Slashdot Mirror

Japan spends nearly $50 billion a year on its military (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rank order/2067rank.html). Mitsubishi actually manufactures a custom version of F-15 for the Japanese (defense) air force (http://www.mhi.co.jp/aero/english/productf/b02.ht m). Get your facts straight.

Public counting is the first and the strongest base of democracy. Interestingly enough, it's the first process in humankind where security has been achieved by transparence. And as such, the first open-source philosophy process in human history. Anybody must be able to check the process. Originally, you had to able to count (raised hands). Then, with more candidates, more people voting and anonymous voting process, paper ballots implied you also had to know how to read. Fair enough, as 97% of US people over 15 can read, according to the CIA world factbook (it's doubtful weither the 3% left care at all about politics, blind people left appart). It's a very powerfull process, for each and every vote is publicly checked, and can be checked by anyone (above defined). At best, voting machines let you check the process, but not every single vote anymore, which is waaaay weaker however you take it. Furthermore, this process itself, FOSS machine or not, can only be checked by a ridiculously small and elitist group of people.

Don't forget, they can have backwaters bigger than the US and Europe put together, and still field more modern base than both put together. China is BIG.

Ummm, it's not THAT big. At least in terms of land area (i.e. backwaters). Population-wise, I agree.

Don't forget, they can have backwaters bigger than the US and Europe put together, and still field more modern base than both put together. China is BIG.

Ummm, it's not THAT big. At least in terms of land area (i.e. backwaters). Population-wise, I agree.

In Greece the voting is mandatory. The one who doesn't fulfill her social obligation to be responsible is fined. Greece is the oldest democracy.

First I want to second OpenSecrets.org and VoteSmart. Good sites specific to cadidate/election data.

Really though, the best way to get accurate info I've found is diff articles from different sources covering the same story. All propaganda is based on facts. What you have to do is compare/contrast the different sources to distill where they are the same and where they are different. Then look at the different bits to see if it's speculation, editorial or non-sequitors. Finally, for the bits that are the same and the facts in disupte, I use Wikipedia and The CIA World Factbook to check them out. Failing those I use a google news search.

All media is biased by nature. Articles are just starting points. If you want the truth, you have to get it yourself.

The relationship between the United States and Australia is a simple pimp/bitch relationship and one doesn't have to hold an advanced degree to know who's the bitch in the relationship. With the British, you at least know they have some financial influence her in the states but what arsenals do the Aussies posses besides the Rupert Murdoch empire? Australia is quite pathetic in terms of world standing. Curiously, I'd love to know what percentage of the GDP is generated by Rupert Murdoch companies. Is he the Rockefeller of Australia? Does everyone and their mother try to keep the fat fuck happy?

From observation I have noticed that Australians like to think highly of themselves but the truth is they are nothing more than lap dogs of the US of A. I wonder if they know this and a bit curious as to how they feel about it.

Are you saying that the European social democracies/Germany/France, etc have large budget deficits that America? If so, not by much....

Germany and France are running very substantial budget deficits, well beyond the limits set by the EU.

I would say that budgetarily, they are in BETTER shape than America.

Not so. And on matters other than budget deficits, they fare even worse.

And of course when it comes to quality of life for most of their citizenry, they do much better than America does for most of its citizens.

Which is why, just to pick an example out of the air, tens of thousands of elderly Americans die from lack of air conditioning when there's a brief heat wave, and such a thing could never happen in, for example, France.

Quality of life is a complex thing. I like the quality of life here in Australia, for example, even though our per capita GDP is less than that of the U.S.

But if you stop for a moment ducking economic issues with fuzzy terms like "quality of life":

GDP Per Capita

US: $37,800 (real growth rate: 3.1%)
Germany: $27,600 (real growth rate: -0.1%)
France: $27,500 (real growth rate: 0.1%)

And for comparison

UK: $27,700 (real growth rate: 2.1%)
Australia: $28,900 (real growth rate: 2.8%)

Moderate budgetary deficits aren't really an issue if your economy is growing. France's economy isn't. France:

The tax burden remains one of the highest in Europe (43.8% of GDP in 2003). The current economic slowdown and inflexible budget items have pushed the 2003 deficit to 4% of GDP, above the EU's 3% debt limit.

I'll just note in passing that Australia has good public education and health care, a higher per-capita GDP than these three major European economies, and economic growth close to that of the U.S. (And we didn't have a recession either.) And we're very much pro free trade, and very much not economic "neoliberals" (socialists).

Data from CIA World Fact Book, but you're free to cite your own sources.

Your claim that other socialist economies are "more vibrant than the U.S." is crap. You, like Cryofan, are clueless about socialism (you're probably the same person I replied to here).

Go look in the CIA World Factbook at the growth rates and (especially) per-capita GDP of all your socialist nations. Compare them to the U.S.. Come back and try again

The U.S. has 3.1% real GDP growth with a $37,800 per-capita GDP.

How about Britain? 2.1% real GDP growth, $27,700 per-capita GDP.

Sweden? 1.6% real GDP growth, $26,800 per-capita GDP.

Germany? HO HO, look at this! -0.1% real GDP growth! And a $27,600 per-capita GDP.

Switzerland ain't doing too well either, with -0.3% real GDP growth and $32,800 per-capita GDP.

Even Canada pales. 1.6% real GDP growth, $29,700 per-capita GDP.

Look retard, I have just taken all your examples of socialism and shown you that they pale in comparison to the U.S.'s generally-capitalist economy -- and our economy, IMO (and in the opinion of John Kerry and various private corporate economists, like Morgan Stanley's Stephen Roach) is in the shitter.

We could be doing much better, and in a couple years, we will as the natural business cycle brings us back into better growth. Even so, we're beating our EU counterparts.

What do you have to say now, hmmm?

Your claim that other socialist economies are "more vibrant than the U.S." is crap. You, like Cryofan, are clueless about socialism (you're probably the same person I replied to here).

Go look in the CIA World Factbook at the growth rates and (especially) per-capita GDP of all your socialist nations. Compare them to the U.S.. Come back and try again

The U.S. has 3.1% real GDP growth with a $37,800 per-capita GDP.

How about Britain? 2.1% real GDP growth, $27,700 per-capita GDP.

Sweden? 1.6% real GDP growth, $26,800 per-capita GDP.

Germany? HO HO, look at this! -0.1% real GDP growth! And a $27,600 per-capita GDP.

Switzerland ain't doing too well either, with -0.3% real GDP growth and $32,800 per-capita GDP.

Even Canada pales. 1.6% real GDP growth, $29,700 per-capita GDP.

Look retard, I have just taken all your examples of socialism and shown you that they pale in comparison to the U.S.'s generally-capitalist economy -- and our economy, IMO (and in the opinion of John Kerry and various private corporate economists, like Morgan Stanley's Stephen Roach) is in the shitter.

We could be doing much better, and in a couple years, we will as the natural business cycle brings us back into better growth. Even so, we're beating our EU counterparts.

What do you have to say now, hmmm?

Your claim that other socialist economies are "more vibrant than the U.S." is crap. You, like Cryofan, are clueless about socialism (you're probably the same person I replied to here).

Go look in the CIA World Factbook at the growth rates and (especially) per-capita GDP of all your socialist nations. Compare them to the U.S.. Come back and try again

The U.S. has 3.1% real GDP growth with a $37,800 per-capita GDP.

How about Britain? 2.1% real GDP growth, $27,700 per-capita GDP.

Sweden? 1.6% real GDP growth, $26,800 per-capita GDP.

Germany? HO HO, look at this! -0.1% real GDP growth! And a $27,600 per-capita GDP.

Switzerland ain't doing too well either, with -0.3% real GDP growth and $32,800 per-capita GDP.

Even Canada pales. 1.6% real GDP growth, $29,700 per-capita GDP.

Look retard, I have just taken all your examples of socialism and shown you that they pale in comparison to the U.S.'s generally-capitalist economy -- and our economy, IMO (and in the opinion of John Kerry and various private corporate economists, like Morgan Stanley's Stephen Roach) is in the shitter.

We could be doing much better, and in a couple years, we will as the natural business cycle brings us back into better growth. Even so, we're beating our EU counterparts.

What do you have to say now, hmmm?

Your claim that other socialist economies are "more vibrant than the U.S." is crap. You, like Cryofan, are clueless about socialism (you're probably the same person I replied to here).

Go look in the CIA World Factbook at the growth rates and (especially) per-capita GDP of all your socialist nations. Compare them to the U.S.. Come back and try again

The U.S. has 3.1% real GDP growth with a $37,800 per-capita GDP.

How about Britain? 2.1% real GDP growth, $27,700 per-capita GDP.

Sweden? 1.6% real GDP growth, $26,800 per-capita GDP.

Germany? HO HO, look at this! -0.1% real GDP growth! And a $27,600 per-capita GDP.

Switzerland ain't doing too well either, with -0.3% real GDP growth and $32,800 per-capita GDP.

Even Canada pales. 1.6% real GDP growth, $29,700 per-capita GDP.

Look retard, I have just taken all your examples of socialism and shown you that they pale in comparison to the U.S.'s generally-capitalist economy -- and our economy, IMO (and in the opinion of John Kerry and various private corporate economists, like Morgan Stanley's Stephen Roach) is in the shitter.

We could be doing much better, and in a couple years, we will as the natural business cycle brings us back into better growth. Even so, we're beating our EU counterparts.

What do you have to say now, hmmm?

Your claim that other socialist economies are "more vibrant than the U.S." is crap. You, like Cryofan, are clueless about socialism (you're probably the same person I replied to here).

Go look in the CIA World Factbook at the growth rates and (especially) per-capita GDP of all your socialist nations. Compare them to the U.S.. Come back and try again

The U.S. has 3.1% real GDP growth with a $37,800 per-capita GDP.

How about Britain? 2.1% real GDP growth, $27,700 per-capita GDP.

Sweden? 1.6% real GDP growth, $26,800 per-capita GDP.

Germany? HO HO, look at this! -0.1% real GDP growth! And a $27,600 per-capita GDP.

Switzerland ain't doing too well either, with -0.3% real GDP growth and $32,800 per-capita GDP.

Even Canada pales. 1.6% real GDP growth, $29,700 per-capita GDP.

Look retard, I have just taken all your examples of socialism and shown you that they pale in comparison to the U.S.'s generally-capitalist economy -- and our economy, IMO (and in the opinion of John Kerry and various private corporate economists, like Morgan Stanley's Stephen Roach) is in the shitter.

We could be doing much better, and in a couple years, we will as the natural business cycle brings us back into better growth. Even so, we're beating our EU counterparts.

What do you have to say now, hmmm?

Your claim that other socialist economies are "more vibrant than the U.S." is crap. You, like Cryofan, are clueless about socialism (you're probably the same person I replied to here).

Go look in the CIA World Factbook at the growth rates and (especially) per-capita GDP of all your socialist nations. Compare them to the U.S.. Come back and try again

The U.S. has 3.1% real GDP growth with a $37,800 per-capita GDP.

How about Britain? 2.1% real GDP growth, $27,700 per-capita GDP.

Sweden? 1.6% real GDP growth, $26,800 per-capita GDP.

Germany? HO HO, look at this! -0.1% real GDP growth! And a $27,600 per-capita GDP.

Switzerland ain't doing too well either, with -0.3% real GDP growth and $32,800 per-capita GDP.

Even Canada pales. 1.6% real GDP growth, $29,700 per-capita GDP.

Look retard, I have just taken all your examples of socialism and shown you that they pale in comparison to the U.S.'s generally-capitalist economy -- and our economy, IMO (and in the opinion of John Kerry and various private corporate economists, like Morgan Stanley's Stephen Roach) is in the shitter.

We could be doing much better, and in a couple years, we will as the natural business cycle brings us back into better growth. Even so, we're beating our EU counterparts.

What do you have to say now, hmmm?

You obviously don't know a damn thing about socialism, or economics in general for that matter.

Look at GDP growth rates. Why isn't Sweden -- a socialist's best and most-often cited real-world reference for modern socialism -- growing as quickly economically as the U.S.?

Why is it that Sweden has a lower per-capita GDP than the U.S., despite our current period of relative economic stagnation?

Go cogitate, young padawan.

You obviously don't know a damn thing about socialism, or economics in general for that matter.

Look at GDP growth rates. Why isn't Sweden -- a socialist's best and most-often cited real-world reference for modern socialism -- growing as quickly economically as the U.S.?

Why is it that Sweden has a lower per-capita GDP than the U.S., despite our current period of relative economic stagnation?

Go cogitate, young padawan.

How about the facts that:

* under Chairman Mao in China, 35m intellectuals died as a result of the "Great Leap Forward".

* under Hitler (leader of the National Socialists (Nazi) Party), 6m Jews died

* under Stalin (leader of the United Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR)), over 20m people died

These are all unrefuted facts. Notice also, that by strict economic definition, these were all socialist economies. They were all state-run, command economies -- that is the very definition of socialism.

This study shows that governments -- particularly Marxist/communist/socialist governments have killed about 120,000,000 people during the 20th century. 120 million.

Why is it that socialist nations tend to be totalitarian? Perhaps it is because in order to get the economy to be productive (rather than having people loaf around on their welfare checks), the state must force those people to work?

And why is it that socialist nations which do not use such force, generally -- such as Sweden -- have low rates of economic and technological growth compared to capitalist nations? (please see the CIA World Factbook).

I am quite aware of what socialism is. I have been studying economics for a few years now.

I have a better idea. Rather than me telling you what socialism is, why don't you go read The Road to Serfdom , then come back and tell me why socialism is a good thing?

Seems with such the over 50% M/F gender ratio, they'd _want_ such content to be available instead of having a bunch of frustrated guys running around causing trouble.

When you have the ultra rich not paying taxes AND lobbying to pay FEWER taxes, then you have wealth concentrating in the upper levels.

For an actual statistic that supports this, take a look at the GINI index, which represents income inequality. Here's a CIA comparison of GINI numbers a few years ago, with which you should keep in mind that the current GINI index of the US is currently 46.6 and showing no signs of stabilizing.

I think you make some great points. But some of your facts seem a bit off.

From your post, someone might come to the conclusion that China is OPEC's biggest customer; while in fact it isn't even close. Alternatively, you may have meant that the EU plus China combined would be OPEC's biggest customer; and, were it not for the role of Russia in European imports, this would likely be so. Nevertheless, I support your conclusion that the potential role of euros in central bank holdings has worrying implications for the ability of the US to acquire cheap oil. However I suspect that oil production will peak long before the euro threat becomes an issue.

For detailed information on imports and exports, the standard reference is the BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2004.

Also, you might want to check those population figures for china and the US. A good reference is the CIA World Fact Book 2004.

We cannot build or use military facilities in Bosnia.

What does that have to do with liberation? Are you saying that the path to democracy requires that the US has a military facility in the country?

We have nothing to show for our work in Bosnia.

We have alot to show for it. The ethnic cleansing stopped. Before the UN action, tens-of-thousands were murdered and hundreds-of-thousands were forced from their homes.

And Bosnia is now holds Democratic Elections.

Readers are encouraged to rent and view this documentary (Wag the Dog).

You do realize that most of the actors in that movie are democrats, right?

have created an ally in the middle of the Middle East.

Iraq is rife with terrorists, Chaos still reigns, most Iraqis want the US to leave their country immediately. How acn you call that an "Ally".

Also funny is the inclusion of Brunei, whose Sultan is the richest man in the world, last time I heard.

> What I meant was "since your figures are so completely wrong, I don't know wher eyou could possibly have gotten them" ... "top making things up at random"

I hate to be blunt, but are you trolling? Here, lets give you 2004 figures: USA, Britain. Surely you can do this on your own. Oh, and here's a basic primer on healthcare costs internationally; I can get you as many refs as you want.

So, again, I must ask: Are you trolling, or are you really both that belligerant and ignorant at the same time?

> The company I am CTO of provides the software which does insurance claims processing

I may not be the CTO of a medical software company, but I used to do small custom software projects for a medical billing office in Terre Haute, IN. So I'm quite familiar with how they go after people who they think can pay.

I suggest, given your position, you read a primer about the behavioral consequences of people who are uninsured when it comes to seeking treatment. The highlights of one referenced survey of physicians: 97 percent said uninsured patients are having a more difficult time getting access to primary care and therefore are coming first to emergency departments. 94 percent said uninsured patients often have medical conditions that have persisted or worsened because of a lack of early intervention or preventive care. 71 percent said uninsured patients tend to be sicker and have more serious medical conditions than patients with health coverage. 95 percent said uninsured patients are less likely to receive recommended health screening services. 93 percent said uninsured patients lack regular access to medications needed to manage conditions like hypertension or diabetes. 93 percent said it is more difficult arranging or securing follow-up care for an uninsured patient with a serious medical problem than for a patient with health coverage. I suggest you also take note of the referenced studies, which include the fact that unfunded nonfederal hospital care totaled 35 billion in 2001, but the federal government covered 85% of it, which would leave the hospitals with 5.25 billion dollars of liability - a relatively small amount. To put it into perspective, Shriners Hospitals alone spent over half a billion dollars just to fix the Y2K problem . And we're just talking about writing off expenses for hospitals here; the situation isn't so kind for, say, prescription drugs. Imagine, though - the CTO of a medical software community accusing a person of "making up" the life expectancies of Americans, when a simple look at probably the most basic country reference (the CIA world factbook) - among pretty much every other source as well - shows the exact same thing. And seemingly unaware of the costs of our system. If you don't know even the most basic things about the cost and quality of American healthcare, what on earth are you doing with your position?

> What I meant was "since your figures are so completely wrong, I don't know wher eyou could possibly have gotten them" ... "top making things up at random"

I hate to be blunt, but are you trolling? Here, lets give you 2004 figures: USA, Britain. Surely you can do this on your own. Oh, and here's a basic primer on healthcare costs internationally; I can get you as many refs as you want.

So, again, I must ask: Are you trolling, or are you really both that belligerant and ignorant at the same time?

> The company I am CTO of provides the software which does insurance claims processing

I may not be the CTO of a medical software company, but I used to do small custom software projects for a medical billing office in Terre Haute, IN. So I'm quite familiar with how they go after people who they think can pay.

I suggest, given your position, you read a primer about the behavioral consequences of people who are uninsured when it comes to seeking treatment. The highlights of one referenced survey of physicians: 97 percent said uninsured patients are having a more difficult time getting access to primary care and therefore are coming first to emergency departments. 94 percent said uninsured patients often have medical conditions that have persisted or worsened because of a lack of early intervention or preventive care. 71 percent said uninsured patients tend to be sicker and have more serious medical conditions than patients with health coverage. 95 percent said uninsured patients are less likely to receive recommended health screening services. 93 percent said uninsured patients lack regular access to medications needed to manage conditions like hypertension or diabetes. 93 percent said it is more difficult arranging or securing follow-up care for an uninsured patient with a serious medical problem than for a patient with health coverage. I suggest you also take note of the referenced studies, which include the fact that unfunded nonfederal hospital care totaled 35 billion in 2001, but the federal government covered 85% of it, which would leave the hospitals with 5.25 billion dollars of liability - a relatively small amount. To put it into perspective, Shriners Hospitals alone spent over half a billion dollars just to fix the Y2K problem . And we're just talking about writing off expenses for hospitals here; the situation isn't so kind for, say, prescription drugs. Imagine, though - the CTO of a medical software community accusing a person of "making up" the life expectancies of Americans, when a simple look at probably the most basic country reference (the CIA world factbook) - among pretty much every other source as well - shows the exact same thing. And seemingly unaware of the costs of our system. If you don't know even the most basic things about the cost and quality of American healthcare, what on earth are you doing with your position?

Terrorist Busters!

-- The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

-- The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country.

-- The term "terrorist group" means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.

You could add:

5. Most of north korea is useless rugged mountain terrain and nobody would live there or have electric service anyway.

But that's not really why. If you read the CIA world fact book entry you will see just how fuxxored they are, due to inept and corrupt government. GDP per capita is less than most Californians spend JUST on their electric service. Does that put it in perspective?

Could you eat and keep a roof over your head for a year on $1000? I'll bet one could collect more than that on a freeway offramp in a week or two. Makes you feel a bit spoiled when all you have to complain about is GWB and his dept of homeland terro... er secutiry, eh?

Would they be wrong if they said The Bahamas?

Well, more to the point, indicating that a region that is in dispute is, in fact, in dispute seems like a poor reason to come down on MS. This was just Indian sensitivity to software pointing out the facts. Dumb marketing move, but MS was clearly correct.

Here's a reference to the CIA World Factbook map which shows the disputed region.

Troll? The parent comment wasn't intended to offend anyone.
For what it's worth: I found it interesting to compare the photo to this political map of the world. Thanks to Futurepower(R) for a much better map of India and a more knowledgable explanation of the dark patch.

:)
From the same organization that gave you the No-Fly List: Information on Liechtenstein.
In german it is called a Kingdom, but they indeed have (just) a Prince

Cool info site BTW

Canada shares 8893 kilometers of border with the U.S. We have a population of 32,507,874. If you are correct and 90% of our population is within 100 miles of your border, that gives us at most an area of 55,250 square miles, or approximately 52.95 people per square mile in the 'inhabited area'. The U.S., by contrast, has an area of 3,537,424 square miles and a population of 293,027,571, or approximately 82.84 people per square mile.

Now, not all of the border is entirely straight, though most of it is. As a result, we may have slightly more than 52.95 people per square mile in our inhabited area.

These numbers are all available from your government here.

In other words, the U.S. has a much higher population density than Canada and should therefore have a higher market penetration of broadband.

Not even close. At 547,030 square kilometers, France is less than 80% as large as Texas (at 696,241 square kilometers). In the words of the CIA World Factbook, it's "slightly less than twice the size of Colorado".

or that Alaska alone is larger than most of Western Europe.

I'll give you that one. All of Europe covers 3,837,081 square kilometers, while Alaska is roughly half as big at 1,717,854 square kilometers.

Distances here in the US tend to be... large. It's an 1100 mile (~1850km) drive each direction to my in-laws' house. We just got back from a quick weekend trip to a friend's house in an adjacent state which was 450 miles (~750km) each way (but we got to see Mt. Rushmore, The Badlands, The Black Hills, and Wall Drug).

According to your reference, Puerto Rico doesn't have independence.

"Independence: none (commonwealth associated with the US)"

Puerto Rico: Come Vist America's Other Bitch.(tm)*

*(not to be confused with other American bitches, notably Guam, American Samoa, etc)

Sorry, but the United States is in border disputes with a couple of countries, including Canada, the CIA Factbook is a great place for info like this, granted our border disputes have nothing on the Kashmir disputes, but they're there all the same.

Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth associated with the US, not owned by the US.

definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 97%
male: 97%
female: 97% (1979 est.)

Artic Ocean, not alaskan ocean, and yes, it does exist.

"The data cover government and private bank debt owed to foreign investors, governments, banks and monetary authorities."

Today a family is skitting just abouve poverty with two fulltime jobs, no vacations and just make shure you don't catch a cold or else: there goes an income and 2-300 bucks for meds...

I assume you're describing life on Mars or some such, since what you just described bears precious little resemblance to life here in the US.

The French and Germans.. ..productivity per capita is actually higher than in the USA.

No it isn't.

USA: Unemployment 6.2%, GDP per capita $37,800
France: Unemployment 9.6%, GDP per capita $27,500
Germany: Unemployment 10.7%, GDP per capita $27,600

Those numbers are from the CIA World Factbook. Obviously the details fluctuate, but you get the idea.

On the one hand, it's a city devoted to chess. On the other hand, it's in the UAE, which make it easy to build when you're playing with the oil money that should go back to the people. See here for the severe lack of democracy source.

This is starting to sound like Communism.

oh, Red China is still a communist, last time I checked the CIA Fact.

I see... Nothing new here, move along.

the latest estimates suggest that 80 percent of the world's available oil and 95 percent of its gas remain underground.

There will be days when earth will run off oil reserves but I think that 80 percents of oil it is not like running out of it.

so it depends on how one compute and which factors one get into consideration In short term the shortage will occure due to lack of sufficient working facilities - but it does have few common with running out of oil in general

Back then, Democracy meant exactly what the parent poster said. In those times, the populations were small enough to get a true Democracy to actually work.

According to the CIA World Factbook the government of the United States is a "Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition".

The operative word there is " republic", "a country without a king or queen, usually governed by elected representatives of the people and a president". In the US, the head of the republic is chosen by indirect democratic means. That very delegation to have the country run by a president rather than by direct choice of the people is what makes the US a Republic rather than a direct Democracy.

Before you start mouthing off about people misusing terms, you really should look those terms up yourself.

We didn't have a revolution, but still have at least the promise of decent Olympics coverage. That's the theory, anyway: the last couple of times have been dominated by talking heads, cutesy "background" spots (especially the Sydney Olympics), and general chatter about almost everything but sports.

They also had a nasty habit of telling us that Canadians placed 5th, 10th and 21st, but never told who actually won.

...laura

We would just bomb them

Anyone know of a large island that is well connected to the Internet?

Niue might not be large (check the stats on CIA site), but it's beautiful and THE WHOLE AREA is covered by freely accessible Wi-Fi network. Plus - they have cool Net domain ".nu". Just think - GNU colony could have the website g.nu!

According to the World Factbook, world literacy is approximately seventy-nine percent.

The United States is sixty-sixth in literacy, with ninety-seven percent literacy.

I just returned from a trip to Norway and Svalbard.
Just for fun, I pulled up Slashdot on my Treo 600.
Surprisingly, both Telenor and Norway NetCom had very good GSM/GPRS coverage in and around Longyearbyen (the main city on Svalbard, pop. ~1500). I think this is probably the northernmost GSM service area in the world, at 78 degrees north.

-j