Slashdot Mirror

As an American, I do try to explain my terms when speaking to an international audience (the internet). Of course, I have non-American friends, so I'm quite aware of it. On the occasion that I don't fully explain myself, and someone inquires, I try to give them an explanation instead of a snide answer.

Yes, there are stupid, "the world revolves around me" people in the US, as everywhere. If it seems that the US has more idiots, keep in mind that the US has a population that is 4.8 times the UK's (293,027,57 vs 60,270,708), so it's bound to have 4.8 times the idiots that the UK does.

It would be best if everyone explained their terms, Americans included. Imagine if everyone was able to figure out what you were talking about.. we might actually be able to understand each other. :)

As an American, I do try to explain my terms when speaking to an international audience (the internet). Of course, I have non-American friends, so I'm quite aware of it. On the occasion that I don't fully explain myself, and someone inquires, I try to give them an explanation instead of a snide answer.

Yes, there are stupid, "the world revolves around me" people in the US, as everywhere. If it seems that the US has more idiots, keep in mind that the US has a population that is 4.8 times the UK's (293,027,57 vs 60,270,708), so it's bound to have 4.8 times the idiots that the UK does.

It would be best if everyone explained their terms, Americans included. Imagine if everyone was able to figure out what you were talking about.. we might actually be able to understand each other. :)

Typical collectivist thinking:
especially if you consider the views of regular people rather than governments. followed by a reference to a specific region (the Middle East).

Go to the World Factbook or other resource of your choice and look at the types of governments in the Middle East (or "rest of the world" for that matter). You'll discover some shocking information they don't teach you in the local MoveOn.org reeducation camps:

o Nearly all of the Middle East nations use a non-representative government model. Although the former poster references the views of the people, the reality is that the people don't matter at all in the Middle East to their own governments. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, etc. are not representative governments.

o In a non-representative government, the press is not a free entity. Subsequently, messages delivered by the press are those of the non-representative governments, intended to manipulate public opinion. It is critical that public dissatisfaction with living conditions and general welfare be blamed on someone other than the oppressive government: Jews, Americans, etc.

If you don't understand or don't believe me, don't waste your time arguing. Travel to the Middle East and discover it first hand. Be sure to take a bunch of your MoveOn propeganda with you and pick a nice friendly country like Syria to protest against the government. I can guaranteee they'll help you understand how wrong you are.

The FCC is clearly out of it's mandate here and I would say the odds of defeating it are good, not on the merits of violation of consumers rights, but that the FCC doesn't have the authority for Congress to do this.

Think again. From their about us page they say, "The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress.">

Parallel that with the CIA, "The CIA is an independent agency, responsible to the President through the DCI, and accountable to the American people through the intelligence oversight committees of the U.S. Congress."

I'm growing skeptical of these "independant agencies". They are not elected, they are not part of the "checks and balances" system, there is no meantion of them in the Constitution, yet they appear to be having greater power than any real part of our government.

I mean the CIA still has publically downloadable 23page document from 2002 about "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction" here, yet its pretty much common knowledge that they never existed. The document even has a map on page 9 that has 9, yes, 9 "Declared nuclear facilities".

The FCC is clearly out of it's mandate here and I would say the odds of defeating it are good, not on the merits of violation of consumers rights, but that the FCC doesn't have the authority for Congress to do this.

Think again. From their about us page they say, "The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress.">

Parallel that with the CIA, "The CIA is an independent agency, responsible to the President through the DCI, and accountable to the American people through the intelligence oversight committees of the U.S. Congress."

I'm growing skeptical of these "independant agencies". They are not elected, they are not part of the "checks and balances" system, there is no meantion of them in the Constitution, yet they appear to be having greater power than any real part of our government.

I mean the CIA still has publically downloadable 23page document from 2002 about "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction" here, yet its pretty much common knowledge that they never existed. The document even has a map on page 9 that has 9, yes, 9 "Declared nuclear facilities".

600 crackers for almost 23 million persons ?
I understand why they say they are starving !

well - couldn't find out how many computersthey have by CIA Worldbook suggests they only have 1.1 million phone lines. Kinda crappy for a nation of 22 million people.

He surpassed the life expectancy of USA for males and arrived right on target for both sexes.

USA Life expectancy at birth:
male: 74.63 years
total population: 77.43 years

From CIA The World Factbook

Well, yeah, he "admitted" that. Saddam's goal was to control oil in the region and to dominate his neighbors; to do that he had to project a tough guy appearance. So he "admitted" to the world that he was a big nasty scary man who had thousands of liters of every nasty thing you can imagine in an attempt to give the impression that he posed a severe threat, so that the world would take him seriously.
He also told the UN that he was in full accordance with UN resolutions. You shouldn't expect consistency from a power-mad dictator. Saddam's weapons scientists told him that they were making great strides in increasing Iraq's might through WMDs, when in fact Iraq's third-world-level funding, the internally hostile nature of the regime, and UN weapons inspections were all preventing any real progress. To back this up, check the Kay Report. Charles Duelfer, David Kay's replacement, expected to find evidence of active weapons or at least active weapons systems. Yet still Duelfer's report speaks only of "regime intent" to construct buildings to facilitate weapons programs, and Bush is left with the mouthful "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities."

Also, you might want to look into what Hans Blix had to say.

Well, yeah, he "admitted" that. Saddam's goal was to control oil in the region and to dominate his neighbors; to do that he had to project a tough guy appearance. So he "admitted" to the world that he was a big nasty scary man who had thousands of liters of every nasty thing you can imagine in an attempt to give the impression that he posed a severe threat, so that the world would take him seriously.
He also told the UN that he was in full accordance with UN resolutions. You shouldn't expect consistency from a power-mad dictator. Saddam's weapons scientists told him that they were making great strides in increasing Iraq's might through WMDs, when in fact Iraq's third-world-level funding, the internally hostile nature of the regime, and UN weapons inspections were all preventing any real progress. To back this up, check the Kay Report. Charles Duelfer, David Kay's replacement, expected to find evidence of active weapons or at least active weapons systems. Yet still Duelfer's report speaks only of "regime intent" to construct buildings to facilitate weapons programs, and Bush is left with the mouthful "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities."

Also, you might want to look into what Hans Blix had to say.

Gosh I really wish people would read for themselves. Whoever submitted this either had an agenda, or just didn't do their homework.

Its pretty obvious that there was a threat. Whether that threat justified war is another issue.

Could W have done better? Yeah. Did he obviously "lie"? Probably not, considering everyone that has the same intelligence he had agreed with him. This wasn't one man's misjudement, it was a lot of people making the same (mis?)judgement on information that may (or may not) have been true.

I personally think that there was a threat. I was deployed overseas to go fight the war, so I had some more intelligence than the Average Joe, but not enough to say anything definitivly. I just don't understand the timing or choice of country (Iraq) versus other threats of similar magnitude (from the terrorist/WMD perspective). Of course, I haven't read all the intelligence, but neither have most of W's critics.

and i fear it's tehran, here we come, and a draft, in 2005

If we do that; if we show the world that this has nothing to do with 9/11, but rather tha we're just mad enough to invade any muslim state (except Pakistan for some reason) that develops or tries to develop nukes (not that Iraq was on that list, so why did we invade again?) then you'll see a wave of terrorism that's going to make the last 20 years in Israel look like a back-yark cookout. Africa, the rest of the middle-east (including Turkey) will likely topple moderate governments in a rush to defend themselves from the US. Indonesia will fall apart and be re-built by even more agressive fundamentalists (don't "oh, it's just Indonesia" me... they have nearly as many people as we do!) Next thing you know, Spain and France are going to look questionable, and India's muslim population will be demanding blood.

Exactly how much of the world do you think you can piss off before you start to hear the words "car bomb" more often than "looks like rain" on the evening news?

Success? We know without question that Saddam had WMD because they were used in the Iran/Iraq war and on his own people no less than ten times. During most of the last decade he wouldn't let weapons inspectors in the country. Saddam had plenty of time and a lot of desert to hide his production facilities and cache. This is not a matter of if Saddam had WMD. The real question is where are they?

Protestant 56%, Roman Catholic 28%, Jewish 2%, other 4%, none 10% (1989)

The UN was invented to "unite nations" rather than people. The Internet unites people, but it's politically illegitimate.

Darn it - my respect for Bruce Sterling has been diminished. This is the kind of naiveness that comes from staying too cerebral and avoiding painful realities of politics, corruption and power. Bruce is still one of my favorite writers, but just as no sane person looks to a Hollywood actor as a credible source for political perspective, extreme visionaries should be thanked for challenging the status quo and proposing radically different (if not absurd but interesting), though usually unworkable ideas.

Consider: US progressives (liberal/leftist/socialist/whatever your label is) correctly criticise many conservatives/right-wingers/etc. for being anti-government - as if the government was some evil autonomous, lifelike entity aka Godzilla. While bureaucracies can act oppressively, the reality is that the oppression is usually a manifestation of individual action and will. Bad governments don't raid the cookie jar, bad people do.

Applied to the UN, it too is not an autonomous "evil organization" in itself and should not be measured on that basis. It is, however, a composition of its elements, and overwhelmingly its members and leadership are crooked and apothetic regarding the welfare of the world's masses. It is comprised overwhelmingly of representatives appointed by dictators and corrupt governments. They appoint UN administrators that mirror their own philosophy (which is why no one should be remotely surprised that the Iraq Oil for Food program reaches throughout UN administration and much of the EU elite - so what if that money Chirac got caused one-hundred thousand Iraqi children to starve - Chirac needs a new vacation house!). Imagine the Internet run by China and you'll have the best-case model for UN Internet (you can guarantee firewalling of ideas will be applied univerally - no UN would permit the criticism by foolish European and US citizens. ) And understand that my attitude on corruption is terribly US-centric; corruption, bribery and coercion are acceptable business forms in most of the world. If the China Internet model didn't prevail, a Venezuela model would be the minimum (perpetually broken, money's always missing, special friends of powerful interests always seem to get all the goodies, everyone on the take down to the smallest guy but nobody is around to make it work and everyone is miserable. Opposition and criticism is loosly tolerated though occasionally results in people being shot).

Just as conservatives need to check their paranoia vs. the UN and "the government,' liberals need to check their heads on their own paranoia and self-loathing of their governments and quit seeing some fabrication of an autonomous world organization to save them from George Bush, Newt Gingrich or whoever the scary monster of the day is. Practical criticism is one thing, but absent effective assessment vs. the rest of the world, their actions will only ensure totalitarianism. Go check the CIA's Fact Book on the political status of world nations.

So what would a UN+Internet look like? No different than Oil for Food. Any assets will be repurposed for the political/power/personal benefit of corrupt powerful interests (and no, not Halliburton - one needs to read about the real private money power in the world and quit subscribing to this misdirection - go read about George Soros and why he's spending so much money to confuse the idealistic young sheep in the US while he instructs his investments to outsource jobs to the third world, works to get US youth hooked on narcotics, etc. Why is Mr. Soros critical of outsourcing when he's one of the most powerful proponents of it in his business?)

Recognize the UN for what it is and will always be as long as most of the worlds citizens are either oppressed or unwilling to stand up for their own liberty.

"Four legs bad. Two legs better!"

The CIA World Factbook has some EXCELLENT reference maps, available in 100% vector PDF (meaning they can be infinitely scaled without any pixellation).

This is part of what truly makes the Slashdot community great, and why I am proud to be a part of it. Geeks helping out others by poling a resource that has a truly flabbergasting diversity of combined knowledge. This question hits a bit close to home as my research is centered around vision and vision rescue strategies, but this is a more immediate need that I truly hope somebody here can help with.

Just to clarify: I am not sure if you are asking for screen reader software or not as part of the solution? If so, there are a number of alternatives for Windows (fairly pricey), but the next version of OS X will have a built in screen reader solution! combined with other visual aids that will help the blind and near blind use their computer systems without having to invest in another solution.

For the maps, there are a number of high resolution maps available from the USGS which can be obtained in digital form here and in atlas form here. In addition the CIA world factbook is a nice resource for kids with text and maps that can be remapped with higher resolution.

Finally, a last resort would be Adobe Photoshop. You can take any map or image and simply resize the image with a much higher resolution (say take a map from 72dpi to 600 or 1200 dpi). If there is enough information in the original image to interpret, this might be a good solution to allowing one to zoom in images and maps for ease of interpretation.

1. Osama is still on the loose

This is very true, but does he have anywhere near the support infastructure that he had on Sept 11th?

If we had captured Osama on Sept 10th would that have stopped the attacks?

If we had captured him on the 12th would that have destoryed Al-qaeda?

2. No WMD found

I suggest you read Iraq Survey Group Report on WMD in Iraq - congressional testimony as there has been a considerable amount of evidence that shows that Iraq did have both biological and chemical weapons capabilities.

Or perhaps you should check out The May 2004 Quarterly UNMOVIC Report that details confirmed Iraq missle engines that have been exposed to radioactive material. I'd love to hear your reasoning that the second most oil rich nation on the face of the earth needs radioactive material for?

3. No peace for Iraqi's

Suggesting that Bush is the reason for the lack of peace, not the extremists that that you side apparently so admires?

4. No direct link between Iraq and Al-qaeda for the american attacks.
5. No Iraqi's involved in the attack

Are we fighting Terrorism or Al-qaeda? Are you attempting to suggest that Iraq has no ties to terrorism?

I'll see your blogs, and raise you The 9/11 Commission.

Please if your going to claim to quote the 9/11 report, follow through and actually do it!

From Page 66 of the 9/11 Commission Report:

"There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Tali-ban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Tali-ban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

The Soros' of the world love to use that last line, but often fail to mention the lead in to it. When we bombed Osama out of Afghanistan where do you think he would have gone? If you actually read the report that question is answered clearly.

You need more up to date information. The Iraqi Survey Group concluded that were no stockpiles.

I'm starting to get confused! For updated information you send me to a year old story about leaked information on what the report will contain instead of the actual report???

Iraq Survey Group Report on WMD in Iraq - congressional testimony

I don't even know where to start quoting the report as it is so damning to your argument. Please read it for yourself.

Forgive me for dropping the FDR part as I feel it would lead us off the path of discussion. If you'd like we can start another thread just to discuss those issues.

Yeah, lawyers are known to cause sandstorms.

Ah but overly careful lawyers delay missions till they are forced to land in sandstorms. The also withhold heavy air support from troops which lead directly to the death of 19 American soldiers in African countries.

How about: Contact the FAA? Contact the joint chiefs? Contact the CIA? Contact The FBI? Contact Richard Clarke and the counter terrorism team? Contact Gulianni?

Have you read the report??? All those agencies did their jobs on their own, and did so very well considering the scope and information available to them. Did you ever stop to thing that the President felt that the people that were in those positions were capable of doing their jobs without his input. Often in situations like that having all decisions come from one person leads to disaster.

The Bush administration has neglected using the entire power of the United States, but rather focused solely on miltary action. How are they going to get countries to use their internal security apparatuses to help u

And this doesn't even take distribution of wealth into account. According to the above mentioned source 25% of Russia's population are below the poverty line. In reality, it's much more (they are notorious for not keeping track of economical data or even just plain making stuff up).

So you have a small upper class, a small middle class, a huge blue collar working class (with many people out of work) and a lot of people unaccounted for.

If you're living on $741 a month, do you really spend $36 on a license you essentially don't need (since there's no enforcement in Russia). Also, consider that those $36 are 20% of your monthly income (not of your monthly disposable income).

I don't really get who the folks at Microsoft think their target audience is. The upper class can afford XP Pro/Home licenses. They've either already purchased those (probably OEM licenses) or simply don't care. Anyone outside that demographic just won't be able to afford a Starter license, even if they wanted to.

Republic - a representative democracy in which the people's elected deputies (representatives), not the people themselves, vote on legislation.

Republic - a representative democracy in which the people's elected deputies (representatives), not the people themselves, vote on legislation.

Per the CIA World Factbook-

The US Government is a "Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition"

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ us.html#Govt

Skopje and Ouagadougou are the capitals of Macedonia and Burkina Faso, respectively. Kazakhstan is a country. There are two Congos: the Republic of the Congo (formerly French Middle Congo), and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which lies just to the east. Eastern DROC borders Rwanda, where there was a massive genocide 10 years ago.

Skopje and Ouagadougou are the capitals of Macedonia and Burkina Faso, respectively. Kazakhstan is a country. There are two Congos: the Republic of the Congo (formerly French Middle Congo), and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which lies just to the east. Eastern DROC borders Rwanda, where there was a massive genocide 10 years ago.

Skopje and Ouagadougou are the capitals of Macedonia and Burkina Faso, respectively. Kazakhstan is a country. There are two Congos: the Republic of the Congo (formerly French Middle Congo), and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which lies just to the east. Eastern DROC borders Rwanda, where there was a massive genocide 10 years ago.

Skopje and Ouagadougou are the capitals of Macedonia and Burkina Faso, respectively. Kazakhstan is a country. There are two Congos: the Republic of the Congo (formerly French Middle Congo), and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which lies just to the east. Eastern DROC borders Rwanda, where there was a massive genocide 10 years ago.

Skopje and Ouagadougou are the capitals of Macedonia and Burkina Faso, respectively. Kazakhstan is a country. There are two Congos: the Republic of the Congo (formerly French Middle Congo), and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which lies just to the east. Eastern DROC borders Rwanda, where there was a massive genocide 10 years ago.

Not quite the USA demographic; this is diluted even more in the last 15 years:

Protestant 56%, Roman Catholic 28%, Jewish 2%, other 4%, none 10% (1989)
per, CIA World Factbook, USA

The increase in the national debt during Clinton's administration is due to interest.

A balanced budget refers only to the government not spending more money than it gets in taxes -- which is the elimination of defecit. That is the first step in addressing the national debt, the second step is to start paying down the debt. At the rate the debt is climbing just due to interest, we should be very interested in not contributing to it faster.

Look at what happens in those figures you quoted:

% increase (Date - President)
2.34 (9/28/2001 - Bush)
0.32 (9/29/2000 - Clinton)
2.35 (9/30/1999 - Clinton)
2.09 (9/30/1999 - Clinton)

In the last year of Clinton's administration, he'd gotten the budget balanced, and actually paid into the debt, almost as much as the interest for that year. Bush gets in office one year, and WHAM Clinton's work is undone. 133 billion dollars in 2001 worth of tax payer money was lost. Sure, we got a big tax cut, but it's really only a forced loan to us taxpayers since any tax cut that happens while the debt increases will ultimately have to be repaid.

It's representative of classic American thinking, and it's why so many people drown in credit card debt. Borrowed money is treated like free money, bonus income. No one pays any heed to the idea that Hey, we're gonna have to pay this back again. Borrowing money is in almost all cases the opposite of good financial planning. Rather than taking money you've saved and investing it, you're taking someone elses money as an investment for them.

There are only a few times when it makes sense to borrow money, and that is when you need something right now that you cannot afford right now. Car loans don't qualify unless you cannot afford a used car -- I buy all my cars used at ~1/4 new-sticker price, pay cash, and they each last 4-5 years. Credit cards don't qualify unless you're habitually paying them off completely every month (and thus avoiding interest on the money). Home loans can qualify only because having a house now with a 30 year mortgage, versus renting for 25 years to save up for a house makes sense in that you're purchasing equity in your house instead of giving your money to your landlord. School loans make sense because the schooling increases your capacity to earn money, and thus it is a positive investment (as long as you get a marketable degree).

I'm one of those people who has credit cards that I pay off completely each month, make double payments on my mortgage, and otherwise spend cash on everything. My and my wife's school bills were paid off completely the first year we were out of college. I've never had a car loan, and aside from my credit cards, the only loans I have ever actually had are my school and mortgage.

Friends who are in similar circumstances as me have $10-20,000 in credit card debt, $20-40,000 in car loans, and $20-30,000 in school loans. They're $50-90,000 in debt, and making minimum payments each month. A big chunk of their income each month goes to interest all around, and they grumble that I seem to have more money to spend than they do despite similar earnings. That's fine though, it's how they choose to live their life, and I make different decisions.

However, when it comes to national debt, I don't have any real say in the matter aside from my Nov 2 ballot. My tax money is being consumed by interst, and it is not my option to pay this down. Think how much good could have been done with the billions of dollars wasted on interest each year.

Everyone (it seems) wants national healthcare, but gripe when taxes go up. This money has to come from somewhere. According to the CIA, estimated US population in July 2004 was 293,027,571. Every man, woman, and child saw $450 go into the debt this past year. I don't know about you, but $450 is a lot more than I'd typically spend a year on medical things. I know that I'm in good health, and that some pe

What do your sources tell you about the "can't be bothered to get a job because the public dole is good enough" factor?

Sweden's 2003 unemployment rate: 4.9%

US 2003 unemployment rate: 6%

The public dole might be good enough for artists who would otherwise starve, but nearly everyone wants something better, and with Sweden's state-sponsored professional and advanced, lifelong, vocational education, it's easy to live a very comfortable lifestyle even if unfortunate turns of events require multiple career changes.

The logical extension is that the U.S. is deficit-spending into a very serious crisis the moment the baby boomers start retiring and requiring Medicare. Alan Greenspan has been saying so in no uncertain terms in each of his Humphrey-Hawkins testimonies since 2002.

Worse yet - in the US, 97% of people should at least be able to RTFM - there's no excuse!

GDP is an aggregate measure of "production" of goods and services as well as foreign investments (Luxembourg has a large financial sector, e.g. foreign banks, that accounts for 22% of GDP according to the CIA World Factbook). When a wealthy Luxembourger gets a EUR500 pedicure or buys a EUR500 steak at a snooty restaurant, that counts as part of the GDP of Luxembourg, even though those services might cost a lot less somewhere else.

An island, where Donald Trump lives which contains NO production facilities, would have a very low GDP because it produces nothing of value...The only thing which MIGHT count is the payroll of his staff...

Nope. Every dollar spent there counts toward GDP, under "services".

More info is here

The site looks like either a joke or a scam to me.

(3) Choice of Law and Jurisdiction. These Terms of Use will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of Uninhabited Sovereign Territory of Palmyra Atoll.... Any claims ... will be brought ...to the jurisdiction of Palmyra Atoll courts.

Legal system: the laws of the US, where applicable, apply

Too funny. Have a look at the CIA World Factbook location this company claims to be based on. Its a Natural preserve with 4-20 Nature Conservancy staff... Too funny.

Location: Oceania, atoll in the North Pacific Ocean, about half way between Hawaii and American Samoa ( 5 52 N, 162 06 W)

Area: about 50 islets covered with dense vegetation, coconut trees, and balsa-like trees up to 30 meters tall
total: 11.9 sq km
land: 11.9 sq km

Population: no indigenous inhabitants; 4 to 20 Nature Conservancy staff, US Fish and Wildlife staff (July 2004 est.)

Dependency status: incorporated territory of the US; privately owned, but administered from Washington, DC, by the Fish and Wildlife Service of the US Department of the Interior; the Office of Insular Affairs of the US Department of the Interior continues to administer nine excluded areas comprising certain tidal and submerged lands within the 12 nm territorial sea or within the lagoon

Legal system: the laws of the US, where applicable, apply

Flag description: the flag of the US is used

Economy - overview: no economic activity

This page was last updated on 14 September, 2004

Translation of eProvisia's four-page web site : We're from the Government, and we're here to help you.

Yah here you go. 1USD = {divide by zero error}PAD (that's Palmyra Atoll Dollars)

Because there's no such thing as a Palmyra Atoll Dollar.

[the address]...Palmyra Atoll (Uninhabited Sovereign Territory)

This is thge odd part. How can an uninhabited territory be sovereign. According to the CIA Factbook it is a National Wildlife Refuge managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Also, it says it has no economic activity. What the heck would back Palmyra Atoll's dollar?

It has to be a joke or a scam...http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factboo k/geos/lq.html Read the CIA's description of that island and decide for yourself. Seems pretty unlikely this is legit. I would guess the only thing you would receive by contacting this "company" is more spam.

Some info about Palmyra Atoll.

So a system that fails to give a minority what they want is a failure?

No. A system that gives a minority what they don't want, because they voted for what they want, is flawed. Any system which encourages non-sincere voting is imperfect.

If the majority of Republicans vote R->L->D,

False. Prehaps this math error has been underlying most of your other objections*. If the majority of Republicans pick RLD, the Democrats still win! It's only if all Republicans go for Libertarian second will the problem be avoided. (And nobody should expect unanimity!)

Step back from the RDL designations and just consider parties A,B,C. A & B are very similar, and have about 25% support. C is very different from them, and has 49% support (1% other/undecide). An A supporter would be happiest with A, but tolerate B (and vice-versa).

In the current USA system (highest count wins), if everyone votes for their favorite, C will always win. Either A or B will need to decide to give up and endorse B or A, to prevent the C landslide. The fact that so many people are forced to vote against their preference is considered a problem.

Now, if IRV were in place, what happens? Nothing's actually different. C always wins, unless the campaign for either A or B decides to drop out early. So IRV isn't actually too different from the current system- so why bother changing?

Under Concordet (or "pairwise") voting, on the other hand, all A supporters could confidently vote for "A>B,B>C,A>C", knowing that either A or B will win (since they collectively have 50% approval to C's 49%). Thus, political parties lose in power... there isn't the need for like-minded groups to have a "primary" election beforehand to avoid splitting their vote in the general election. 2000 could've had Bush, Gore, McCain, and Nader all in the election together.

* Your other fundamental error is assuming that Australia not being a "republic" has any bearing on how their votes work. A republic can be a 1-party dictatorship, for crying out loud!

- About 190

- Too many! No, seriously, there's Judaism (sp?), Catholicism, Prodestantism, Islam(ism?), Bhuddism, Zoerastrianism (that can't be the right spelling!), and Scientology (joke!) - that makes 6, plus or minus a couple

- 40000km ; 3/10 the total (cheat, I know!) ; 20000km^2

- 10 days ; 4 ; depends on the car, but about $200 (Cdn)

Now, with google, the answers are:

- 192 (Including East Timor)

- 22! (I knew there were too many, though that includes the serene rastafarians)

- 40,075.16 km (damn, I was close!) ; 148,300,000 km^2 (technically I was right, because the total is 510100000km^2) ; 9,161,923 km^2 (not even close! I should have known that..)

The final question is a little vague, depending on your driving habits, etc, so I won't bother googling it. Anyway, all of this goes to show you : 1. I'm not qualified to be President of the United States of America, and 2. I'm bored.

Adios,
AC

This is the little known but infamous interview where he claims that Pakistan is a democracy!

According to the CIA, Pakistan is a republic. Of course, both the USA and USSR were republics, so that word is nearly content-free in terms of describing a government. But it is funny in light of the number of forum trolls who claim "The USA is a republic, not a democracy".

OMG do he look incompetent.

Anyone who likes to giggle at presidential incompetence owes it to herself to watch the infamous "tribal sovereignty" video.

Case and point: Name the last 3 tropical cyclones that Mexico and the rest of Central America have had to deal with. You can't can you, without looking it up. And they are our neighbors.

The real problem is there is profit in our isolation. Ignorant people can be controlled. Look at our school systems. 12 years of teaching and you can't immediately tell me where Djibouti is.

But most Americans don't have a clue what is going on. I saw a billboard last night that said, "Remember, it's your money" -- and it was an ad for Bush-Cheney! The administration that insisted tax cuts were the prescription for times of plenty, for times of recession, for times of peace and times of war, has now seen the unwanted side-effects: a languid recovery, and a trillion dollars added to the debt. A budget surplus, the first in modern times, converted instantly to massive deficit.

Sometimes I wonder if there isn't a way to start talking about the debt as the balance on our nation's credit card. Maybe if we put overspending into terms that the average consumer could understand, and stuck to those terms, people could finally start to get it. This country produces $11 trillion of wealth every year, and, through our government, we are $7.4 trillion in debt. Maybe if we start comparing the government to a family that's making $110,000 a year, but is $74,000 in debt, we could have a real national debate about government spending. The question is not whether "it's your money," but whether, being $74,000 in debt, it's a good idea for you to get a brand-new credit card and go rack up another $4,000 on it every year -- as Bush and the Republican Congress are now doing.

Especially when massive, unavoidable costs are just over the horizon.

Grover Norquist has declared his goal of drowning the government in a bathtub, and his way of doing it is to spend it into oblivion. The Republican Party has sold out the country by signing on with this brand of destruction. What it's going to yield is not prosperity and limited government, but anarchy and -- very possibly, in the decades to come -- the end of America as an economically powerful beacon of freedom. When our children are serfs for the wealthy who have bought up the country, when the old are baking to death because we can't afford to buy them air conditioners, when the poor and the sick die alone because we can't provide them with basic health care, when the unregulated food makes us sick and the unregulated drugs are a crapshoot, when half the country will never be able to retire and will be forced to work at McDonald's and Wal-Mart until their bodies fail, I hope people remember the name of Grover Norquist, and who it was that put his theories into practice. One percent of this country will always enjoy all the best things in life, but everyone else will be wondering what it was like before our government was drowned, and if those folks back in the '90s and '00s knew how good they had it.

Did you know that Canada has about 1/30th of the US's population?

Does the CIA know that? Apparently not, as they seem to think it's more like 1/9th (293,027,571 for the US, 32,507,874 for Canada).

Did you know that Canada has about 1/30th of the US's population?

Does the CIA know that? Apparently not, as they seem to think it's more like 1/9th (293,027,571 for the US, 32,507,874 for Canada).

Asnwer this then: 1/5th the gun deaths in Canada compared to the US. We watch your shows, we listen to your music, we buy the same cars, food, etc. Except we have very strict handgun laws, and you don't. We even have the same % of rifle ownership as the US per capita, its just the limited access to handguns and assualt-style semi-automatics that makes up the difference.

Like someone else said, there are far less people in Canada. So lets compare the statistics on an even playing field. 1. In 2001, there were 842 gun deaths in Canada ( source.)
2. In 2002, there were 10857 gun deaths in the United State. ( source.)
3. The population of Canada in 2001 was 30,007,094. ( source.)
4. The (estimated) population of the United States in 2004 is 293,027,571. (source.)

I've done all the hard math, and this is what I came up with:
The United States has 9.765 times the population of that of Canada. So, we multipy Canada's murder rate by that number, and we come up with 8222 gun deaths. Again, the US gun death rate is 10857. While the number is still about 2500 deaths lower for Canada, no statistic can take into account the fact that the US has far more urban areas with more people packed more tightly together than Canada. That is, to say, it's a lot easier to take 4 steps in the US and shoot someone than it is in Northern Alberta... your next door neighbor could be 4 miles away.

You mean another US ally, right?