Slashdot Mirror

You're entitled to think what you like. Being right is a different matter entirely.

In response to your points:

1. The US population is a fraction under 300 million people (source: CIA World Factbook). The world population is around 6.3 billion people (source: CIA World Factbook). The US population is therefore around 3% of the world population which, in my book at least, makes it a relatively small fraction - consider that India and China between them account for 2.3 billion people - over a third of the worlds population!

2. You are right, it is not only the US. If you look at the figures for CO2 emissions, you will find that the US accounts for around 36% of all emissions (source: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) - far higher than their 3% of the population would attest to. In fact, it is double what the next largest polluting nation (Russia) emits. You will find that the figures for other pollutants are similar.

3. The US currently has a huge budget deficit. According to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, the deficit for goods (i.e. tangible things rather than services) was:$150.8 billion (source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis). Contrary to your comment, this would suggest that the US imports far more than it exports.

we also have a lot more than 4.6% of the land.

A lot more?? According to the CIA, you have 6.1% of the world's land. You've got a pretty high proportion of the nice bits, though.

>India could never meet the USA's output due to its size

India has a population of 1065 million. The USA has a population of 293 million.

>India could never meet the USA's output due to its size

India has a population of 1065 million. The USA has a population of 293 million.

The article comes across as a bit of a puff peice. Expect more of these as the *olympics* draws near.

Before we rejoice the *technical prowess* of China it help to consider how China addresses problems that will cripple any attempts to modernise.

• Rural poverty: '... sixty million Chinese living in rural and remote areas eke out a miserable existence on a meagre $90 a year ...' (China - Black River: 11/6/1996 Reporter: Jane Hutcheon)
• Pollution: '... total destruction of the Huai river - around which 1/10th of China's population live ... Seven million tonnes of untreated affluent are dumped into it every year. A sludge so toxic that it is not merely entering the food chain - it is killing aquatic life and crops outright ...' (China - Qinghai Province 7/7/1998 Reporter: Jane Hutcheon)
• Human rights: (China - China Workers: 15/07/2003 Reporter: Eric Campbell)'...It wasn't so long ago that the West saw Communist China as a brutal, cold war adversary.... The Communists have wholeheartedly embraced capitalism. Last November, China even joined the global capitalist club, the World Trade Organisation.... But what's often been ignored in the rush to do business with China is the price being paid by many farmers and State workers. ... Untold millions have lost their livelihood as officials, and factory managers have grown rich from corruption. Any attempt by workers to form trade unions to defend their rights has been crushed without mercy. ...'

Interesting fact: France does get most of its power from nuclear (77%, 400.9 TWh), but the US produces lots more nuclear power than France (769.8 TWh).

Source: 2001 CIA FactBook http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/.

We really are energy gluttons (as I get into my 300 hp v8 and zoom to lunch).

As stated in the CIA world factbook:

United States - 6% (2003)

United Kingdom - 5% (2003 est.)
United Arab Emirates - 2.4% (2001)
Ukraine - 3.7% officially registered; large number of unregistered or underemployed workers (2003)
Thailand - 2.2% (2003 est.)
Taiwan - 5% (2003 est.)
Switzerland - 3.7% (2003 est.)
Sweden - 4.9% (2003 est.)
Singapore - 4.8% (2003 est.)
Saint Kitts and Nevis - 4.5% (1997)
Qatar - 2.7% (2001)
Palau - 2.3% (2000 est.)
Norway - 4.7% (2003 est.)
Nigeria - 2.7% (2003 est.)
New Zealand - 4.7% (2003 est.)
Netherlands - 5.3% (2003 est.)
Mongolia - 4.6% (2001)
Monaco - 3.1% (1998)
Mexico - 3.3% plus underemployment of perhaps 25% (2003)
Man, Isle of - 0.7% (March 2003)
Malaysia - 3.6% (2003 est.)
Madagascar - 5.9% (1998)
Luxembourg - 3.6% (2003 est.)
Liechtenstein - 1.3% (September 2002)
Laos - 5.7% (1997 est.)
Korea, South - 3.4% (2003 est.)
Kuwait - 2.1% (2003 est.)
Kiribati - 2%; underemployment 70% (1992 est.)
Jersey - 0.7% (1998 est.)
Japan - 5.3% (2003)
Ireland - 4.7% (2003 est.)
Hungary - 5.9% (2003 est.)
Iceland - 3.4% (2003 est.)
Guernsey - 0.5% (1999 est.)
Gibraltar - 2% (2001 est.)
Faroe Islands - 1% (October 2000)
Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) - full employment; labor shortage (2001)
Cyprus - Greek Cypriot area: 3.4%; Turkish Cypriot area: 5.6% (2003 est.)
Cuba - 2.6% (2003 est.)
Cayman Islands - 4.1% (1997)
Cambodia - 2.5% (2000 est.)
Burma - 4.2% (2003)
British Virgin Islands - 3% (1995)
Bermuda - 5% (2002 est.)
Belarus - 2.1% officially registered unemployed (December 2000); large number of underemployed workers (2003 est.)
Austria - 4.4% (2003 est.)
Azerbaijan - 1.1% (official rate is 1.2%) (2003 est.)
Aruba - 0.6% (2003 est.)
Andorra - 0% (1996 est.)

What about diplomatic power, which is the way things really get done in the modern world, we're certainly not #1 in that category.

Yeah, the UN really gets things done. Phsst. The USA has installed democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq, halted nuclear programs in Iran and Libya, are the only country that North Korea want to talk to about nuclear disarmament, pressured terrorist-sympathising countries such as Syria and Pakistan to start rounding up terrorists, and have put old Europe in their place taking the wind out of their self-importance.

Most successful eh? I guess all of those countries with lower unemployment rates, longer life expectancies, and shorter work weeks are just green with envy.

All those countries? Maybe a few Scandinavian countries, which also have the highest taxes. America is the third largest country by population, and if you look at the average standard of living in those above (China and India) or any of the top dozen countries other than Japan, then I'd say the USA is doing pretty well by comparison.

Phillip.

Then apparently you're not familiar with Turkey. The people of Turkey are 99.8% Muslim, but the government is so radically secular that the wearing of scarves by women employed in government-related positions is expressly forbidden.

What standards are you using for power?
Economic, as that underlies all else. Gross National Product and Gross Domestic Product. If you're unfamiliar, GNP measures total money value of products and services produced by a nation in a year; GDP is similar but limits to production done within the country.

As of the most recent measures (2003) not only did the United States have the largest GNP, but Texas by itself ranked #8, right behind China.
http://www.window.state.tx.us/news/303148theconomy .html

For GDP, the United States again tops the list easily.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ranko rder/2001rank.html

Most successful eh?
See Conductor's response; I'm not going to point out the error of your social state panacea, but again, I submit the above. Perhaps it can be argued we're not as our GDP per capita is 2nd behind Luxembourg. But I would argue Luxembourg cannot scale to match the U.S.
http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/gdp_country_de sc.php ..all of those countries...
What is your measure of power & success? You mention diplomatic power. Do you have a metric by which to judge this? Are you aware that the coalition of countries that the US put together for the Iraq war was larger than that for the Korean War, and this was done without the UN's backing? After the invasion, the UN then gave its permission for the continued occupation of Iraq, after initally opposing it. For that matter, who funds the UN? Or that the US was able to hold the first democratic election in Afghanistan just recently? I think the US has far more diplomatic power than you speculate.

Please submit 1 country who you believe is more successful and powerful, and what measurements you use to determine such. Take into consideration whether that country could have accomplished even one of those items I just listed.

Finally...your knee jerk reaction of "military power" tells volumes about how you perceive both power and those on the other side of the political spectrum from you.

why the hell would the vast majority of deaths be women and children?

Do the math. Most of the people in Iraq are Women Children or the Elderly*. So if you attack a random set of people they will be mostly women, children or the elderly--this is why you need good intellegence.

*40.3% of the population of Iraq is 0-14 years old.
3% are 65 years or up
28% of the population is female and 15-64 years old
(all numbers from http://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.h tml here)

Simple math shows if you kill a random person in Iraq 71% of the time they will be women children or elderly.

Don't kill random people it looks bad on the news. The math also shows that it is entirely reasonable that we are killing mostly women, children and the elderly.

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. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:

# A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.

# A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.

# Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.

# New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.

Well... it will continue to grow quite as is for a few more years... Until all pda's and cell phones are internet ready (without wifi hotspots)...

Then we are going to see in our more globally minded futures as information becomes centralized into a few trusted? areas.

While it will still be used for entertainment.

But I do believe that a globalization and releasing of files online will continue to grow with my bandwidth ;-)

See http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ ay.html

It's the Artic (North Polar Icecap) that is not over a landmass. Except for where it intersects the top edges of North America, Siberia, and Asia.

It's a direct quote from here.

"US has made no territorial claim in Antarctica (but has reserved the right to do so) and does not recognize the claims of any other state"

If memory serves me right I think the CIA bought like 10% of that company because of the detailed flyby maps of cities do to elivations.

You're partly right - one of their investors is In-Q-Tel, the investment arm of the CIA.

From their company's website -

"In June 2003, Keyhole further defined its leadership position with funding from In-Q-Tel and deployment by NIMA, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, one of the most prominent users of earth imagery and information."

Should prove interesting. Google + CIA, hmm :)

No, had Kerry (or Gore) been president from 2000-2004, Hussein would have continued to implode under the sanctions

for the uninformed about nuclear weapons in Iraq go here.

And as for the WMD read the full Duelfer Report and see what Saddam was really up to. He was bribing Kerry's biggest allies (France and Germany) with oil contracts (who was coalition of the bribed??), and was trying to get the sanctions lifted so he could continue his WMD production. Even Clinton knew that he was making them, Blix knew, and so did the UN. Before you go off on a Micheal Moore propoganda trip, read the real facts.

I know Bush is not a very popular president, a lot of people are angry about Florida 2000, but would you rather have someone who you know to make the right descision based on his morals or someone who takes a poll everyday and changes based on that data.

My 2 cents

Bush is at least being honest about the situation when he says that he doesn't know if there will be an end to terrorist acts. Kerry just throws out a blanket statement that he's going to end terrorism.

You're giving your best shot, long hours, all your brainpower, to win a war that we're going to win. President Bush - Speech to CIA

We will win this war. President Bush - State of the Union Address

Today at the Legion I said, "We're winning the war on terror, and we will win the war on terror." There's no doubt in my mind, so long as this country stays resolved and strong and determined. President Bush - Interview with Rush Limbaugh

Your reply: "Et al" in this case must mean "and numerous other intelligence servies around the world, and the United Nations."

Actually, no. I meant the Bush administration shills who trumpeted that "we know where the weapons are." Again, not true. The case was overstated, and no WMD have been found.

"Before the war, the U.S. intelligence community told the president, as well as the Congress and the public, that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and if left unchecked, probably would have a nuclear weapon this decade," Roberts said during the press conference. "Well, today we know these assessments were wrong."

Sure Saddam wanted WMD, but there was no way he could produce them within a decade after sanctions were lifted. I would appreciate more facts from you before taking your argument seriously.

I wrote: Bush et al said (or strongly implied repeatedly) that Iraq had significant connections to Al Qaeda

Your reply: They did have significant connections (friends in common). They just weren't working directly together. Perhaps you should look at the findings of the 9/11 Commission a little more closely yourself.

As for the "connections to Al-Qaeda" claim, the 9/11 Commission (bi-partisan), said:

The Sept. 11 commission's final report cites al-Qaida contacts with Iran and Iraq but does not conclude either of the "axis of evil" countries developed a close working relationship with the terror network. [Bin Laden explored a possible alliance with Iraq in early 1990s] However, the report says, former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein never had an Islamist agenda, and bin Laden had been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. A collaborative relationship never developed, the report found.

Please, explain how Iraq & Al-Qaeda worked together, and be sure to use facts from reliable sources. Rush Limbaugh and Drudge do not count.

Your sig said: Iraq war justified

I took a look, and wow, you really found text in there that does not exist. I did find nice quotes like these:

The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability- which was essentially destroyed in 1991- after sancions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized.

Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability.

Please let me know how this "proves" the war was justified. It admits Saddam did not have the WMD that Bush claimed, and that sanctions had to be lifted and Iraq's economy normalized before WMD could be developed. FYI, that doesn't happen overnight.

No matter how much wild conjecture gets repeated, facts are stronger.

I'm a South African ex-pat currently living/working in the US. Still, South Africa is never all that far from my mind (particularly as a northern hemisphere winter rolls in), and I try and keep an eye on developments back home as much as possible. Certainly, your impressive achievements inspire me with no small amount of pride. Very well done, oke!

I know that many slashdotters might be inclined to ask you about Africa, and its myriad problems, as a whole. Perhaps this is somewhat unfair... Although there is an indefinable common African spirit that infuses the whole continent, a more diverse region politically, economically, and technlogically one would be hard pressed to find. South Africa has a GDP of US$456b which is more than 10 times that of the sum of its four neighbouring states, and is comparable to that of the Netherlands at US$461b. Talking about Africa's problems *as a whole* is like asking an American to talk about the problems of North and South America taken *as a whole*.

Still, South Africa is very much a part of Africa, and presents I believe, a glimpse of what the continent can achieve.

So, my question: what is open source adoption like, *really*, in South Africa? I remember during my most recent visit back home, walking into "Incredible Connection" (the South African version of say "Frys Electronics" or "Microcenter" here in the US), seeing row upon row upon row of Microsoft software. When I asked one of the sales people about RedHat Linux, he was totally confused. "I'm not sure about that. Isn't that like an Internet browser for Windows?" was his response. I did manage to find a bundled RedHat hidden away at the bottom shelf at the back of one of the aisles. It was also a major release behind the at-the-time freely available download.

With an attitude like that in one of *South Africa's* leading computer retail stores, what hope OSS for the rest of continent?

I'm a South African ex-pat currently living/working in the US. Still, South Africa is never all that far from my mind (particularly as a northern hemisphere winter rolls in), and I try and keep an eye on developments back home as much as possible. Certainly, your impressive achievements inspire me with no small amount of pride. Very well done, oke!

I know that many slashdotters might be inclined to ask you about Africa, and its myriad problems, as a whole. Perhaps this is somewhat unfair... Although there is an indefinable common African spirit that infuses the whole continent, a more diverse region politically, economically, and technlogically one would be hard pressed to find. South Africa has a GDP of US$456b which is more than 10 times that of the sum of its four neighbouring states, and is comparable to that of the Netherlands at US$461b. Talking about Africa's problems *as a whole* is like asking an American to talk about the problems of North and South America taken *as a whole*.

Still, South Africa is very much a part of Africa, and presents I believe, a glimpse of what the continent can achieve.

So, my question: what is open source adoption like, *really*, in South Africa? I remember during my most recent visit back home, walking into "Incredible Connection" (the South African version of say "Frys Electronics" or "Microcenter" here in the US), seeing row upon row upon row of Microsoft software. When I asked one of the sales people about RedHat Linux, he was totally confused. "I'm not sure about that. Isn't that like an Internet browser for Windows?" was his response. I did manage to find a bundled RedHat hidden away at the bottom shelf at the back of one of the aisles. It was also a major release behind the at-the-time freely available download.

With an attitude like that in one of *South Africa's* leading computer retail stores, what hope OSS for the rest of continent?

A military power during the 17th century, Sweden has not participated in any war in almost two centuries. An armed neutrality was preserved in both World Wars. CIA World Factbook

Exactly my point. "Saddam had no connection with al Qaeda" -- wrong, check the 9/11 commission and Senate Intelligence Committee report. They said "had no *direct, operational* connection." But they document a number of connections, and Saddam's other connections to Islamic fascist terrorism were not just well-documented, but overt, open, eg, the $25,000 bounty to suicide bombers in Israel.

"WMD were the sole justification under int'l law" -- also wrong, especially since the state of hostility still existed between the US and Iraq and Iraq was in multiple egregious violations of the cease fire (eg, firing on planes patrolling the no-fly zone.)

And "Saddam had no substantial WMD or WMD programs" -- except that the Duelfer report actually contradicts this: Saddam had substantial programs, and was making a major effort to maintain the infrastructure to resume WMD production as soon as the sanctions could be removed.

So, what the report is saying is that anyone who read the actual reports, instead of following the media's very high level and shallow reporting, is marked as not being in touch with reality.

Here's the searchable 9/11 Commission report.

Here's the searchable Senate intel report.

Kere's the Duelfer report.

Read the real sources. Don't believe what anyone tells you until you check them.

> If the 155-mm shell was a "dud" fired long ago

Huh? None of the shells found have been duds. Being fired from an artillery piece would have broken the membrane between the two component chemicals (which mix in-flight to become Sarin).

Even assuming some kind of miraculous soft-landing where the shell wasn't destroyed, tests have proven that what was inside the shell was the unmixed compounds (unmixed because the shell was used improperly).

By the way, I highly recommend you check out the final report of the Iraq Survey Group, or at least read their Key Findings document. (Less than 19 pages!)

From the article:

57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program.

From the Duelfer report:

Iraq did have facilities suitable for the production of biological and chemical agents needed for weapons. It had plans to improve and expand and even build new facilities. ... Likewise, in the nuclear arena, the ISG has developed information that suggests Iraqi interest in preserving and expanding the knowledge needed to design and develop nuclear weapons. ... It is this combination of topics that makes us suspect this lab was intentionally focused on research applicable for nuclear weapons development.

Duelfer said that there was no major weapons program.

You might want to actually look at what he wrote rather than a NY Times report on what he wrote.

From Charles Duelfer's testimony on his report:

The ISG has developed new information regarding Iraq's dual-use facilities and ongoing research suitable for a capability to produce biological or chemical agents on short notice. Iraq did have facilities suitable for the production of biological and chemical agents needed for weapons. It had plans to improve and expand and even build new facilities. ...

Likewise, in the nuclear arena, the ISG has developed information that suggests Iraqi interest in preserving and expanding the knowledge needed to design and develop nuclear weapons.

First, the United States has not signed all the Geneva Conventions.

They've signed the ones that are relevent in this case.

Second, the Geneva Conventions are in some ways absolutely absurd.

Then maybe the USA shouldn't have signed them, instead of signing them and deciding not to be bound by them.

The Taliban were not the recognized government of Afghanistan.

Oh, come on, that's utter bullshit. Right up until the USA accused them of conspiring with Al Qaeda for daring to ask for proof before extradition, the Taliban were recognised as being in power. Don't believe me? Believe the CIA.

What's going on here is a presentation of facts in a distorted fashion. It is like asking:

Do you support the war in Iraq?
versus
Do you support keeping America safe by going to war in Iraq?
or
Do you support our Troops in Iraq or Terrorists?


By adding a bias into the question answering that you don't support the war in Iraq you are now implying that not supporting the war in Iraq is akin to supporting Terrorists, hating America, or hating our Troops.

While it's not as easy to see in matters like this. The blog in the article is biased. I establish this trend (albeit thinly) by pointing to the earlier postings showing only two flaws in IIS to an uncountable number of flaws in Apache. Then the blogger says, "it goes to show that maybe we really DO understand what we're doing." implying that IIS gets a bad rap, if you look at the numbers it's actually better than Apache.

That is bias. The MSIE superiority at handling "generous" inputs is not a feature... it is a positive side-effect of their "embrace and extend" philosophy. While it is indeed a horrible indictment of Mozilla et al. that they can't handle this simple malformed code... it is no great advantage to MSIE as a browser.

Here's an example of taking facts and over-blowing what they mean:

Reference: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ranko rder/2129rank.html http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ranko rder/2186rank.html

Using the facts here I'll build the following erroneous argument. The US should model its economy on Uzbekistan's because Uzbekistan has one of the world's lowest unemployment rates.

It is a fact stone, cold, fact that Uzbekistan has nearly no unemployment. It is a stone cold fact that Uzbekistan has nearly public debt. These are elements of great discord in America today.

America has problems with things that Uzbekistan seems to find easy to deal with. Barely any debt or unemployment Uzbekistan must be a paradise to live in. America should be more like Uzbekistan.

But wait. You're not looking at all the facts now are you?

It may be harder to understand these distortions of reality when thinking about computer related things. But, they're there. The plain fact is that perhaps somethings are indeed better about Uzbekistan... but somethings are definately much, much, worse.

I would say the same analogies hold true for MSIE versus Mozilla and Apache versus IIS.

What's going on here is a presentation of facts in a distorted fashion. It is like asking:

Do you support the war in Iraq?
versus
Do you support keeping America safe by going to war in Iraq?
or
Do you support our Troops in Iraq or Terrorists?


By adding a bias into the question answering that you don't support the war in Iraq you are now implying that not supporting the war in Iraq is akin to supporting Terrorists, hating America, or hating our Troops.

While it's not as easy to see in matters like this. The blog in the article is biased. I establish this trend (albeit thinly) by pointing to the earlier postings showing only two flaws in IIS to an uncountable number of flaws in Apache. Then the blogger says, "it goes to show that maybe we really DO understand what we're doing." implying that IIS gets a bad rap, if you look at the numbers it's actually better than Apache.

That is bias. The MSIE superiority at handling "generous" inputs is not a feature... it is a positive side-effect of their "embrace and extend" philosophy. While it is indeed a horrible indictment of Mozilla et al. that they can't handle this simple malformed code... it is no great advantage to MSIE as a browser.

Here's an example of taking facts and over-blowing what they mean:

Reference: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ranko rder/2129rank.html http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ranko rder/2186rank.html

Using the facts here I'll build the following erroneous argument. The US should model its economy on Uzbekistan's because Uzbekistan has one of the world's lowest unemployment rates.

It is a fact stone, cold, fact that Uzbekistan has nearly no unemployment. It is a stone cold fact that Uzbekistan has nearly public debt. These are elements of great discord in America today.

America has problems with things that Uzbekistan seems to find easy to deal with. Barely any debt or unemployment Uzbekistan must be a paradise to live in. America should be more like Uzbekistan.

But wait. You're not looking at all the facts now are you?

It may be harder to understand these distortions of reality when thinking about computer related things. But, they're there. The plain fact is that perhaps somethings are indeed better about Uzbekistan... but somethings are definately much, much, worse.

I would say the same analogies hold true for MSIE versus Mozilla and Apache versus IIS.

Actually, in societies that don't participate in aborting female fetuses(China and India namely) females outnumber males, even though your stat is correct? Why? Because at every age males have higher fatality rates than females. Seriously, look at the demographics of the US from the CIA world fact book:
for the US
Canada
France
Japan(though there the ratio roughly stays the same
For all of these countries, you see that there are a lot more males under 15 than females, but from 15-65 the numbers tend to even out(in the US there are more females than males in this group) But for contrast look at:
China and
India
where because of gender selective abortions, there are significantly less females than males in the age 15-65 group. Actually, that is becoming a major concern in those places, as you can imagine what problems a group of males who really need sex can cause.....

Actually, in societies that don't participate in aborting female fetuses(China and India namely) females outnumber males, even though your stat is correct? Why? Because at every age males have higher fatality rates than females. Seriously, look at the demographics of the US from the CIA world fact book:
for the US
Canada
France
Japan(though there the ratio roughly stays the same
For all of these countries, you see that there are a lot more males under 15 than females, but from 15-65 the numbers tend to even out(in the US there are more females than males in this group) But for contrast look at:
China and
India
where because of gender selective abortions, there are significantly less females than males in the age 15-65 group. Actually, that is becoming a major concern in those places, as you can imagine what problems a group of males who really need sex can cause.....

Actually, in societies that don't participate in aborting female fetuses(China and India namely) females outnumber males, even though your stat is correct? Why? Because at every age males have higher fatality rates than females. Seriously, look at the demographics of the US from the CIA world fact book:
for the US
Canada
France
Japan(though there the ratio roughly stays the same
For all of these countries, you see that there are a lot more males under 15 than females, but from 15-65 the numbers tend to even out(in the US there are more females than males in this group) But for contrast look at:
China and
India
where because of gender selective abortions, there are significantly less females than males in the age 15-65 group. Actually, that is becoming a major concern in those places, as you can imagine what problems a group of males who really need sex can cause.....

Actually, in societies that don't participate in aborting female fetuses(China and India namely) females outnumber males, even though your stat is correct? Why? Because at every age males have higher fatality rates than females. Seriously, look at the demographics of the US from the CIA world fact book:
for the US
Canada
France
Japan(though there the ratio roughly stays the same
For all of these countries, you see that there are a lot more males under 15 than females, but from 15-65 the numbers tend to even out(in the US there are more females than males in this group) But for contrast look at:
China and
India
where because of gender selective abortions, there are significantly less females than males in the age 15-65 group. Actually, that is becoming a major concern in those places, as you can imagine what problems a group of males who really need sex can cause.....

Actually, in societies that don't participate in aborting female fetuses(China and India namely) females outnumber males, even though your stat is correct? Why? Because at every age males have higher fatality rates than females. Seriously, look at the demographics of the US from the CIA world fact book:
for the US
Canada
France
Japan(though there the ratio roughly stays the same
For all of these countries, you see that there are a lot more males under 15 than females, but from 15-65 the numbers tend to even out(in the US there are more females than males in this group) But for contrast look at:
China and
India
where because of gender selective abortions, there are significantly less females than males in the age 15-65 group. Actually, that is becoming a major concern in those places, as you can imagine what problems a group of males who really need sex can cause.....

Actually, in societies that don't participate in aborting female fetuses(China and India namely) females outnumber males, even though your stat is correct? Why? Because at every age males have higher fatality rates than females. Seriously, look at the demographics of the US from the CIA world fact book:
for the US
Canada
France
Japan(though there the ratio roughly stays the same
For all of these countries, you see that there are a lot more males under 15 than females, but from 15-65 the numbers tend to even out(in the US there are more females than males in this group) But for contrast look at:
China and
India
where because of gender selective abortions, there are significantly less females than males in the age 15-65 group. Actually, that is becoming a major concern in those places, as you can imagine what problems a group of males who really need sex can cause.....

My home country Germany still has simple sheets of paper which have instructions on how many votes you have and where you just check one of the large boxes next to the names/partys. I have to admit that it's low tech, but it does not have the error rates of punching cards or deploying an electronic system that is vulnerable to simple attacks.

Now I understand that Germany is about the size of North Dakota (world population rank 15 whereas the U.S. are rank 4 CIA World Fact Book Link) but we have the first preliminary results after 6 p.m. when the voting offices close and the final results on the next day. If enough people help counting, I would imagine this to be possible in the US too. At least until they figure out a somewhat secure way of e-voting.

Of course I have no idea how many volunteers they have to help in the voting process...

The important thing to remember is America is a Republic not a democracy, with a system almost the same as the roman republic, with some concesions towards democracy and like the Roman Republic has all the problems of corruption and ultimatley will suffer the same fate people will only suffer republics for so long before they end up acepting a dictator or demanding democracy. Republics never last.

Even the cia world book admits it is a repbulic with strong democratic tendancies. Which

ISG judges that Iraq has not worked on nuclear
weapons design since 1991. ISG investigated Iraq's
nuclear weapon design and component manufacture
capabilities through interviews with scientists and
other government employees, site visits of historically-
associated Iraq nuclear weapon facilities, and
exploitation of captured documents.

but, we see further that...

page 203:

Since Operation Iraqi Freedom, two scientists from
Iraq's pre-1991 nuclear weapons program have
emerged to provide ISG with uranium enrichment
technology and components, which they kept hidden
from inspectors.

...

The former head of Iraq's pre-1991 centrifuge
program also retained prohibited documents and
components in apparent violation of the Regime's
directives. Though this activity was isolated, it also
had the potential to contribute to a possible restart of
Iraq's uranium enrichment programs.

but, going b

I tell people who ask me how to tell the real sites from the fakes sites to put in "dickfer" for the user name and "topeewith" for the password. If it logs in, they know it's fake and are free to fill in a proper name and address that the spammer may freely use.

LOL.

This is Sweden.

This is Switzerland.

I do not understand how people can confuse those two all the time - again and again. :)

LOL.

This is Sweden.

This is Switzerland.

I do not understand how people can confuse those two all the time - again and again. :)

(I *know* that pop growth is *negative* in US, China, Japan, Britian, and parts of Africa, but Earth average is positive still)

It's a pity that you didn't take the time to research this before spouting off. It's a good argument, but your numbers are way off. As another poster said, the population is well over 6 billion, and I'm pretty sure most every region you cite still has growing population... but the growth rates are falling and negative population growth is predicted.

Anyway, don't believe me. Here's a research tool for next time.

As appropriate, Novell is prepared to use our patents, which are highly relevant in today's marketplace, to defend against those who might assert patents against open source products marketed, sold or supported by Novell.

That doesn't seem like they are going to fight once litigation is started. That words leads me to believe that they would start litigation if anyone even brought up the idea that their IP was being used w/o permission in the kernel.

As appropriate, Novell is prepared to use our patents, which are highly relevant in today's marketplace, to defend against those who might assert patents against open source products marketed, sold or supported by Novell.

That doesn't seem like they are going to fight once litigation is started. That words leads me to believe that they would start litigation if anyone even brought up the idea that their IP was being used w/o permission in the kernel.

Western Europeans living in smaller, more distributed communities than Americans? I don't think so. Let's look at Germany as an example. Germany has a population of 82 million in an area of about 349,000 square kilometers, which, as the CIA factbook helpfully points out, is somewhat smaller than Montana. When you put 82 million people into an area this size it doesn't matter what kind of community they live in, smog is going to affect them. And as far as living in "smaller, more distributed communities" goes where is this in Western Europe? While countries in Western Europe such as Germany and the Netherlands don't have US style sprawl they make up for it in population density. The Europeans I've seen don't live in smaller, more distributed communities, they live in denser, more distributed communities.

I await your pointing out where I said any such thing. I'm a patient man, but I suppose I'll be waiting for some time.

There are some highways, but it is not a comprehensive national system by any means. Highways in India are what we call roads in the US. Roads in India are any man-made attempt at surface equalization. Packed earth counts as a road. Gravel counts as a road. Even the World Bank indicates only 500km of highways in India are actualy more than two lanes.

Yeah, I'm going to call bullshit on this one. 500km out of 3.3 million kilometers of highways are more than two lanes? Puh-leeze. Give me more sources to back that up and I'll consider it accurate, but until then I'm gonna flatly reject this.

Why don't you go ask the starving children, dozens of whom will come to greet you the moment you step foot in that country, if that research means anything to them. I have no doubt that perhaps some interesting research goes on in India, but clearly there is disconnect between the ultimate goal of research, ie building a greater civilization, and the research that is currently taking place.

Heh. Calls me on ad-hominems and then starts throwing false dichotomies around as though they have a connect with the real world. How cute.

My usual question is to ask you where you get the idea that a nation of one billion people is only capable of either doing "useful" research, or the stuff you're dismissing as frivolous. You imply that they shouldn't lift a finger to do anything other than the most basic-needs type of stuff and discard anything else because it doesn't have immediate practical benefits.

People keep making this asinine claim that the United States and a couple of other western countries are the only nations which should - or should be permitted to - undertake any kind of advanced research, with this general overtone of "you're not ready for this kind of knowledge yet." That strikes me as little more than despicable, hateful condescension, and I give it little more than the tiny scrap of respect if almost deserves, and nothing more.

Researching obscure technologies is a luxury for advanced civilizations, which comparitively, India is not.

So what, are you advocating that Indian researchers should be told what they may and may not learn about? And who gives you the right to define what is an obscure enough technology for us Civilized Folk to be able to learn about to the exclusion of everyone else?

Research for the sake of research is a modern sickness.

No, it's a very old and beneficial one. The current sickness is the active defense of ignorance. Unlike knowledge for its own sake, this one is actually dangerous. The ignorance involved in condemning the idea of 'pure' research is astonishing, to say the least.

-PS

In the first paragraph, you say:

Iraq's Sarin nerve gas from the 1990's was pretty much gone, after a few years it breaks down and turns into just water.

Then in the third, you say:

an IED went off, and there were traces of Sarin at the scene. The experts say that it's likely someone took an empty shell left over from the Iran-Iraq war

If sarin just turns to water after a few years as you say, then there would be no traces of it from shells that pre-date the Gulf War. Not very "Insightful".

Apparently, many people here have not read the key findings of the CIA report on WMDs in Iraq. I would suggest that you read them here.

Saddam was planning to rebuild his WMD program as soon as sanctions were lifted. The UN thought that Iraq was still up to no good which is why they sent inspectors there and kept the sanctions. The UN kept threatening to do something if Iraq didn't comply, but never lived up to its promises. The US finally got tired of the empty threats and made an ultimatum that was ignored by Iraq because they had heard so many false threats before.

This war is not about getting their oil. We were already getting it. This war is about removing a dictatorship that had developed WMDs and used them before, even on their own people; had invaded neighboring countries; had threatened to use WMDs on other countries; had supported terrorists, even paying large sums of money to the families of suicide bombers; had lied to the UN and thumbed its nose at the sanctions, instead of complying with them; had found a way to get around the restrictions of the sanctions by corrupting the oil-for-food program; had plans to rebuild its WMD programs as soon as sanctions were lifted.

This was a dangerous regime and a dangerous man. We have not created any more terrorists, there were already in the making. All that has happened is that they are no longer in hiding, but have been brought out into the light for the world to see.

From the actual report:

"Total employment was about unchanged in September at 139.5 million, and the employment-population ratio--the proportion of the population age 16 and over with jobs--was little changed at 62.3 percent. Over the month, the civilian labor force was essentially unchanged at 147.5 million. The labor force participation rate was 65.9 percent in September and has been at or near that level since late last year. (See table A-1.)"

Bush and his apologists can spin these numbers any way they want, as they define "unemployment" to exclude all kinds of people without jobs. How many of those "new jobs" Bush will talk about are jobs left idle by the thousands of reservists in Iraq and elsewhere? We've got 293M people in the US, with only 66.9% aged 15-65; even these numbers lie, somehow saying we've got 4.6% without jobs, compared with the still-rosy 5.4% summarized in the report. How many of these jobs are part time? How many pay too little to matter? How many are people working past their retirement age because they've lost their pensions, or their investments? We remember what the job market was like "when Clinton was reelected" in 1996: jobs were falling off the trees. Now, they're flying overseas, where the labor, environment and pay conditions are already in the cesspool into which Bush is herding this economy. Do your career a favor and see through these lies, and get someone new to manage the economy on which we depend, who hasn't been a miserable lying failure all his life.