Slashdot Mirror

I'm sure this is just another obvious tactic to get more military funding from an already-overstretched federal government

National security isn't a bad way to spend money, Also consider that the military gets around 3.2% of the federal budget. Check it out

AND... China spent this money even though large numbers of people in their own country struggle in abject poverty.

This is true. Sadly.

AND ...China spends a larger percentage of their GDP on the military than the US. According to the US government docs I could find, the US spends 4% of their GDP on their military. China spends 68-80 billion a year, which, although less money than spent by the US, is a significantly larger percentage of their GDP than US spending is.

Your figure is quite wrong. According to People Daily. The military budget for 2002 is around 166.2 billion yuan, while their estimated GDP for 2002 is around 10.217 trillion yuan. Therefore China only spends around 1.62% GDP on military.

While US spent US$343.2 billion on military out of US$10.4 GDP, which is 3.3% GDP on military - more than a double whereas in China.

What planet are you from?

I can tell from you nearly fictional facts and figures we are definitely not living in the same planet or dimension. :)

A rocket? Capsule? Training? What a waste of money.

Think about it. According to the CIA Factbook China has about 1,286,975,468 people. Figure the average person is 5' tall and you've got 1,218,726 miles worth of people. The moon at apogee is about 251,655 miles away, so they've got enough people to build a ladder to the moon with a nice stable base, even figuring in the inevitable attrition. Hell, take a look at the prototype. Just start passing up building supplies and poof! Instant colony!

What are musical instruments, cameras, consumer electronics and cars made from? Lots of ingenuity and a (relatively) small amount of natural resources.

Indeed, the CIA World Factbook says this of Japan - "among world's largest and technologically advanced producers of motor vehicles, electronic equipment, machine tools, steel and nonferrous metals, ships, chemicals; textiles, processed foods". All of those things require large doses of ingenuity.

Let's look at their imports: "machinery and equipment, fuels, foodstuffs, chemicals, textiles, raw materials". Those imports, plus their ingenuity produces wealth.

If they had indigenous supplies of those things, they wouldn't need to import them. But they'd still need them to produce wealth.

--

There's still very rural places in the most densely populated areas. Just go from Helsinki to Espoo and admire all the farm houses and fields. Finland is quite spacious where everyone lives in the "lande", even the cocky Helsinki-dwellers (even if they won't admit it).

More information about Finland here and here.

"There will no longer be enough space or water for humans to live comfortably. Every city will be like Tokyo or Mexico City. The Earth will no longer be a nice place to live."

$17M divided by $20K = 850 sensors. Area of US is 9,629,091 sq km (according to the CIA). That's 7,578,834 sq mi. That's one sensor per 8,916 sq mi (11,328 sq km). That's just over the area of New Jersey.

Now, the sensors you propose, at $200 each, could get you 85,000 sensors for $17M. That's one sensor per 892 sq mi -- a bit smaller than Ocean County, NJ.

Not quite "every couple of miles", but not too bad. Still, I'd have to think the radar might return more data points anyway, sweeping across the landscape as they do. Plus, it couldn't cost much to add a package of temp/humidity/wind/etc. to each radar, which, while not 85,000 locations, wouldn't be bad either. And I'd have to guess those radars can cover at least a New Jersey each.

Believe it or not the native born population of the US is still increasing. Here it gives the following statistics (estimated for 2003) for the US:
- birth rate: 14.14
- death rate: 8.44
- migration rate: 3.52
- fertility rate: 2.07 children per woman

In much of Europe though, things really are much different. In Italy and Germany the death rate is higher than the birth rate, while the average woman has much less than two children. Some countries like Bulgaria have it even worse with a death rate almost twice the birth rate in addition to a net negative migration. The populations of all of these countries look like they will either drop or remain stable for the foreseeable future.

Even from just my personal observations (I grew up in California, but live in Germany), it's noticable that there are a lot more elderly people here. In the US, it's not unusual at all to see families with 3 kids. Here, it's rare for anybody to have more than 2 and I would guess it's most common to just have 1 child now.

I've heard different reactions to this from all sorts of different people. Several Germans told me it's expensive to have kids or that a lot of people feel they have to either choose a career or a family. I remember this Pakistani guy saying something like "You know, they must really not like children in Germany. In Pakistan, everybody loves kids; they're everywhere". I don't think that Germans hate kids, but I think his comments show that the perception of children and their role in life is different in Europe than in North America or the rest of the world.

Believe it or not the native born population of the US is still increasing. Here it gives the following statistics (estimated for 2003) for the US:
- birth rate: 14.14
- death rate: 8.44
- migration rate: 3.52
- fertility rate: 2.07 children per woman

In much of Europe though, things really are much different. In Italy and Germany the death rate is higher than the birth rate, while the average woman has much less than two children. Some countries like Bulgaria have it even worse with a death rate almost twice the birth rate in addition to a net negative migration. The populations of all of these countries look like they will either drop or remain stable for the foreseeable future.

Even from just my personal observations (I grew up in California, but live in Germany), it's noticable that there are a lot more elderly people here. In the US, it's not unusual at all to see families with 3 kids. Here, it's rare for anybody to have more than 2 and I would guess it's most common to just have 1 child now.

I've heard different reactions to this from all sorts of different people. Several Germans told me it's expensive to have kids or that a lot of people feel they have to either choose a career or a family. I remember this Pakistani guy saying something like "You know, they must really not like children in Germany. In Pakistan, everybody loves kids; they're everywhere". I don't think that Germans hate kids, but I think his comments show that the perception of children and their role in life is different in Europe than in North America or the rest of the world.

Believe it or not the native born population of the US is still increasing. Here it gives the following statistics (estimated for 2003) for the US:
- birth rate: 14.14
- death rate: 8.44
- migration rate: 3.52
- fertility rate: 2.07 children per woman

In much of Europe though, things really are much different. In Italy and Germany the death rate is higher than the birth rate, while the average woman has much less than two children. Some countries like Bulgaria have it even worse with a death rate almost twice the birth rate in addition to a net negative migration. The populations of all of these countries look like they will either drop or remain stable for the foreseeable future.

Even from just my personal observations (I grew up in California, but live in Germany), it's noticable that there are a lot more elderly people here. In the US, it's not unusual at all to see families with 3 kids. Here, it's rare for anybody to have more than 2 and I would guess it's most common to just have 1 child now.

I've heard different reactions to this from all sorts of different people. Several Germans told me it's expensive to have kids or that a lot of people feel they have to either choose a career or a family. I remember this Pakistani guy saying something like "You know, they must really not like children in Germany. In Pakistan, everybody loves kids; they're everywhere". I don't think that Germans hate kids, but I think his comments show that the perception of children and their role in life is different in Europe than in North America or the rest of the world.

Believe it or not the native born population of the US is still increasing. Here it gives the following statistics (estimated for 2003) for the US:
- birth rate: 14.14
- death rate: 8.44
- migration rate: 3.52
- fertility rate: 2.07 children per woman

In much of Europe though, things really are much different. In Italy and Germany the death rate is higher than the birth rate, while the average woman has much less than two children. Some countries like Bulgaria have it even worse with a death rate almost twice the birth rate in addition to a net negative migration. The populations of all of these countries look like they will either drop or remain stable for the foreseeable future.

Even from just my personal observations (I grew up in California, but live in Germany), it's noticable that there are a lot more elderly people here. In the US, it's not unusual at all to see families with 3 kids. Here, it's rare for anybody to have more than 2 and I would guess it's most common to just have 1 child now.

I've heard different reactions to this from all sorts of different people. Several Germans told me it's expensive to have kids or that a lot of people feel they have to either choose a career or a family. I remember this Pakistani guy saying something like "You know, they must really not like children in Germany. In Pakistan, everybody loves kids; they're everywhere". I don't think that Germans hate kids, but I think his comments show that the perception of children and their role in life is different in Europe than in North America or the rest of the world.

Oh yeah!

I'm sure the 17% of your population who live under the poverty line are really grateful for that.

I always use 90210 for the zipcode (regardless of what company asks)... It either gets a double-take, a question like "can I have your real zipcode",

Yawn, BORING! More interesting Zip Codes:

96943: Yap, Federated States of Micronesia
37863: Pigeon Forge TN (Home of Dollywood)
20505: CIA
92328: Death Valley
80429: Climax, Colorado, highest elevation Post Office.
97834: Halfway, Oregon, also known as "Half.com"
12345: Schenectady, NY
10048: WTC ...and of course the infamous:

17534: Intercourse, but this being Slashdot, I wouldn't expect most to be familiar with that locale.

FYI, Ukraine is not Russia and is very far from being Soviet.

Corporatocracy in Action
Are they connected to Christians In Action?

G/

Has anyone checked out the CIA teddybear? The CIA are showing kids the important work they do.

Well, according to the CIA Factbook, the current population of China is about 1.3 billion. If 10% of the population used computers, that would be about 130 million people, or a little less than half the population of the U.S. and IIRC, about the same number of people as are on the internet here. So yeah, it would be very significant, but it wouldn't exactly eclipse the west.

NuNames, the provider of domain names for the island of Niue, has been doing this for a long time. Is ICANN ask them to stop too?

How totalitarian are you talking about. There's always a misconception that Singapore is being run by a dictator-ish party. Well thats not true at all! We have quite a number of opposition parties here but they never seem to be able to get their election policies right. Why bid for someone else, who have no proven track record? I'm happy under the rule of the PAP (Ruling party since independance) and until they majorly fucked up the country, I will still continue voting for them. We have all the freedoms that you people in the western countries keep trying to push for in the middle-east. We vote, we can get cars, we have religious freedom. If you give me a choice between living in UK or Singapore, I'll say Singapore in a heartbeat. Racism here is at a all-time low, perhaps one of the lowest in the world. I enjoy the culture diversity here. We get to experience malay food, chinese food, european, and many other international cusines. Please, stop reading all the bias news you see on the internet to put up your case against Singapore. You have to be here, to experience it.

The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. -- CIA World Factbook

Yes, the USA as a whole is richer in capital, and poorer for it (Canada too). That's news.

Yes but Canada also has a border with the United States that is 8 893 km long.

That means that the area within 100 miles of the border is

8,893 km = 5 526 miles (converting to evil imperialistic units)
5 526 miles x 100 miles = 552 600 square miles of area.


Lets see you wire broadband in all that ;-)

P.S. I live approx. 600 miles from the U.S. border. And i have broadband at 1.5Mbs for only 35$ Cdn (approx. 25$ U.S.) per month.

But keep this in mind:
85% live within 300 KM of border thanks CIA so that gives a land mass of about 1.8 million km^2, but Japan is less than 400,000 km^2 and has about 4 times the population.

Something else is going on in Canada to explain this other than just population density. My guess is the Cable and Telco battle to gain potential future customers. We get plastered with messages like "Cable modems are better because you don't tie up the phone line", or "DSL lines don't tie up the phone line don't fall for the Cable people's lies".

But keep this in mind:
85% live within 300 KM of border thanks CIA so that gives a land mass of about 1.8 million km^2, but Japan is less than 400,000 km^2 and has about 4 times the population.

Something else is going on in Canada to explain this other than just population density. My guess is the Cable and Telco battle to gain potential future customers. We get plastered with messages like "Cable modems are better because you don't tie up the phone line", or "DSL lines don't tie up the phone line don't fall for the Cable people's lies".

The US still has more internet users than any other country. By about 3 times, actually.

It's a big country, and it's hard to wire it all.

So far the "homeland security" dept. is just that. It's a department. It relies on other agencies (CIA and FBI) to protect the USA against terrorism. The problem is that departments of *any* sort hate working together and because Homeland security has nothing to bargain with except for it's name nothing will happen. Besides the FBI and CIA want to redeem themselves after 9/11.
The cybersecurity part is already handled by the FBI and has been for years. The only danger I can see is if the Homeland Security dept. got control of things like Carnivore. and linked it to 'terroist' db's etc.

Gas in the US is cheaper because it needs to be. We actually have places to go!

Last week I needed to drive from MD to DE to CT to NH. According to the CIA World Factbook the UK is only the size of Oregon - so if you had nowhere to drive to, you'd drive less, and use less gas, so can afford to pay more for it. Seems simple enough to me.

In my (limited) experience Europeans don't quite grasp what it means to drive in the US. Things are 'bigger' here. Look Here and Here. To quote the second link about Norway: "Area - comparative: slightly larger than New Mexico". I tried unsuccessfully to find the total miles/km of paved road in both the US/Norway...

Anyway, fuel has to be cheaper/more-affordable here, residents have further to go. Perhaps not in metropolitan areas; but in rural areas I know folks who drive 100mi/161km for simple groceries. I once used to drive 95mi/150km nightly for a girl (it was worth it). More recently I moved from the central continental US (SD) to Alaska via Canada. I put 2700mi/4345km on two of my vehicles. I didn't mind even paying the $2.50/gal ($.90ca/l) in BC, where I recieved nothing from the fuel surcharges/taxes.

A final plug, maybe people wouldn't mind hugely taxed fuel prices if when we drove ourselves to the hospital our government health insurance paid the majority of our medical bills!

And I like my SuburbanUtilityVehicle (Ford Explorer). A Honda Prius just doesn't bust through a 2ft/.5m snow drift like you'd 'expect' it to, in the middle of a MidWest winter; you don't see alot of Geo Metros in Rural Alaska either... funny.

In short everything is relative. It's not wise to minimize our (US) complaints, when our whole culture/geograpy is different. But I'm sure y'all knew that! :)

In my (limited) experience Europeans don't quite grasp what it means to drive in the US. Things are 'bigger' here. Look Here and Here. To quote the second link about Norway: "Area - comparative: slightly larger than New Mexico". I tried unsuccessfully to find the total miles/km of paved road in both the US/Norway...

Anyway, fuel has to be cheaper/more-affordable here, residents have further to go. Perhaps not in metropolitan areas; but in rural areas I know folks who drive 100mi/161km for simple groceries. I once used to drive 95mi/150km nightly for a girl (it was worth it). More recently I moved from the central continental US (SD) to Alaska via Canada. I put 2700mi/4345km on two of my vehicles. I didn't mind even paying the $2.50/gal ($.90ca/l) in BC, where I recieved nothing from the fuel surcharges/taxes.

A final plug, maybe people wouldn't mind hugely taxed fuel prices if when we drove ourselves to the hospital our government health insurance paid the majority of our medical bills!

And I like my SuburbanUtilityVehicle (Ford Explorer). A Honda Prius just doesn't bust through a 2ft/.5m snow drift like you'd 'expect' it to, in the middle of a MidWest winter; you don't see alot of Geo Metros in Rural Alaska either... funny.

In short everything is relative. It's not wise to minimize our (US) complaints, when our whole culture/geograpy is different. But I'm sure y'all knew that! :)

3) US "H1-B" visas, and related visas, within the US afford much longer than 6 years residency. Our average "H1-B" visa employee has resided in the US for over 14 years. It is very common for "H1-B" visa holders to "reset" their qualification process for "Green Card" application numerous times as they change jobs.

4) Your understanding of how globalized markets work operate is so simplistic that it does not even deserve a USA-Today level of readership. Try applying a little more economic extrapolation to the subject than you learned in freshman economics.

Since the US is a net-importer, and India enjoys numerous protectionist barriers, there is a net flow of wealth from the US into India whereas global trade and commerce are concerned.

Unfortunately this list is politicaly charged, in many cases blatantly made up, and frankly, a list of non-stories. As someone quite opposed to censorship, I was very dissapointed to not see any censored stories. These people are giving the anti-censorship movement a bad name.

My counters are not to the poster that put them here for /. reader usage, but to the list creators. I realize I am harsh here, but to use the mantle of censorship exposure to touts personal political opinions that have nothing to do with censorship ticks me off.

#1: Is this any different than the "Progressive" plan for global dominance? Second Superpower ring a bell to anyone? All political idealogues want to dominate everyone's politics, laws and morals.
#2: This is censored? Most days I have trouble finding news coverage that doesn't cover "Homeland Security".
#3: Which Iraqi report? I'm fairly sure with the war and all that the US has probably had hundreds, if not thousands of reports generated on Iraq. Chances are pretty good that most of them have been edited, just like my own reports for college were.
#4: How this can be anything other than propaganda I don't know. Are we supposed to go back to ignoring them like we did under Clinton? USS Cole, Embassies in Africa, Apartment buildings, 9/11 were all results of non-action about terrorists.
#5: We finally have something that has a gain of credibility. Unfortunately this story is out of date by over a century. Since anti-union measures have been reported by the media, it's not censorship.
#6: This is so ambigous as to be meaningless. Are we referring to library filters? That was certainly reported. What about DRM attempts by big business? Disney's attempts were promptly squashed in Congress when the people got hold of that attempt.
#7: Hm, the only treaty we "Busted" was the one that kept us from developing an anti-missle defense. And that one was busted with full notice to Russia. It also made worldwide news for months - thus not censored. Perhaps there referring to Kyoto which we have never approved?
#8: These are illegal? Says who? Not only that, but I certainly heard about their use, so it's not censored.
#9: West of China, North of Pakistan, East of Iran, South of Turkmenistan, South of Uzbekistan, and South of Tajikistan. Perhaps they need an atlas?
#10: Really, near as I can tell most of the world is content to ignore Africa, and I can't think of anybody who would want to invade it. I'm also not aware of any countries setting up colonies anywhere, much less Africa. I will give though that a story broke about China and India talking about colonizing the moon in a decade, but that's a pretty long ways from Africa.
#11: What massacare? We seem to be giving them pretty good treatment compared to the other countries they could face and they know it. Even the ones released from Guantameno have told people that.
#12: There have been some stories about corporate right to free speach that made the news (Telemarketers are suing over do not call list), so how is this censored? As for Corporate Personhood, that story is more than a few years old, and certainly made the news.
#13: Would this be the green self deactiving landmines they are developing or the lead free bullets that are being developed? How about the next generation HUMVEE which will be a hybrid - our best chance of getting real Hybrid technology researched for the masses?
#14: I've heard of a lot of unwanted refugess trying to get into Britain, Australia and the US - hey aren't those the evil bad repressive countries?
#15: Really, I recall the failed military couple making worldwide news. Bush was behind it? Is this like the CIA distributing crack in poor neighborhoods to make sure Blacks are repressed?
#16: We finally have a real reference. I hope they have some facts to back this up, their not batting very good so far, and

Costa Rica has no regular, indegenous military forces. However, that doesn't mean that it is without defense. It does have the Fuerza Publica and the Coast Guard. It also has a fully functioning police force. Additionally, since the mid 50's it has had an "in force" treaty with the United States in which the U.S. would provide it military articles and services. The government of Costa Rica does have a military budget, or at least a budget to procure weapons. In FY99 Costa Rica spent $69 million (US) on what the CIA terms a "military expenditure".

Perhaps Costa Rica does not require a military, and that is nice. That simply means that Costa Rica will have to rely on other nations to provide its security in dire consequences.

Technology such as this would save lives, not destroy them. Im a cruz missle with a perfect radar is fired, there is 0% chance of it hitting a neighboring hospital.

Don't underestimate human error. When the US hit the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade it was not because our bombs were not precise enough. It was ultimately human error and the Chinese Embassy was mistakenly targetted.

Our weapons may get better and better but ultimately there are humans making many decisions under lots of pressure and tight deadlines. Essentially humans will become (if they are not already) the weakest link in the chain of destruction that any military operation entails.

I was thinking the same thing. The top prize is $2000. Over four months that's less than $3 an hour. And that's if you win. Screw that.

I estimate that for over half the world's population, it's over half a year's per-capita income. (Per capita GDP by country here. )

While you are unlikely to do this purely for the money you live in a rich, industrialized country, for you, the resume item is easily worth the effort. And what the heck, even if you don't win, you are going to learn enough to make it worthwhile.

Wrong again, Anonymous Coward. Most Indians don't learn English, until University.

CIA Factbook

Only 59.5% are literate. I like those odds, my friend.

One place to start would be the CIA World Fact Book. Scroll down to Economy. Some of the relevant stats are the GDP-Composition by Sector and Labor Force by Occupation.

Just for example here's three countries:

United States:
GDP - composition by sector:
agriculture: 2%
industry: 18%
services: 80% (2002)

Labor force - by occupation:
managerial and professional 31%, technical, sales and administrative support 28.9%, services 13.6%, manufacturing, mining, transportation, and crafts 24.1%, farming, forestry, and fishing 2.4%
note: figures exclude the unemployed (2001)

Japan:
GDP - composition by sector:
agriculture: 1.4%
industry: 30.9%
services: 67.7% (2001 est.)

Labor force - by occupation:
services 70%, industry 25%, agriculture 5% (2002 est.)

Malaysia:
GDP - composition by sector:
agriculture: 12%
industry: 40%
services: 48% (2001)

Labor force - by occupation:
local trade and tourism 28%, manufacturing 27%, agriculture, forestry, and fisheries 16%, services 10%, government 10%, construction 9% (2000 est.)

More people on this planet speak Portuguese than speak French, Russian, Japanese, German, and Italian. There are more English and Spanish speakers, though.

Brazil didn't have a printing press until the 20th century (nor a university, IIRC). The Portuguese colonists did their best to keep the populace uneducated. Brazil was also the last country to end slavery (~1889 or 1899).

Given Brazil's history as one of the poorest and least educated countries (median, not mean), I think it's remarkable they've done so well. As is commonly stated by Brazilians, Brazil is the country of the future. Ordem e Progresso!

There's a lot more to the country than glue-sniffing kids playing with radioactive material and getting shot by the police. As one of my old teachers used to say, "Brazil is not for beginners."

Switzerland
CIA World Factbook entry

Political donations from the movie industry in 2002 (cost of copyrights): $10,498,466

~2,450,000 deaths x SSDB: ~ $624,750,000

Eh, I just checked, and 50 billion Yen equal $US 423 million, not $US 400 billion.

Wow, $US400 billion every year, that would be more than 10% of their total purchasing power (quoting CIA's numbers), and about 90% of their total gross revenue (not yet calculating their expenditure). That would have been some serious fucking spending. But no, they're not spending that many dollars, it's just the story submitter's inability to do math.

You always sound so sure of yourself that I'm sure you must be joking.

the only place that had political history (in the last 500 years), as a Representative Republic, was the United States.

Read the Factbook and youl find that there's many republics in the world. Such as Ireland, Germany, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Republic of the Congo, and many many more (although thcountry in that last link seems likely to lose its "republic" status, considering the forced resignation of thier popularly elected president)

Also, technically the US government is not termed a "Representative Republic", but instead a "Federal Republic" (I'll let you look that one up yourself, now that you know where to look). Representational government is assumed when one is speaking of a republic.

You always sound so sure of yourself that I'm sure you must be joking.

the only place that had political history (in the last 500 years), as a Representative Republic, was the United States.

Read the Factbook and youl find that there's many republics in the world. Such as Ireland, Germany, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Republic of the Congo, and many many more (although thcountry in that last link seems likely to lose its "republic" status, considering the forced resignation of thier popularly elected president)

Also, technically the US government is not termed a "Representative Republic", but instead a "Federal Republic" (I'll let you look that one up yourself, now that you know where to look). Representational government is assumed when one is speaking of a republic.

You always sound so sure of yourself that I'm sure you must be joking.

the only place that had political history (in the last 500 years), as a Representative Republic, was the United States.

Read the Factbook and youl find that there's many republics in the world. Such as Ireland, Germany, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Republic of the Congo, and many many more (although thcountry in that last link seems likely to lose its "republic" status, considering the forced resignation of thier popularly elected president)

Also, technically the US government is not termed a "Representative Republic", but instead a "Federal Republic" (I'll let you look that one up yourself, now that you know where to look). Representational government is assumed when one is speaking of a republic.

You always sound so sure of yourself that I'm sure you must be joking.

the only place that had political history (in the last 500 years), as a Representative Republic, was the United States.

Read the Factbook and youl find that there's many republics in the world. Such as Ireland, Germany, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Republic of the Congo, and many many more (although thcountry in that last link seems likely to lose its "republic" status, considering the forced resignation of thier popularly elected president)

Also, technically the US government is not termed a "Representative Republic", but instead a "Federal Republic" (I'll let you look that one up yourself, now that you know where to look). Representational government is assumed when one is speaking of a republic.

You always sound so sure of yourself that I'm sure you must be joking.

the only place that had political history (in the last 500 years), as a Representative Republic, was the United States.

Read the Factbook and youl find that there's many republics in the world. Such as Ireland, Germany, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Republic of the Congo, and many many more (although thcountry in that last link seems likely to lose its "republic" status, considering the forced resignation of thier popularly elected president)

Also, technically the US government is not termed a "Representative Republic", but instead a "Federal Republic" (I'll let you look that one up yourself, now that you know where to look). Representational government is assumed when one is speaking of a republic.

You always sound so sure of yourself that I'm sure you must be joking.

the only place that had political history (in the last 500 years), as a Representative Republic, was the United States.

Read the Factbook and youl find that there's many republics in the world. Such as Ireland, Germany, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Republic of the Congo, and many many more (although thcountry in that last link seems likely to lose its "republic" status, considering the forced resignation of thier popularly elected president)

Also, technically the US government is not termed a "Representative Republic", but instead a "Federal Republic" (I'll let you look that one up yourself, now that you know where to look). Representational government is assumed when one is speaking of a republic.

You always sound so sure of yourself that I'm sure you must be joking.

the only place that had political history (in the last 500 years), as a Representative Republic, was the United States.

Read the Factbook and youl find that there's many republics in the world. Such as Ireland, Germany, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Republic of the Congo, and many many more (although thcountry in that last link seems likely to lose its "republic" status, considering the forced resignation of thier popularly elected president)

Also, technically the US government is not termed a "Representative Republic", but instead a "Federal Republic" (I'll let you look that one up yourself, now that you know where to look). Representational government is assumed when one is speaking of a republic.

You always sound so sure of yourself that I'm sure you must be joking.

the only place that had political history (in the last 500 years), as a Representative Republic, was the United States.

Read the Factbook and youl find that there's many republics in the world. Such as Ireland, Germany, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Republic of the Congo, and many many more (although thcountry in that last link seems likely to lose its "republic" status, considering the forced resignation of thier popularly elected president)

Also, technically the US government is not termed a "Representative Republic", but instead a "Federal Republic" (I'll let you look that one up yourself, now that you know where to look). Representational government is assumed when one is speaking of a republic.

You always sound so sure of yourself that I'm sure you must be joking.

the only place that had political history (in the last 500 years), as a Representative Republic, was the United States.

Read the Factbook and youl find that there's many republics in the world. Such as Ireland, Germany, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Republic of the Congo, and many many more (although thcountry in that last link seems likely to lose its "republic" status, considering the forced resignation of thier popularly elected president)

Also, technically the US government is not termed a "Representative Republic", but instead a "Federal Republic" (I'll let you look that one up yourself, now that you know where to look). Representational government is assumed when one is speaking of a republic.

They should spend some/all of that money to bring their poverty rate down from 25%! Check out other cool facts on Russia's economy: Click here.
Don't bother clicking the link if you're Russian: In Soviet Russia, link clicks you.

and the argument would be wrong.

1. 40% of the population of india is illiterate
2. 350 million indians live below the poverty line... the indian poverty line
3. the infant mortality is 60/1000
4. annual government revenue last year was $48 billion... and expenditures were $78 billion - for a nice net deficit of 30 big ones.

does that sound even faintly like the united states in 1969?

source: the cia