Lynn, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, and Dr. Tatu Vanhanen, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.[1] The book argues that differences in national income (in the form of per capita gross domestic product) correlate with differences in the average national intelligence quotient (IQ). The authors further argue that differences in average national IQs is one important factor, but not the only one, contributing to differences in national wealth and rates of economic growth. Critical responses have included questioning the methodology and incomplete data as well as the conclusions.[2][3] The 2006 book IQ and Global Inequality is a follow-up to IQ and the Wealth of Nations by the same authors. Several other data sets of estimated average national cognitive ability exist as explained in nations and intelligence."

 

[Martian2]

Machine tools are necessary and critical in building construction equipment to enable infrastructure development. Without machine tools, a country cannot build the machines that construct modern infrastructure.

Unlike the West, China does not place severe restrictions on the export of high-technology advanced five-axis machine tools. If a developing country wants to buy an advanced Chinese five-axis machine tool, it is readily available for purchase.

In contrast, the United States severely restricts the export of five-axis machine tools. American advanced five-axis machine tools are basically unavailable on the world market. The United States will not permit a developing country to industrialize with advanced American machine tools.

"The United States exported 515 five-axis machine tools between 2005-2007, and only 12 of these went to China. DMTG, China's largest producer of machine tools, exports products to more than 100 countries."

China and Taiwan have caught up with U.S. advanced five-axis machine tools

Advanced high-precision five-axis machine tool fabricating an engine block

"Foreign companies in China and Taiwan have caught up with U.S. technical capabilities, rendering stringent U.S. export controls moot." (see first paragraph in news article)

Let's do the math. From the seventh paragraph, 45 foreign companies produce advanced five-axis machine tools in the BRIC+Taiwan countries. "China has 20 indigenous five-axis machine tool companies; Taiwan has 22." 45 - 20 (in China) - 22 (in Taiwan) = 3 left in Brazil, Russia, and India combined.

For comparison, "there are six American companies dedicated to producing five-axis machine tools." (see fourth paragraph in news article)

U.S. Precision Machine Tool Industry Is No Longer A Global Competetitive Force

"U.S. Precision Machine Tool Industry Is No Longer A Global Competitive Force

March 5, 2010 Volume 17, No. 4
By Richard A. McCormack
richard@manufacturingnews.com

U.S. producers of some of the most technologically advanced machine tools are in trouble, according to an assessment by the Department of Commerce. Sales of high-precision five-axis machine tools are declining. U.S. share of global exports is in a free fall. Foreign companies in China and Taiwan have caught up with U.S. technical capabilities, rendering stringent U.S. export controls moot. U.S. companies are being purchased by foreign rivals. A lack of training programs has created a shortage of skilled workers able to use the complex machinery. Commercial and U.S. government customers prefer foreign machine tools. Export controls are hampering foreign sales. The entire U.S. machine tool industry spends only $1 million a year on research on five-axis machine tools.

These are some of the findings from a "Critical Technology Assessment" conducted by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security.

U.S. producers of five-axis machine tools had sales of $253 million in 2008, down 11 percent from 2005 sales of $284 million. That was before the U.S. machine tool industry suffered a meltdown in 2009, when domestic consumption tumbled by 60.4 percent, according to the Association of Manufacturing Technology.

Sales of five-axis machines to domestic customers from U.S. producers declined by 19 percent from 2005 to 2008, from $242 million in 2005 to only $195 million in 2008. There are six American companies dedicated to producing five-axis machine tools, and at least 20 in China. Five-axis tools are used for the production of precision components in the aerospace industry, in making gas and diesel engines, automobile parts, and throughout the medical, textile, oil, glass, heavy industrial equipment and tool industries. "Many other industries are discovering the advantages of these machines," says the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS).

Yet "only a handful of U.S. producers actually manufacture five-axis machine tools in high volume and most generate less than 10 percent of their annual net finished machine tools sales from five-axis machine tool business lines," according to the market and technology research report from BIS.

U.S. producers of five-axis machine tools exported only $58 million worth of equipment in 2008. In a tally of global exports of all machine tools, the United States -- with exports of $740 million -- accounted for only 4.3 percent of global exports in 2007.
...
BIS also assessed foreign producers of five-axis machines. It found that not one of the 45 companies that are indigenous to Brazil, China, India, Russia and Taiwan use U.S. technology, parts, components or materials. China has 20 indigenous five-axis machine tool companies; Taiwan has 22. None of these companies have to deal with the types of export restrictions facing American firms. As a result, these companies are able to produce all the machine tools that are in demand in China and Taiwan, plus they are "able to produce in sufficient quantity to export to other LRCs," says BIS.

One of China's five-axis machine tool makers has 24 distinct models. China now has 28 companies capable of building more than 1,000 CNC machine tools. There are 130 Chinese companies with annual capacity of more than 100 machine tools. The country is now supplying most all of its own demand, with only 10 percent of the market being supplied through imports. "In 2005, approximately 59,600 units of CNC machine tools were produced in China," according to the BIS report. In 2007, the combined amount of CNC metal-cutting and forming tools produced in China was 126,268, more than double the amount produced in 2005. China is now supplying its own demand for five-axis machine tools used throughout its military.

The BIS quotes the Export Compliance Working Group of the American Chamber of Commerce in the People's Republic of China as saying: "Given the existing domestic and joint venture development and the foreign availability of high-level machine tools, U.S. companies could not make a material contribution to China's military development. China's military demands are already satisfied by domestic and foreign supply."

The United States exported 515 five-axis machine tools between 2005-2007, and only 12 of these went to China. DMTG, China's largest producer of machine tools, exports products to more than 100 countries.
...
The report is located at U. S. Bureau of Industry and Security defenseindustrialbaseprograms/osies/defmarket researchrpts/final_machine_ tool_report.pdf."

 

[Martian2]

The following videos are all high-definition (e.g. make sure to select 720p for the YouTube video in the bottom right-hand corner), widescreen, and in English. Each one is only a few minutes long. The videos provide a comprehensive and entertaining look at Taiwan's machine tool industry. For anyone interested in technology, I highly recommend watching them.

General overview of Taiwan's machine tool industry:

The following videos have a similar format. The first two-thirds of each video discuss the outstanding technical features of the machine tool. For an ordinary person like myself, it is the last third of the video with action-packed footage that I find the most interesting.

High-tech features of specific machine tools:

CNC Engraving Machines, Laser Engraving & Cutting Machines
A beautifully-compact machine with 0.005 mm accuracy!

CNC Lathe, CNC Automatic Lathe
"Ultra-fast efficient machining"

CNC Lathe, CNC Turning Center
Heavy machining of medium carbon steel, steel alloy, and aluminum alloy
"Fast turns and guaranteed repeatable accuracy"

CNC Turning Center, CNC Turning Lathe
"For milling and complicated machining"

TIMTOS Welcome Letter

"TIMTOS
2010/03/25

To Whom It May Concern,

The 2011 Taipei International Machine Tool Show (TIMTOS 2011) will take place at TWTC Taipei World Trade Center (TWTC) Exhibitions Hall 1, 2, 3 and the Nangang Exhibition Center from March 1 to 6, 2011.

The biennial exhibition has already become a focus for international buyers, and the upcoming 15th TIMTOS is sure to be a prominent international event in the industry. The machine tool industry forms a crucial element in Taiwan’s machinery industry; in addition, Taiwan is currently the world’s 4th largest manufacturer of machine tools. This year’s exhibition is centered on the procurement of top-quality “Made in Taiwan” machine tool and total solution for machine industry.

After the successful turnout in 2009 and to stimulate more inspiration under the economic crisis worldwide, TAITRA determines to contribute more efforts for continuing the glory of TIMTOS in 2011. It provides a vertically-integrated window on the top industry players and offering buyers unparalleled convenience. The event is estimated to provide spaces and opportunities for over 910 exhibitors, 4,500 booths and 44,500 visitors, so further interaction and exploration can be achieved through the period of March 1-6, 2011!

We sincerely welcome you to join us to exhibit the latest products and demonstrate the most up-to-date technologies. Please find the show’s Application Kit from our website. Should you have any queries or require further assistance, please feel free to contact me (email: timtos@taitra.org.tw) at any time. Our overseas branch offices will also be more than happy to help you (check your closest contact at: ???????????? Taiwan External Trade Development Council (TAITRA)).

Sincerely yours,
Paul Cheng, Show Manager
Exhibition Dept. Section I
Taiwan External Trade Development Council"

 

[below_freezing]

Machine tools are necessary and critical in building construction equipment to enable infrastructure development. Without machine tools, a country cannot build the machines that construct modern infrastructure.

Unlike the West, China does not place severe restrictions on the export of high-technology advanced five-axis machine tools. If a developing country wants to buy an advanced Chinese five-axis machine tool, it is readily available for purchase.

In contrast, the United States severely restricts the export of five-axis machine tools. American advanced five-axis machine tools are basically unavailable on the world market. The United States will not permit a developing country to industrialize with advanced American machine tools.

"The United States exported 515 five-axis machine tools between 2005-2007, and only 12 of these went to China. DMTG, China's largest producer of machine tools, exports products to more than 100 countries."

China and Taiwan have caught up with U.S. advanced five-axis machine tools

Advanced high-precision five-axis machine tool fabricating an engine block

"Foreign companies in China and Taiwan have caught up with U.S. technical capabilities, rendering stringent U.S. export controls moot." (see first paragraph in news article)

Let's do the math. From the seventh paragraph, 45 foreign companies produce advanced five-axis machine tools in the BRIC+Taiwan countries. "China has 20 indigenous five-axis machine tool companies; Taiwan has 22." 45 - 20 (in China) - 22 (in Taiwan) = 3 left in Brazil, Russia, and India combined.

For comparison, "there are six American companies dedicated to producing five-axis machine tools." (see fourth paragraph in news article)

U.S. Precision Machine Tool Industry Is No Longer A Global Competetitive Force

"U.S. Precision Machine Tool Industry Is No Longer A Global Competitive Force

March 5, 2010 Volume 17, No. 4
By Richard A. McCormack
richard@manufacturingnews.com

U.S. producers of some of the most technologically advanced machine tools are in trouble, according to an assessment by the Department of Commerce. Sales of high-precision five-axis machine tools are declining. U.S. share of global exports is in a free fall. Foreign companies in China and Taiwan have caught up with U.S. technical capabilities, rendering stringent U.S. export controls moot. U.S. companies are being purchased by foreign rivals. A lack of training programs has created a shortage of skilled workers able to use the complex machinery. Commercial and U.S. government customers prefer foreign machine tools. Export controls are hampering foreign sales. The entire U.S. machine tool industry spends only $1 million a year on research on five-axis machine tools.

These are some of the findings from a "Critical Technology Assessment" conducted by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security.

U.S. producers of five-axis machine tools had sales of $253 million in 2008, down 11 percent from 2005 sales of $284 million. That was before the U.S. machine tool industry suffered a meltdown in 2009, when domestic consumption tumbled by 60.4 percent, according to the Association of Manufacturing Technology.

Sales of five-axis machines to domestic customers from U.S. producers declined by 19 percent from 2005 to 2008, from $242 million in 2005 to only $195 million in 2008. There are six American companies dedicated to producing five-axis machine tools, and at least 20 in China. Five-axis tools are used for the production of precision components in the aerospace industry, in making gas and diesel engines, automobile parts, and throughout the medical, textile, oil, glass, heavy industrial equipment and tool industries. "Many other industries are discovering the advantages of these machines," says the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS).

Yet "only a handful of U.S. producers actually manufacture five-axis machine tools in high volume and most generate less than 10 percent of their annual net finished machine tools sales from five-axis machine tool business lines," according to the market and technology research report from BIS.

U.S. producers of five-axis machine tools exported only $58 million worth of equipment in 2008. In a tally of global exports of all machine tools, the United States -- with exports of $740 million -- accounted for only 4.3 percent of global exports in 2007.
...
BIS also assessed foreign producers of five-axis machines. It found that not one of the 45 companies that are indigenous to Brazil, China, India, Russia and Taiwan use U.S. technology, parts, components or materials. China has 20 indigenous five-axis machine tool companies; Taiwan has 22. None of these companies have to deal with the types of export restrictions facing American firms. As a result, these companies are able to produce all the machine tools that are in demand in China and Taiwan, plus they are "able to produce in sufficient quantity to export to other LRCs," says BIS.

One of China's five-axis machine tool makers has 24 distinct models. China now has 28 companies capable of building more than 1,000 CNC machine tools. There are 130 Chinese companies with annual capacity of more than 100 machine tools. The country is now supplying most all of its own demand, with only 10 percent of the market being supplied through imports. "In 2005, approximately 59,600 units of CNC machine tools were produced in China," according to the BIS report. In 2007, the combined amount of CNC metal-cutting and forming tools produced in China was 126,268, more than double the amount produced in 2005. China is now supplying its own demand for five-axis machine tools used throughout its military.

The BIS quotes the Export Compliance Working Group of the American Chamber of Commerce in the People's Republic of China as saying: "Given the existing domestic and joint venture development and the foreign availability of high-level machine tools, U.S. companies could not make a material contribution to China's military development. China's military demands are already satisfied by domestic and foreign supply."

The United States exported 515 five-axis machine tools between 2005-2007, and only 12 of these went to China. DMTG, China's largest producer of machine tools, exports products to more than 100 countries.
...
The report is located at U. S. Bureau of Industry and Security defenseindustrialbaseprograms/osies/defmarket researchrpts/final_machine_ tool_report.pdf."

great article.

 

[Speeder 2]

Good that I took a look here after grocery shopping. An improved board yet still many misunderstandings/misinterpretations remain here. (man, I just like most of Martian 2’s comments for the most quotes were educationally fun readings, especially with fotos and graphs. Thumb up! ),

Before debunking some comments randomly which I will do, let me say that my aim is not to degrade/discriminate someone/groups, but a better understanding of where the truth lies. And we are always talking about average in general term, not particular individuals like you or I. You may even have a higher IQ than I, but I don’t feel intimidated or discriminated at all. I’ll refrain from quoting large pieces of research papers (there’re tons out there), but try to use simple intuitive logic instead.


Some say, Yes high IQ is crucial, but education and govt policies or accumulation of technology, money, etc. is also crucial.

Maybe not, as we are looking at the root cause (IQ) , not symptoms (external factors: e.g. cultures, money, policies, technologies, “bigger gardens”, “sweeter cakes”, “nicer swimming pools”, etc. ).

For decades with tons of Western aid money and technologies to help jump-start the economies, most sub-Sahara region remains a sea of hungry souls. They have had free money + free tech. What’s happened? Under the similar condition with the similar corrupted military dictatorship, South Korea, another post WWII Western aid target alongside Africa, took off like a rocket. Why?

The crux of the matter is “Where money and technologies etc. external factors come from?” From Mars? No!

With time higher IQ societies develop better technologies, gather more money/finance/resources needed one way or the other, deploy better development policies (more efficient or less corrupted,) etc. Not the other way around in which technologies, money, policies and all the other goodies dropped from heaven helped certain people develop high IQ thereafter.


Some say in the line of “IQ only test the ability to take an IQ test, and it can not reflect people’s intelligence”.

Wrong. The absolute number of IQ is not important, can’t you see? The differences between groups are. Of course IQ tests are not perfect and can be improved in the future. But what it has already revealed over times are the persistent and statistically water-proof differences between racial groups that we are interested in, much more telling than some particular absolute values.

An analogy of that: A Rolex watch is of course a more accurate mean to measure time in athletic competitions. However, a piece of crap $1 quartz watch can also do exactly the same thing if we are interest in seeing what is average speed difference between an average Black vs an average East Asian vs an average European, in 100m sprint or 5,000m swimming.

Even so, most IQ test nowadays have been education-neutral and increasingly culture-neutral, which mean that graphics-based problem solving and logical deduction tests have no pre-requirements on one’s literacy level, religious belief ( they don’t draw Mohamed or Jesus in the test to ask you whom they are, of course) and education statues, where an illiterate farmer in North Korea, for instance, is as same equipped as a university professor in Kenya , or a Yoga instructor in India, or a finance graduate in USA given the same age group in front the test, and that illiterate Korean former could still win the test. This is so-called 'International", "normalised" and "standardised" IQ tests.

IQ tests your innate intellectual ability, not your knowledge!


Some even come with age-old yet thoroughly debunked arguments such as Lewontin Fallacy of “variation within races larger than that between races” ( why don’t you search internet and help yourself on that one? I am tired).

In the end, nurture helps, but only to a certain extent, a very limited extent, for it took much more than 10, 000 upon 10, 000 of years , literally, for nature to shape whom we mainly are as different racial groups. Some decades or 100s of years of “hamburgers”, “Shakespeare”, “human rights”, and/or “liberal democracy” won’t change that. Sad, sorry, but true.

That said, mountains of scientific studies have already debunked the hypothesis “nurture plays a major role”, all you need is to think , e.g.

1. Black people have lived in America and Europe for 100’s of years with the same culture, nutrition, and environmental levels, even with a boost of Affirmative Action enjoying much more privileged government policies on education and carriers, yet on average the IQ gaps with the White Europeans and East Asians persist over times. Why?

( many N American blacks today have a significant amount of European blood due to inter-breeding over the years. Their IQ average fits in the middle of that of African blacks and European whites. – Don’t use this as a counter)

2. Studies on Blacks adopted by Whites families ( the same upbringing, culture, language, education, nutrition level, even indoor temperatures for goodness, as their white kids), yet on average show persistent lower IQ than their white counterparts. Why?

3 Studies on North Korean and Chinese infants adopted by Whites families in post ww2 ( the same upbringing, Anglo-American culture, language, education and nutrition level, even the same indoor temperatures, as their white kids), yet on average show persistent higher IQ than their white counterparts. Why?

4. Studies on white infants adopted by black families ( the same upbringing, culture, language, education, nutrition level, etc. as their Black kids), yet on average show persistent higher IQ than their black counterparts. Why?

5. Studies on twins ( whites, blacks, East Asians), separated as infants , adopted by totally different families in America and Europe ( different upbringings, cultures, education levels, nutrition levels, government policies if you like, even with different languages from each other), yet on average they show remarkablely similar IQ levels in their adulthoods. Why?

… the similar kind of questions are almost endless… One just can’t argue with his eyes shut and mind closed.


THE Einstein may find it hard to get the insight of differential equations in the beginning or knew little about Chemistry, but that is not the point. The point is that in a higher IQ society in which a larger number of “Einsteins” in all fields will eventually help push it to the higher level, be it techologies, wealth accumulation, science research, or be it govenment social policies, or physical infrastructure..., for some other “Einsteins” there WILL get Chemistry and beyond, let alone getting it deeper and faster.


This “random” score board is very interesting:


1. 107 points Hong Kong : Chinese ( East Asian)
2. 106 points South Korea: Korean ( East Asian)
3. 105 points Japan: Japanese ( East Asian)
4. 104 points Taiwan: Chinese ( East Asian)
5. 103 points Singapore: Chinese ( East Asian)
6. 102 points Austria: Germanic ( European)
7. 102 points Germany: Germanic ( European)
8. 102 points Italy : decedents of ancient Romans ( European)
9. 102 points Netherlands: Germanic ( European)
10. 101 points Switzerland: Largely Germanic ( European)

USA was largely found by Anglo-Dutch: Germanic ( European)

Basically, the world today and almost in its entire history has been about 2-horse race:

East Asians vs Germanic Europeans. Just an IQ coinstance?