Slashdot Mirror

Where do you get the figure everyone needs to have at least 3 kids? I would think to maintain a population in which the average age of death is not changing the average person needs to have 1 child (2 per couple). Apparently I am wrong because the CIA https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos /us.html says in the US today the fertility rate is 2.09/woman and the population growth rate is at .91% including immigration.

Just trying to figure out where my math is wrong.

Iceland generates more than 17.5% of their total energy from geothermal plants. Electricity - production: 8.474 billion kWh (2004) Electricity - production by source: fossil fuel: 0.1% hydro: 82.5% nuclear: 0% other: 17.5% (geothermal) (2001) source: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/prin t/ic.html

I'm not sure what your 700 million is supposed to refer to, but if you're referring to the population of India, it's almost 1.1 billion now.

Another interesting number taken directly from the CIA:

Population below poverty line:

• USA - 12% (2004 est.)
• China - 10% (2001 est.)

These numbers are of course relative - a poor person in the US has more money than a poor person in china, however, most of the things you need over there are about 10 times as cheap as in Sweden (using this as a reference since it's where I spend most of my time); food, clothing, rent.

This is the reaction every time I say this. Lets look at the numbers, as your statistics support my original statement, even if you don't want to face it.

First lets figure that there are about the same number of working men to working women ( https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/prin t/us.html )

Next, lets assume that near 100% of the single income, married couples are man working woman at home. While there are the random stay at home dad, I have yet to meet one, or meet anyone who has met one, so lets assume they are statistically insignificant. Per the census ( http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/cp s2005/tabA1-all.csv ) half of all women over 15 are married. That combined with the 40% single income family number shows that 20% of the pool of women have chosen a form of income that is not available to men, and are thus not available for IT. shift the numbers to working aged women, and it is closer to 25%. The fact that some of these women are caring for children has absolutely no baring on whether they should be counted in the pool of available IT workers. They part of the workforce.

So, right off the top, we should see 4 men for every three women. Then we have to figure out the number of women that are not primary bread winners. These are the ones who have a job because they don't want to sit at home, or have a job for extra spending money. Those kinds of things. I think the numbers would be higher, but lets put that at a similar number as those that don't work at all. That takes out another 20% of the women available for IT, as IT is not a part time, casual job. So, now we are looking at 1 woman for every 2 men at best. Now these numbers go across the board for 'career' type jobs. Since everyone is trying to even out the gender numbers, we can expect to loose another 20% of the women who are competent enough for the job to be competent enough for other, better paying, easier jobs. So, we are now at somewhere around 3 men for every woman that is even considering IT.

Also per the census, 32% of all men over 15 have not been married, while only 25% of all women have never been married. That tells something very important. Women are more likely to be interacting socially with the opposite gender. E.G. Dating. Given that more women are dating than men. When someone is dating, they are not sitting in their mothers basement hacking away on their computers. This gives men a noticeable edge in qualifications for IT, and makes classes easier for those that get into IT via schooling. If we wash out another 10% or so of the women due to the fact that they had the potential, but found dating to be more interesting, we have 4 or 5 men for every woman.

We now have to look at what percentage of women simply will not work in an environment that is 4 or 5 men for every woman, often leaving them as the only woman at the company or in the department. Particularly when a good many of the men are the very same ones how got into IT because other women did not see them as fit for dating. This may mean that they are socially awkward, aggressive, passive, ugly, or any combination. And probably more reasons that I haven't thought of. Either way, many of these men are the very men, women don't want to spend time around. I would say you are going to lose another 50% of your women from this alone. We now have almost 10 men for every woman that would be willing to work in IT.

So, to say that other 'opportunities' are a joke is being naive at best, a sexist at worst. I didn't even go into the fact that from a very young age, little girls are very aware that these other 'opportunities' to support themselves exist, and little boys know that it is very unlikely that they are going to get the opportunity to live off of a sugar mama. This knowledge starts people on their paths long before start actively looking for a job.

You see if you haven't been paying attention the US economy has gone from 25% financial 75% industrial to 75% finacial to 25% industrial in our economy.

More facts about Sweden: the Stockholm Stock exchange has done better the last 5 years than Dow-Jones [1] (I've been told that the last 20 years have done better but couldn't present evidence though). National debt is under control and is at 50.4% of GDP compared to 64.7% of GDP for the US [2] Unemployment could be better but there are differences between the countries that aren't of a direct economical nature. For example, if Sweden would choose to have as many prisoners per capita as the US that would cut down unemployment with an estimated 1% or more.

[1] Stockholm exchange 5 year history: http://www.bors24.se/bors24.se/site/index/index_de tail.page?magic=(cc%20(detail%20(tsid%2049534)%20( graph%20(period%205Y)%20(from%20null)%20(to%20null )))) You can find both exchange rates between SEK/USD and Dow-Jones at http://finance.google.com/

[2] https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rank order/2186rank.html

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos /cs.html#Military

So? The recent nuclear test proves otherwise. They achieved a nuclear 'event', but no-where near what's required to produce a nuclear bomb. It was a fizzle. And the article wasn't talking about nuclear weapons. It was spreading unsubstantiated crap about chemical and biological weapons, and then neglecting to put these allegations in the context of the US's chemical and biological weapons programs.

So, what's the plan? Do we hold off on diplomatically confronting them until North Korea has a nuclear weapon small enough to fit on their missile platforms or until a "nuclear fizzle" happens on Seoul?

Welcome to the world of diplomacy. As I argued in my original post, this is required by North Korea, to fend of continual threats from the US. They are merely reacting. Do you expect them to sit and take it?

So, we aren't supposed to believe North Korea's statements when it comes to their illegal nuclear weapons program and explicit threats against South Korea, but we are supposed to believe their ridiculous claims that U.S. aggression is the cause of... their nuclear weapons program, that we aren't supposed to believe exists. Right...

But back to the facts: there was NO chance that the United States was going to do any aggressive military action in the immediate future against the DPRK when it decided to do its nuclear test. NONE. So why did they do it knowing the international condemnation that would surely follow?

This line that the United States is the bully that's left the poor DPRK no choice but to respond needs to stop. It's utter bullshit. If North Korea were truly trying to prevent conflict, why would they make provocative statements and aggressive actions at times when they are being, by and large, diplomatically ignored--not threated--by the US?

More bullshit. North Korea is threatening no-one. They have no expansionist agenda, unlike the US. When is the last time North Korea invaded someone? And when was the last time the US invaded someone? North Korea's weapons are a joke compared to their neighbours', hence the current push to get nuclear weapons. They are seeking weapons as deterrence. ... You need to get some context into your analysis.

If you're going to try to play the DPRK's champion, you should at least abandon your willful ignorance of their country first.

North Korea has the fifth largest military in the world in an area slightly smaller than Mississippi. It spends about 25% of its GNP on its military, by proportion, the most in the world. It has a standing army of just over one million men, most of whom are, incidentally, black-belts in TaeKwonDo.

Quoth a military assessment of the North Korean situation: "Seoul, the South Korean capitol, lies within range of North Korean long-range artillery. Five hundred 170mm Koksan guns and 200 multiple-launch rocket systems could hit Seoul with artillery shells and chemical weapons, causing panic and massive civilian casualties. North Korea has between 500 and 600 Scud missiles that could strike targets throughout South Korea with conventional warheads or chemical weapons. North Korea could hit Japan with its 100 No-dong missiles. Seventy percent of North Korean army ground units are located within 100 miles of the demilitarized zone separating North and South Korea, positioned to undertake offensive ground operations. These units could fire up to 500,000 artillery rounds per hour against South Korean defenses for several hours." In short: they not to be fucked with. [Source, Source, Source]

Those facts say nothing, of course, about their well-documented kidnapping campaign against South Koreans and the innumerable paramil

The CIA, though, still has not just found weapons of mass destruction, but also the nation of Boswanna, even after a spending a few millions on a fact-finding trip to Africa.

Bah.

More cleverly packaged propaganda from some of the best packagers in the world.

How do I know that?

1. Starbucks is not a philanthropic organization.
2. The complicated way they are dancing around the issue. All plausible reasons but no one wants to or cares to find out they are in fact clever propaganda. Note, I did not say lies.
3. "in fact, routinely pays well above commodity price" Let's look at some approximate facts from the cia world factbook. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos /et.html

Median age:
total: 17.8 years
male: 17.7 years
female: 17.9 years (2006 est.)

Population below poverty line:
50% (2004 est.)

Household income or consumption by percentage share:
lowest 10%: 3%
highest 10%: 33.7% (1995)

"Above market" means lots of things, most of which don't make starbucks look very good once the general conditions in Ethiopia are added to the discussion.

From the CIA Fact Book:
Russia's GDP 2005 (Est.)$1.58 trillion if you compare purchasing power...
$740 billion if you go with the exchange rate:
CIA Fact Book

• Israeli
• Bahraini
• Emirati
• Kuwaiti
• Yemeni
• Iraqi

• Pakistani
• Bangladeshi
• Azerbaijani
• Kyrgyzstani

As of 2005 Russia's GDP was 1.58 Trillion Dollars. I'm not sure how the RIAA expects that amount to be paid.

This is an batshit insane amount of money to ask for. According to here, this is more than Russia's 2005 GDP by any measure.

I bet there are others.

definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 97.1%
male: 97.1%
female: 97.1% (2003 est.)

Not sure if declassified documents have already been placed online for the FBI or NSA, but the FBI, NSA and CIA FOIA sites might be good places to start. The CIA does have a few new documents online. Pick your favorite incident and happy hunting!

Humans may be living longer, but no thanks to the American system. The U.S. ranks poorly in life expectancy, https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rank order/2102rank.html behind most of the industrialized world.

The U.S. also falls well below other inductrial nations in every public health measure, according to a study by the Harvard School of Public Health which, unfortunately, I can not locate on the web. However, one important measure, infant mortality, is documented at http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf (PDF alert!).

And this dismal performance comes at a per capita cost that's about double the cost in the nations that do better at keeping their people alive longer http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php.

It's no great leap of logic to conclude that in the U.S., the government supports corporate profits as being more valuable than human lives. (DOH!)

It's an urban myth that the split is 48/52. From Snopes:

According to that same United Nations document, the world population in the year 2000 consisted of 3,051,099,000 men and 3,005,616,000 women, which (with a little rounding) breaks down to 50 men and 50 women in a population of 100.

It's good they modded you funny because it is incredibly funny that snopes did that level of rounding. They have to be joking.
As a poster above said the CIA would beg to differ with you (and the number above would likewise indicate a slight disparity in population which is lost when you disregard all proper mathematics and forget grade-school math concepts like significant digits).

of course we know the CIA is never wrong. Not, for instance, when calculating the location of Weapons of Mass Destruction and Chinese Embassies, etc, etc :D.

Actually, there are more males than females in the world. According to https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos /xx.html#People

total population: 1.01 male(s)/female (2006 est.)

A couple responses from the feedback on this topic so far...

First, to the above, I've heard of this use for RFID and I've also heard of permanent magnets as invisible "tracks" embedded in the pavement. A quick glance at the CIA World Factbook reveals that there is about 6.4M km of paved roadways in the U.S. I just prefer the approach of a smarter information processing system that can make decisions as intelligently as a human driver without retrofitting that much pavement with something that, for all it's merits, is still a) temporary, and b) not fool proof.

Somebody else mentioned that I have the benefit of binocular vision. While I believe that helps, I am certain that there are plenty of one-eyed drivers out there who would take exception to that comment. As attached to my two eyes as I am, I have personally had eye injuries where I was reduced to one eye and yet still managed to navigate safely (albeit with diminished capacity for depth perception). Smart processing, I think, makes that possible. I think binocular vision would greatly improve the ability of a software processing system to determine distances visually, even beyond the natural spectrum of the human eye (low light, or foggy conditions?), and there is no reason not to build that into such a system. In fact, I would take that a step further I think in providing binocular vision with a 360 degree of view - why not?

Another poster mentioned something about my foreknowledge (thank you so much to the individual who corrected my spelling - this conversation would be lost without your contribution) in travelling from Sacramento to Manhattan bearing more information than I admit to. Right you are, in fact. When I travel, I consult a map. But I do not use GPS to find myself on that map. I read signs to identify my surroundings and then narrow in on my position in the map given my general idea of approximately where I am based on the route I have chosen.

And so, I agree that a map IS required to select a route and come up with alternatives for road closures and such. What I disagree with however in the DARPA challenge events is the mapping of a route that effectively traces a line on the pavement for the robot to follow. This allows the robot to safely navigate things like clover-style freeway ramps without even being "aware" that it is on such a specialized part of the roadway which, in my book, is cheating. When I look at a map for directions and I see that I need to take Highway 4 East to Highway 50 North, I am not confused and don't need special directions when I approach the clover leaf - I know just what to do.

I want an automation system capable of navigating with generalized route information, and able to travel safely without reliance on space-based satellite systems. It should be able to operate from exactly the same amount of information that I operate from.

Sorry for the novella - I find this topic quite interesting. :)

And what research was "Big Govt." funding? That's right kids, it was weapons research. Now what's "Big Govt." funding? Bread and circuses.

Population density certainly has a lot to do with a carrier's ability to charge more or less in certain areas. For instance, the United Kingdom and Japan serve about 250 mobile phones per square kilometer, while the Unites States only serves 23 (CIA World Factbook). In effect, a provider needs to cover more than ten times the area in the United States to reach the same number of users in the United Kingdom or Japan.

Cingular has different prepaid plans. Some of them charge "daily access" or have a monthly charge, but they also have traditional per-minute plans like most prepaid services. If you don't like the plan you're on, Cingular gives you the choice to get another one without having to switch providers.

Verizon is the evil one; they've got one prepaid plan that has a daily access fee no matter what you do.

Saudi Arabia GDP: $ 310,200,000,000
According to http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ranko rder/2001rank.html -

Wrong. In addition to the Al-Samoud missiles that you are referring to, they found missile technology transferred from North Korea for 1,300KM+ ballistic missiles, and UAV programs that were well beyond the 150KM range allowed. They also found violations in each of the other WMD catagories of Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear weapons. Here is what David Kay reported 6 months after Baghdad fell: "We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002." It is clear that Saddam wasn't funneling all of his fraudulent oil-for-food money into research into making a better lollipop for the kids.

If you want to learn more, I suggest you read the 1400+ ISG report that was released by Duelfer in 2004.

Wrong. In addition to the Al-Samoud missiles that you are referring to, they found missile technology transferred from North Korea for 1,300KM+ ballistic missiles, and UAV programs that were well beyond the 150KM range allowed. They also found violations in each of the other WMD catagories of Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear weapons. Here is what David Kay reported 6 months after Baghdad fell: "We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002." It is clear that Saddam wasn't funneling all of his fraudulent oil-for-food money into research into making a better lollipop for the kids.

If you want to learn more, I suggest you read the 1400+ ISG report that was released by Duelfer in 2004.

CONCLUSION

There are 77 million baby boomers now ranging from age 41 to age 59. All are hoping to collect tens of thousands of dollars in pension and healthcare benefits from the next generation. These claimants aren't going away. In three years, the oldest boomers will be eligible for early Social Security benefits. In six years, the boomer vanguard will start collecting Medicare. Our nation has done nothing to prepare for this onslaught of obligation. Instead, it has continued to focus on a completely meaningless fiscal metric--"the" federal deficit--censored and studiously ignored long-term fiscal analyses that are scientifically coherent, and dramatically expanded the benefit levels being explicitly or implicitly promised to the baby boomers.

Countries can and do go bankrupt. The United States, with its $65.9 trillion fiscal gap, seems clearly headed down that path. The country needs to stop shooting itself in the foot. It needs to adopt generational accounting as its standard method of budgeting and fiscal analysis, and it needs to adopt fundamental tax, Social Security, and healthcare reforms that will redeem our children's future.

(emphasis added)

Well, let's see. There have been over 16,000 murders per year inside the U.S. for the last 5 years. That means Americans have been killing 5x more Americans per year than foreign Muslims allegedly killed in 911. Americans killing other Americans never warranted a war on Americans. We managed to SUSTAIN OUR CONSTITUTION in spite of the fact that the crime rates were taking ~16,000 lives per year, AND that the deaths came from "our own people."

The bottom line of 9-11: 3030 terror deaths. The impact of that attack was distorted, or else they'd never have accomplished the whole "Heil Bush, Protect the Fatherland" thing.

If enough people get that 3,030 vs 16,000 into perspective, we can derail the police state's momentum.

According to the CIA world factbook, 78% of Americans characterize themselves as Christian of some sort or another (catholic, protestant, mormon)... perhaps more, since 10% are categorized as "other".

Jesus taught we should always forgive, love our enemies, and never retaliate for any thing, or any reason. Turn the other cheek. Those who live by the sword die by the sword, etc, etc. Christ's "war" was a spiritual war. Taking up violence or hostility for ANY reason IS LOSING A BATTLE in Christ's war. The battle is WON with prayer and righteousness in all cases. When a dead suicide bomber reaches heaven's gate, he's greeted as a terrorist. Do you think there are any terrorists in heaven? Or any megalomaniacal pseudopresidents with hundreds of thousands fighting in an unjust war for oil, while training to subdue an unwilling native population? Perhaps there are... in radical-militant heaven...perhaps in Bush heaven... but not in the Heaven I plan to go to.

War is against the very bedrock of Christianity.

From the CIA World Factbook: U.S. "Government type: Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition". Straight from the CIA world factbook. It looks like the administration should read up on the facts. Well, gee... wasn't Bush's own father head of the CIA for a while? Perhaps he could convey to president Bush the importance of maintaining _Traditional_ _American_ _Values_.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/prin t/us.html
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

I'm not one of those "rah rah U-S-A" guys but let's look at the FACTS for a moment.

world GDP is ~$60 trillion. The US's GDP is ~$12 trillion. So I'd say the rest of the world's production capacity is only 4x that of the US's, not 10x.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rank order/2001rank.html

The US spends at least $460 billion/yr on it's military whereas the rest of the world spends $500 billion/yr. So the US is fairly on par, though it's military spending is heavily weighted towards high tech, capital intensive combat systems.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spend ing.htm

Sounds like the makings of a good fight. But the rest of the world doesn't have integrated command and control, and the US DOES. So it would take awhile...the US would have to convert all it's production into making bombs and would have to conscript all it's males and then go after the other countries one by one, but it could be done. Central governments are easy to destroy with bombs. The difficult part would be in actually holding the territory if any people remain alive. To save money and time it would be logical to make some judicious use of nukes, then carpet most of the rest of the planet with chemical and biological weapons, as the United States has the most advanced CBW program on the planet and converting our chemical and pharmaceutical industry to making them would be easy.

So my vote is "yes the US could destroy all the other governments but without killing all the other people it could not hold the territory." The US does clausewitzian warfare better than anyone else but when it comes to counter-insurgency it sucks...as the occupation of Iraq shows us.

And anyway this all belies the point the US through a balance of military and economic force controls the entire planet besides a few hot spots and China....maybe Russia.

Once the greenback stops being the de facto currency of global trade, it will decrease in value sharply, and US spending power with it. The natural inheritor of that throne is the euro; not only is it based in a group of stable democracies with no expansionist ideals, the EU market is what, double or triple the size of the US.

The EU market isn't quite that big, but the argument you're making is valid anyway.

In the excellent CIA World Factbook, we find that the purchasing power partity GDP numbers for the US, EU and the world are:

US: 12.31 trillion
EU: 12.18 trillion
World: 60.63 trillion

In other words: EU and the US each have 20% of the world's economic power.

This is all fine and well, but the problem is that the US is behaving as if it was still 1945, when the US was the economic giant of the world, and nobody else came close.

Especially in IP matters, the US has pursued a very agressive course against most other countries in the world. So far the US has managed to get away with this strategy, but it hasn't made the US any new friends around the world.

Looking at the GDP numbers and thinking about how the percentages will shift in the future, it's not obvious that the attitude "do as we say, or else..." will work indefinitely. If you want to behave like a bully and dictate the terms for everybody else, you'd better be considerably stronger than everybody else if you want to get away with it. And the US ain't, to put it bluntly.

It is quite possible that the RIAA/MPAA dictated strong arm tactics of the US government may one day start to backfire. When it does, that could be start of some very interesting times.

Once the greenback stops being the de facto currency of global trade, it will decrease in value sharply, and US spending power with it. The natural inheritor of that throne is the euro; not only is it based in a group of stable democracies with no expansionist ideals, the EU market is what, double or triple the size of the US.

The EU market isn't quite that big, but the argument you're making is valid anyway.

In the excellent CIA World Factbook, we find that the purchasing power partity GDP numbers for the US, EU and the world are:

US: 12.31 trillion
EU: 12.18 trillion
World: 60.63 trillion

In other words: EU and the US each have 20% of the world's economic power.

This is all fine and well, but the problem is that the US is behaving as if it was still 1945, when the US was the economic giant of the world, and nobody else came close.

Especially in IP matters, the US has pursued a very agressive course against most other countries in the world. So far the US has managed to get away with this strategy, but it hasn't made the US any new friends around the world.

Looking at the GDP numbers and thinking about how the percentages will shift in the future, it's not obvious that the attitude "do as we say, or else..." will work indefinitely. If you want to behave like a bully and dictate the terms for everybody else, you'd better be considerably stronger than everybody else if you want to get away with it. And the US ain't, to put it bluntly.

It is quite possible that the RIAA/MPAA dictated strong arm tactics of the US government may one day start to backfire. When it does, that could be start of some very interesting times.

Once the greenback stops being the de facto currency of global trade, it will decrease in value sharply, and US spending power with it. The natural inheritor of that throne is the euro; not only is it based in a group of stable democracies with no expansionist ideals, the EU market is what, double or triple the size of the US.

The EU market isn't quite that big, but the argument you're making is valid anyway.

In the excellent CIA World Factbook, we find that the purchasing power partity GDP numbers for the US, EU and the world are:

US: 12.31 trillion
EU: 12.18 trillion
World: 60.63 trillion

In other words: EU and the US each have 20% of the world's economic power.

This is all fine and well, but the problem is that the US is behaving as if it was still 1945, when the US was the economic giant of the world, and nobody else came close.

Especially in IP matters, the US has pursued a very agressive course against most other countries in the world. So far the US has managed to get away with this strategy, but it hasn't made the US any new friends around the world.

Looking at the GDP numbers and thinking about how the percentages will shift in the future, it's not obvious that the attitude "do as we say, or else..." will work indefinitely. If you want to behave like a bully and dictate the terms for everybody else, you'd better be considerably stronger than everybody else if you want to get away with it. And the US ain't, to put it bluntly.

It is quite possible that the RIAA/MPAA dictated strong arm tactics of the US government may one day start to backfire. When it does, that could be start of some very interesting times.

Once the greenback stops being the de facto currency of global trade, it will decrease in value sharply, and US spending power with it. The natural inheritor of that throne is the euro; not only is it based in a group of stable democracies with no expansionist ideals, the EU market is what, double or triple the size of the US.

The EU market isn't quite that big, but the argument you're making is valid anyway.

In the excellent CIA World Factbook, we find that the purchasing power partity GDP numbers for the US, EU and the world are:

US: 12.31 trillion
EU: 12.18 trillion
World: 60.63 trillion

In other words: EU and the US each have 20% of the world's economic power.

This is all fine and well, but the problem is that the US is behaving as if it was still 1945, when the US was the economic giant of the world, and nobody else came close.

Especially in IP matters, the US has pursued a very agressive course against most other countries in the world. So far the US has managed to get away with this strategy, but it hasn't made the US any new friends around the world.

Looking at the GDP numbers and thinking about how the percentages will shift in the future, it's not obvious that the attitude "do as we say, or else..." will work indefinitely. If you want to behave like a bully and dictate the terms for everybody else, you'd better be considerably stronger than everybody else if you want to get away with it. And the US ain't, to put it bluntly.

It is quite possible that the RIAA/MPAA dictated strong arm tactics of the US government may one day start to backfire. When it does, that could be start of some very interesting times.

No, it's not. 50 million dollars is very cheap for a government program.

• Population of Thailand, ages 0 - 14: 14,242,700, 2006 est.
• Budget of the government of Thailand: $30.64 billion in revenues, 2005 est.

Almost all governemnts on the world can afford to gamble that, even more on something with the potential of OLPC.

Chinese Manpower fit for military service:
males age 18-49: 281,240,272
females age 18-49: 269,025,517 (2005 est.)

Verses the combined military might of Russia, China, France, Germany, the UK, Spain, Italy to name a few. Bring your head out of the clouds! In a conventional military engagement with the rest of the world the US would literally be slaughtered.

You're forgetting just how stupid we are in the US. We spend more than every other country combined on military expenditures. I'm not saying we wouldn't eventually get our ass kicked, or that we wouldn't deserve it, but it wouldn't be as easy as you make it sound.

Chinese Manpower fit for military service:
males age 18-49: 281,240,272
females age 18-49: 269,025,517 (2005 est.)

All your post makes tons of sense. Well, almost all. This paart is not real:

[India] don't seem to have an appetite for superpower status

Actualy they have.

Those who want to be superpowers have aircraft carriers. India has some and is building more. Se:

India as a superpower:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_as_an_emerging_ superpower

Indian Navy carriers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier#Indi an_Navy

List of Indian carriers:
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/india.htm

India begins construction of aircraft carrier
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-04/1 2/content_433517.htm

"Moscow and New Delhi today signed a $1.6 billion deal finalizing India's purchase of a refurbished Russian aircraft carrier, fighter jets, and helicopters. Observers say it's a sweet agreement for both sides, allowing Russia to bolster its sagging arms industry and India its regional strategic capacity. "
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/mo dele.pl?prod=32130&session=dae.23771315.1164583691 .RWojC8Oa9dUAAHETeZY&modele=jdc_1

Grand Delusions: The Psychology of Aircraft Carriers
http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/1068/

India's Military, from CIA's factbook:
https://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in. html#Military

Peace!

Well, Russia is the worlds largest nation and has the largest natural resources of any nation. With less than 120 million people they are well on their way to wealth. Living next door to Russia it is quite obvious they are both rich and poor - and what nation does not have both groups of people? It is all about the distribution of course - just like in the US.

Russia ended 2005 with its seventh straight year of growth. Strong oil export earnings have allowed Russia to increase its foreign reserves from only $12 billion to some $180 billion at yearend 2005. During this time, poverty has declined steadily and the middle class has continued to expand. Nevertheless, serious problems persist. Taken from the CIA World Fact Book

An interesting comparison might be to look at the GDP of the US, Russia and the two largest economies in Europe:
US $12.31 trillion
Germany $2.48 trillion
France $1.794 trillion
Russia $1.584 trillion

I wonder where the line is for people hopping on this idea?

The number of lawyers in the United States has increased steadily over the past half century and is currently estimated at more than 950,000. Where do all the attorneys in the United States find work?

>something quite difficult in places these laptops are intended to go

They're not going to the moon. The two places I've read that theyre going are Brazil and Libya. I suggest you do some research before condemming those places as these stereotypical savage backwards lands. Libya GDP per capita is almost $12,000 dollars. Brazil is poorer at about $8,000 per year, but far from the stereotypical 3rd world you describe in your post. I'm sure there are many schools in Libya that put public schools in Chicago or New York to shame. Let's stop pretending varying degrees of wealth doesnt exist on the local level. The third world is hardly homogeneous.

I don't know if the OLPC project is going to be a success, but the economics of it is sound. It may just be another failed technological solution to a social problem, but the price-point is probably doable (or at least much cheaper than anything else on the market), the countries interested in the pilot program are wealthy enough to afford them, etc.

CIA.gov has more, if you consider that a trusted source: https://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/96unclass/farewell .htm

The answer to global warming is *very* simple, and *very* well known. We just need to plant massive amounts of biomass to soak up all the excess carbon.

Okay. No problem. Let's work that out then.

We need to plant X number of trees to counteract Y tonnes of CO2 being produced. As CO2 production goes up, we need to increase the number of trees we plant.

Oops. It seems that those numbers aren't exactly favourable to your solution right now. Could it be that currently, the amount of trees is going *down* while the amount of CO2 being produced is going *up*? Oops. Well, okay, let's reverse that trend.

Let's start in America, where most of the world's human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is produced (see earlier citation)? Well, to soak that up, you'd need to have about 146 25 year old pine trees for every (metric) tonne of CO2 produced. Not plant, but *have*. They have to be at least 25 years old before that sort of CO2 absorbtion is being done. And then you'd have to add 146 more 25 year old pine trees per year per ton of CO2 that that amount goes up.

So how many tonnes of CO2 does the US produce? About 5.4 billion, way back in 1997. You would need to *have* 788 billion 25 year old pine trees in 1997, and increase that number by 1.5% every year (11.82 billion) to keep up with growth.

Let's assume each tree needs 4 square meters of land to grow on. That's a wildly optimistic number, by the way, but it makes the math nice and easy. That's 3.154 billion square meters, which means 315 million hectares. Great. According to The World Factbook, that's 34.4% of the total land mass of the US.

Looks like it's time to get out there and start planting. :)

With Egypt having a population of about 80 million, Saudi Arabia (KSA) with a population of 27 million & UAE with a lot of businesses booming there (especially in Dubai), they all need a decent source of power.
And even though KSA has large oil wells, it's not even remotely enough to power the whole country. I've been there twice, and outside the main cities, it's a miserable situation over there: Poverty is too common. One would think with such huge oil wells, the citizens would be financially comfortable (like the case of people in Kuwait), but that's not the case.

With Egypt having a population of about 80 million, Saudi Arabia (KSA) with a population of 27 million & UAE with a lot of businesses booming there (especially in Dubai), they all need a decent source of power.
And even though KSA has large oil wells, it's not even remotely enough to power the whole country. I've been there twice, and outside the main cities, it's a miserable situation over there: Poverty is too common. One would think with such huge oil wells, the citizens would be financially comfortable (like the case of people in Kuwait), but that's not the case.

I take it you're an American, so you likely don't know where Japan is, let alone how many people live there. The July 2006 estimate from your own CIA's World Factbook is 127,463,611.

That's over 127 million people, just so you know. Of course, there are many more people around the world who have Japanese as their first or their preferred language. Many of those people are users of Windows. A large portion of those users do use Internet Explorer, and are planning on upgrading to IE7 as soon as it's possible. So of course any delays will be of great interest to them. The best thing Slashdot could do is tell the rest of the world about their plight.

>North Korea is an island

I hope you mean that metaphorically, because geographically speaking, how can I put this... it's not, its a peninsula.

It shares a 1416km border with China, and a 19km border with Russia.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos /kn.html

``Oil replacement first, then reduction.''

I wonder if that reduction is even necessary (though I would say it's a good idea anyway). According to the CIA world factbook, the USA consumes about 4 trillion kWh of electricity each year. According to Wikipedia the energy content of biodiesel is about 35 MJ per liter. For 4 trillion kWh, this works out to about 15 quads (the unit used by the UNH study). To produce that much Biodiesel, according to the UNH study, we would need about 12000 square miles of desert land. This is a very rough approximation; converting Biodiesel to electricity is not 100% efficient, energy consumption has changed since the CIA world factbook was updated, we don't need to go all the way to Biodiesel to generate electricity (just using the oil extracted from the algae, or even the algae themselves, should work), etc. etc.

So, give or take, for transportation and electricity combined, we need about 30000 square miles of desert land. We have that much. And this is for the USA, which, to my knowledge, has the highest energy consumption per capita.

You shall not feed the trolls, but whatever...

Ever heard of progressive tax? I don't belive that there is a country with 50% flat income tax rate in world. If you have 50% tax rate in progressive tax country you are probably doing very well.

Half of the people work? Then you probably are from one of these countries:
Afghanistan
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Djibouti
East Timor
Kenya
Lesotho
Liberia
Nauru
Senegal
Swaziland
Turkmenistan
Zambia
Zimbabwe

Note that most of those countries hardly are democratic so no voting really happens and 85% turnout is just unbelivable.

So stop drooling over your keyboard, create an account and get your facts straight. (I must be new here...)