Slashdot Mirror

I wouldn't rely on information from the CIA World Factbook too much. The problem is mainly that it relies heavily on government sources. You can see this when you compare, for example, the literacy ratings for various countries. Most ex-Soviet countries are listed with 99 or near 99 percent, for example, which is a relic from Soviet times where they claimed the literacy rate to be 100%; they do have excellent literacy, but it's not quite that excellent. Now what sources did they have for Afghanistan? Do they list them anywhere? Are they credible?

Another problem is that some figures are pretty difficult to estimate. Consider "Internet users", for example. For Uzbekistan, for example, it lists 42 ISPs and 7500 Internet users. How on earth did they get that number? What constitutes an "Internet user"? How do they count Internet cafés which are really widespread in the cities of poorer countries, for example? Is an Internet café a single Internet user, or do they count the 100 or 200 regular café users individually? In the first case, the figure means nothing at all, in the second, it's plain wrong from personal experience.

Also, you never know precisely when they collected their data, which, in telecommunications or computing, does make quite a bit of a difference.

In general, be as careful with the CIA factbook as with any other source. In spite of the label, it does not only contain accurate facts, and the label "CIA" does not necessarily imply correctness of information.

Exactly. If you want to help import cocaine into America, sign up with the Cocaine Import Agency. If corporate espionage is your bag, go with the Nationalized Spies from America. Don't waste your time with any of the four branches. They're grunts anyway.

From the CIA the fact book

Taliban uses a plain white flag

How will we know when the try to surrender?

Joe

Isn't it funny that one of Safeweb's main investors is a company controlled by the CIA called In-Q-Tel. Here is Safeweb's investors page.

Take for example, The CIA World Factbook, essentially a full-fledged atlas/almanac published by the CIA, yearly. See the copyright notice on the publication:

The Factbook is in the public domain. Accordingly, it may be copied freely without permission of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Take for example, The CIA World Factbook, essentially a full-fledged atlas/almanac published by the CIA, yearly. See the copyright notice on the publication:

The Factbook is in the public domain. Accordingly, it may be copied freely without permission of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

The pictures are largely of wireless phones, so it's obviously a Control phone, updated for today's most lucrative market.

Sounds just like what you're saying now, IMO. "If we don't stop the [communists/terrorists] this time, they'll go on to [conquer the world/blow up more stuff], so we have to [send in the military/send in the military]".

In any case, I don't give a rat's ass about the moral arguments. If they mattered (other than as propaganda), we would have dragged Saddam out of Baghdad (and not supported him in the first place).

I'm talking about practical chances of success, and that's where the Vietnam analogy fits like a glove. We have no idea where the al Qaeda leaders are hiding. If we start getting close, they can hide in several other countries. And even if we catch them, there's plenty of other guys ready to take their place.

But most importantly, take a look at Vietnam today. They're turning capitalist. They love cell phones and american stuff. We lost with guns; we won with butter.

More propaganda. Islamic militants don't "hate freedom", and all that "Allah commands you" stuff is just there to recruit more Red Shirts.

The leaders do it because American foreign policy often results in a whole bunch of refugee muslims who are willing to be led. If the CIA had kept out of Afghanistan in the 1980s, today it would be another poor but stable former Soviet state (like all of the other *stan's to the north of it).

The War on Terrorism (tm) is going to be just like the War on Drugs.

Area comparative: Slightly smaller than Texas.

Or were you joking?

But, anyway, it's probaby not his fault. Unless a map/atlas is pretty recent, it would not include Slovenia.

Slovenia was a part of the former Yugoslavia and gained it's independence in mid 1991.

It is a small country, bordering with Italy, Austria, Hungry and Croatia, with a small access to the Adriatic Sea.

CIA World Factbook: Slovenia

For those of you who don't know--almost everybody which is exactly why this was so ridiculous--Moncton is the third biggest town in the Canadian province of New Brunswick

... which is the third-smallest province in Canada. ;)

Regarding the states in the US - if you want that granularity, then try naming a few "län" in Sweden?

Sweden GDP for 2000 $197 billion. Contains 24 län. That's $8.2 billion per län.

Maryland GDP for 1999 $175 billion. Contains 23 counties. That's $7.6 billion per county. Figure about $7.9 billion for 2000.
(Most US states have alot more than 24 counties, so Maryland was the closest fit)

$7.9 Billion per county is 96% of 8.2 billion per län. Pretty good match.

I'd bet it's probably easier to find an american who could name a Swedish län than to find a Swede who could name a county in Maryland.

US national news is more comparable in scope to Europe news. National news in a European country is closer in scale to state news in the US.

With people like Mahabir Pun who sets up an hydro-electricity project and gets phone lines to set up computers and internet, it's only a matter of time that with their effort the village reaches the current state of technology. It's always good to hear about people who are doing everything in their means to educate and make things better.

I've always been partial to the Brazilian Flag myself. Maybe not so much the colors, as the concept of the planet integrated in the flag.

From the CIA website (for those that don't like following links):
Flag description: green with a large yellow diamond in the center bearing a blue celestial globe with 27 white five-pointed stars (one for each state and the Federal District) arranged in the same pattern as the night sky over Brazil; the globe has a white equatorial band with the motto ORDEM E PROGRESSO (Order and Progress)

Who remembers Maxwell Smart's shoe-phone from the tv show Get Smart? I do! the Shoe phone @ CIA.GOV and now an excerpt... Operator: "What number are you calling?" Smart: "I'm calling Control, Operator..." Operator: "You have dialed incorrectly. Give me your name and address and your dime will be refunded." Smart: "Operator, I'm calling from my shoe!" Operator: "What is the number of your shoe?" Smart: "It's an unlisted shoe, Operator!"

Roomer Busting site

I leave it up to the reader to read the following articles and put the pieces together for themselves to see the action/reaction balance going on.

US Koran site

CIA report (note religion percentage)

Muslim culture (outside Afganistan):site 1
site 2

Trillion Dollar bet

Problems caused by trillion dollar bet:

abcnews may 98

cnn may 98

Bigger than the Trillion Dollar BET - x3?

Current 2 year US stock market link comparing the DOW with the S&P and most important the NASDAQ. You can tell where the money went and also know what the dot coms were all about.
finance.yahoo.com graph

National Security Agency total system crash finally reported August 29th 2001

Losing freedoms:SSSCA

The RIAA will pay many lobbyists to lobby (pay) for votes in Congress. Congress will then pass a declaration of war against the country of Nevis for IP crime. (Congress will however use the word piracy a lot, leading most newscasts to use stock footage of pirates looting ships on the open seas.)

Thousands of troops will be sent storming into Nevis from the air and seas, and after a 15 minute battle, the Island of Nevis will be no more. Grokster will be shut down.

For more information on Nevis, visit CIA Factbook on Nevis or your local library.

http://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/4253605299/csi981 0001.html

OK 'leet HAXOR types.. looks at the following URL:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/di/products/cncweb/home.h tm

Now judging what we know about directory structure and naming conventions. You might think that it was a list of 'products' featured on the good ol CIA website. What with eCommerce all the rage, and dot-bombs taking a bath, selling stuff on the net is more possible by orgs that are already pretty well established.

Now goto website:

SURPRISE

funny... I didnt know they sold that stuff..

products. maybe we all 'products' of something.

From the CIA website:
Afghanistan Transnational Issues

Disputes - international: support to Islamic militants worldwide by some factions; question over which group should hold Afghanistan's seat at the UN

Illicit drugs: world's largest illicit opium producer, surpassing Burma (potential production in 1999 - 1,670 metric tons; cultivation in 1999 - 51,500 hectares, a 23% increase over 1998); a major source of hashish; increasing number of heroin-processing laboratories being set up in the country; major political factions in the country profit from drug trade.

Then read news from June on Poppy politics:

village voice

And then a link to a news story about how we planned to remove Taleban from June:

US, Russians, India

and to check up on the story. Same story from BBC:

BBC

More like this on my website:

The poster never said that the events at the World Trade Center weren't important, or that 6000 deaths weren't important. They are, but he's right that people need some perspective. Every year in the US approx 2.4 million people die. That's approx 6500 a day. Since 9/11, about 80,000 people have died across the US. Every year, 20,000 people die of AIDS in the US. In New York, approx 2500 people have died since the attack in completely unrelated ways. Since you mention murder, almost 20,000 people have been murdered in the US since 9/11.

A lot of people died, and it is sad. A lot of property was destroyed, and that's sad too. A well known landmark of NYC was levelled and that's sad. But more than sad, most of these things are scary to people who didn't see it coming. But the world is fundamentally the same as it was 2 weeks ago before everything happened. Air travel is far less convenient, Manhattan is drastically changed, but the US has barely changed at all.

I think the map CNN made to show the damage to NYC is neat. It does a good job of showing the scale of the damage. The fact I think the map is neat doesn't mean I don't think the damage is horrible, but I am able to differentiate between the map and the damage itself. I also think SmartMoney's map of the market is neat (http://www.smartmoney.com/marketmap/index.cfm?sho wWeekStats=true). It shows graphically what the market has been doing in the last week. This doesn't mean I think it's neat that the market lost 15% in 1 week, or that the weapons contractors are up; Lockheed Martin is up 10%, General Dynamics is up 10% and Northrop Grumman is up 20%.

Don't confuse the messenger with the message.

Sources: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/, http://www.citypopulation.de/ http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/keytabs.htm

Not only illegal, but also impossible for most of them. From the CIA website, the literacy rate in Afghanistan is sitting at around 30% of the total adult population.

Look, buddy. Your own friggin' government disagrees with you:

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

Scroll down to the section on government.

How would a military dictatorship have prevented the attacks?

Let's hava a look at military dictatorships around the world:

• Libya
• North Korea

Military dictatorships can be good, too:

• Chile

Note that Chile's Military Dictatorship gave way to an elected president in 1990. The CIA report makes it sound like Pinochet (the military leader) was a "good guy". But read stuff like this, and you might think twice.

There are two sides to every story, I guess. But I digress - how would a Military Dictatorship have helped the USA prevent these suicide hijackings? Are you wishing that there could be some "Big Brother" who could watch every move of the "bad people" and control them absolutely, while still allowing you total freedom?

How would a military dictatorship have prevented the attacks?

Let's hava a look at military dictatorships around the world:

• Libya
• North Korea

Military dictatorships can be good, too:

• Chile

Note that Chile's Military Dictatorship gave way to an elected president in 1990. The CIA report makes it sound like Pinochet (the military leader) was a "good guy". But read stuff like this, and you might think twice.

There are two sides to every story, I guess. But I digress - how would a Military Dictatorship have helped the USA prevent these suicide hijackings? Are you wishing that there could be some "Big Brother" who could watch every move of the "bad people" and control them absolutely, while still allowing you total freedom?

How would a military dictatorship have prevented the attacks?

Let's hava a look at military dictatorships around the world:

• Libya
• North Korea

Military dictatorships can be good, too:

• Chile

Note that Chile's Military Dictatorship gave way to an elected president in 1990. The CIA report makes it sound like Pinochet (the military leader) was a "good guy". But read stuff like this, and you might think twice.

There are two sides to every story, I guess. But I digress - how would a Military Dictatorship have helped the USA prevent these suicide hijackings? Are you wishing that there could be some "Big Brother" who could watch every move of the "bad people" and control them absolutely, while still allowing you total freedom?

That very well might be, but allow me to respond.

I do agree that Germany and Japan were both among the strongest economies before the war; however, the destruction wrought was horrendous enough that it largely destroyed the Big Mistake #2. Yes, indeed, they did have a large technical base before hand. But then again, BG#2 did also sap a massive amount of the trained expertise into the infantry and other life shortening branches. The Afghanis are well known, even dreaded, for their abilities as being able to work with technical things, but at poor levels of technological support: repair and maintence of weapons that would nominally require a full out machine shop is the oft cited example. Additionally, not all of the Afghanis that have these skills are wrapped up in the Taliban movement. Based on this story I would say a good number would be tired and willing enough to just get on with their lives.

The CIA world fact book notes that they do have oil, precious and semiprecious stones, natural gas, and numerous industrial mineral deposits. Explotation of these would make it well on its way to pulling itself upwards. Especially if the US were to provide the aid to do so.

Additionally, also noted while reading the WFB that the transport and other basic industrial frameworks are not really there at all. Add these in, again, US aid, and watch this signifigantly help. (C'mon, 24.6 *KM* of railroad?!?!)

Nor do I think that this would be a 30 second in and out job. I think teh war would be somethign long, up to 7 years most likely. The reconstruction and occupation would be another ten. Then we'd phase out of being there. The average Muslim would be a lot less worried about the US if they saw how prosperous we left and indeed DID leave Afghanistan afterwards.

With that intuitive skill base, resources available, and US aid, I think we can work from there. Do NOT get me wrong, I do not think, in reality that Afghanistan would be one of the top 4 economies, but I do think it would be impressively better off than it is now. Even potentially verging on a first world country with 50 years or so of peace afterwards.

Then again, I may be, as you said, just expecting too much. :)

ciao

Even if this were the case, which I dont think it is, this is a terrible idea. Remember what happened to germany after the first world war? They were de-ci-ma-ted. Obliterating a country is a really good way to rally them together and make them desperate enough to listen to ANYONE who promises to make things better. On top of that, the majority of Afghanistanis dont know where New York is (hell, how many Americans know where Afghanistan is?), dont have much influnce upon their government. I recommend The CIA World Factbook 2000 entry for Afghanistan would be an interesting read.

Egypt hasn't tried to "destroy Israel utterly".
They had the option and didn't take it. Remember at in a few hours they destroyed more American built jets (F4 Phantoms) than anyone ever has. At the same time they also trashed more tanks since WWII.

Egypt currently has 750+ M1 tanks as well as a large number of Patroit anti-aircraft weapons systems. Egypt's 70 million people can put together an Army that is twice the total population of Israel according to the cia (I think we can trust this info from them).

If Egypt (well Cairo) is attacked by Israel and any of the old temples or pyramids were damaged, I could see the US support for Isreal to drop very quickly. There are just more metaphysics people in the US than there are Jews.

Lately Egypt has been making noise about the Palistine issues and have made comments that if they have to act, they are not going to quit until Israel is back to its pre 67 borders. Since making such comments, the US has provided additional military support for Egypt. For thouse following with info from the US tv...The pre-67 borders mean Isreal would not have control of Jerusalem and which the Jews feel strongly about.

Of course Egypt has its problems as well. I was almost kicked out of the mesuem at the Citidel. I was in in one of the most elegant halls I've seen with its red velvet carpet, nice wooden panelling and real black marble. One the marble slates they have words about their past leaders. On the last one in gold mylar rub on lettering (in English) it said something like "Egypt will defeat its enemys through the use of seperior artilery". If you go there, don't laugh at it as they may ask you to leave.

I find most Americans have no clue whats going on outside their borders. Its amazing what travel will do to open the mind.

1. Bin Laden comes home to roost - about the militant's CIA training
   
2. Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban - Opinion, references the $43 million in 2001
   
3. $70 million in aid to Afghanistan in 1997 - according to the CIA itself.
   
4. Who is Osama Bin Laden?
   
5. They can't see why they are hated - Opinion
   
6. Arab-Americans feel a backlash
   
7. Arab-American community 'keeping its head down'
   
8. Acts of Terrorism the Ultimate 'Faith-Based Initiative' - Opinion
   
9. Charity receives hate calls
   
10. Falwell says 'ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this'
    

What we need is for Bush to countermand the executive order banning assassinations. This attack was precipitated by one person leading a small organization. Military strikes will cause civilian casualties which make us no better than the terrorists. Assassination isn't brutal in this situation, it's justified.

We might not even have to do it ourselves, if we offer a big enough reward for the heads of those responsible. Would $10 million do? How about $100 million? No matter how dedicated and fanatic your gurads and followers are, for enough money some one will pull it off. $100 million is peanuts compared to the cost of a large military response.

I think the best way for the American people to feel avenged though would be the capture of those responsible followed by a trial, and if found guilty a televised public execution. They talked about it doing that for McVeigh..

So there's no country to go to war with. It's another mess like Bosnia. There are 25 million people in an area the size of Texas, some of whom hate the US and some who don't. Now what?

Read it here.

Hick town eh?

Oh yeah, way out there in Fairfax County.

Funny, we have the NRO, one of the largest airports in the US, an 802.11b wireless network, SGI, a linux users group, and an Intel datacenter, not to mention also having a boatload of linux careers. Oh yeah, and don't forget that MAE-East often gets cut by cows chewing on the fiber out here in hickville. Oh, I forgot some little things like ThinkGeek, NSI, and ARIN.
Oh yeah, and that hick high school is getting me my CCNA.

I'm not even going to mention AOL, Erols, or the CIA.

But you get the picture.

- Cary

Ariane 5 has only failed once before, on its maiden test flight in 1996, the Ariane programme has quite a good record actually, only eight of its 141 missions have ended in failure since its start in 1979. Not too bad a track record considering they lead the commercial launching sector.

The last Arine mission put the birds into too low an orbit, they recovered one but with the result of shortening its life span (had to use up fuel to get it back into acceptable orbit), the other Japanese Bsat-2B bird was a lost cause. Lets just hope they get the Beagle 2 into orbit ok next year.

I'm not French, or colonially French, if I were I'd be bitch about them setting of huge fireworks in French Guiana.

Maybe we can get the Europeans to launch Triana... the House would love that.

Pinoy (and Pinay) means Filipino, not Malaysian. Rather different countries.

I'd imagine they'd use something similar to the Fulton "Skyhook" nose recovery system. Film from the first US spy satellites, the Corona series, returned to Earth in capsules that were retrieved by C-130s as they parachuted down.

Specially designated JC-130s were used to test the concept in the 1960s. The system was also used to pick people up from the ground in-flight. The Air Force retired the system on its MC-130 Combat Talons in 1996.

There are some pretty good photos of Fulton equipped C-130s on this page.

That makes sense for those of us US citizens who might like a home page. .com doesn't work (I'm not a corporation), .net doesn't work (I'm not an ISP), .org doesn't work (I'm not an organization). .us just says "I am in the US somewhere." .us might be nice for us purists who don't want to use the other top-level domains because they don't quite apply.

I (despite the fact I am not catholic) would pay a premium for a .va just because it would be cool. Only 700 people live in Vatican City anyway, so I would think they could sell a .va to me :)

does Michael honestly believe that other countries DON'T have strategic ballistic missles

Actually, they dont.

Not yet, but soon, for North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and lots of other fun-loving dictatorships out there.

Why the hell would you launch it at the US even if you had one?

If nobody is planning to launch nukes at the US or build ICBMs capable of hitting the US, why do they care if the US has an ABM system? The US isn't starting an arms race--they're trying to win the one everybody is already in. China already has 20 or so nukes pointed at the US. What more do you need to realize we're already in an arms race, a few mushroom clouds?

If you want to nuke the US, you get or make a small bomb, like one of the infamous soviet suitcase nukes

Suitcase nukes are hard to make, and harder to smuggle than you might think (please see my other post for details).

I'm going to agree with you about one point--the kinetic kill idea is silly. It's much easier to get close to a moving target than it is to hit it, and using nuclear-tipped interceptors is the easiest and most reliable way to do that. Remember that, in a nuclear missile attack, it's better to have a very small nuke explode 300 miles above your continent than a big one explode in your cities. I imagine the nuclear-tipped interceptor idea was killed because it was politically unpopular or not "green" enough or something like that. It's possible the current test result was faked to cover up that the kinetic-kill idea is stupid, but unlikely.

On the other hand, hitting something with a laser (i.e., the MIRACL airborne theatre missile defense system) isn't quite so hard, and actually sounds like it might be a good idea. I did some calculations a while back, and it seems quite possible for a laser of MIRACL's power to damage and destroy an ICBM (sorry, I'm too tired to dig up a link to my old post where I do the calcs).

In order to "work," it must intercept 100% of the incoming targets. If 1, or 5, or 100 nukes are launched at Washington DC, only 1 needs to get through

The system, as currently invisioned, is designed to work agains small attacks of one or a few ICBMs, and would involve multiple interceptors being launched against each ICBM. The capability to deal with large attacks would require an upgrade (pretty much only Russia has enough nukes to launch an attack large enough to overwhelm the system).

prevention is much more effective than interception

Prevention, in many of these cases, would mean a pre-emptive strike, or a conventional war before the country gains nuclear capability. Otherwise, you have no guarantees. Please explain to me how else the US could convince North Korea or Iran not to develop ICBMs.

This whole fucking mess is just one monstrous pork-barrel: it can't work, it won't work, it'll never be finished

My previous reservations aside, doesn't the successful test make you want to eat your words?

They're our bombs and we'll do whatever the hell we want, treaties be damned.

The US is not breaking the ABM treaty. Either party is legally allowed to withdraw after giving 6 months' notice. IMHO, the US government is doing exactly what it's supposed to--take all necessary steps to ensure the safety of its citizens from foreign powers. If the foreign powers don't like it, that's too bad, because they won't be able to do much about it.

I know somebody is going to pull out the "suitcase nuke" excuse. Read my other post to see why it's not so simple.

I'm so fucking sick and tired of Slashdot "editors" making blatant political statements when they're supposedly reporting the news. To add insult to injury, the statements are quite often false or misleading. Let's dissect this story's editorial comments:

protect us from all those ballistic missiles that foreign nations don't have

China has 20 or so CSS-4 ICBMs targeted at US cities. Don't think they'd use them? This is the same government that has executed more people in the past three months than the rest of the world has in the past three years (yes, that includes Texas, save your lame jokes). Then there's Tiananmen Square, Tibet, Falun Gong, and a whole host of other human rights breaches in China.

Then there's North Korea, which is quite close to developing the ICBM technology to hit the US with nukes or biological or chemical warfare.

Then there's Iran and Iraq, with weapons programs of their own, and possibly also an interest in buying from North Korea, China, or Russia.

when you can just drive down from Canada with a suitcase nuke

First of all, you have to get a suitcase nuke. They're not exactly easy to make (remember how big the first atomic bombs were?), and only a few countries in the world can make them (Russia, US). In other words, you probably have to buy one from Russia.

Second, you have to get it in to Canada. While we do have huge unguarded borders up north, you're going to have a hell of a time getting it from the Yukon or wherever to the 49th parallel. Also, the US is pushing for increased Canadian border security and unified policies on security and entry into North America. I think they're aware of the issue.

Third, you have to cross the US border. While I don't know for sure, I would bet there are hidden radiation detectors at all the border crossings. Liquid scintillator column-style detectors are incredibly sensitive, and it would be nearly impossible to shield the near-critical fissionable material in a bomb from the detectors (the gamma rays produced have too much penetrating power). I happen to work at a particle accelerator with just such detectors on the shipping gates (to prevent accidental removal of contaminated material), and you wouldn't know they're there if there weren't signs. They just look like part of the fence posts. Of course, it would be silly for the government to make the existence of such detectors public knowledge, because that would mostly defeat the purpose, which is to catch terrorists.

Finally, suitcase nukes are low-yield (as in around one kiloton). The man-with-the-briefcase approach also doesn't have the same political or military effectiveness that a working ICBM has. Rogue Country X has to actually use a suitcase nuke to convince the world that they have the capability, and then they'll get blown to smithereens by the US. Not much is accomplished besides killing a few hundred thousand Americans (worst-case), and getting Country X's population reduced to single digits. On the other hand, if it becomes known that X has ICBMs in hardened silos, then they're suddently part of the Nuclear Club, and they get to play with the big boys. After all, look how nice the world is being to China, what with giving them the Olympics and all (worked really well in Berlin in 1936, didn't it?).

I'm so fucking sick and tired of Slashdot "editors" making blatant political statements when they're supposedly reporting the news. To add insult to injury, the statements are quite often false or misleading. Let's dissect this story's editorial comments:

protect us from all those ballistic missiles that foreign nations don't have

China has 20 or so CSS-4 ICBMs targeted at US cities. Don't think they'd use them? This is the same government that has executed more people in the past three months than the rest of the world has in the past three years (yes, that includes Texas, save your lame jokes). Then there's Tiananmen Square, Tibet, Falun Gong, and a whole host of other human rights breaches in China.

Then there's North Korea, which is quite close to developing the ICBM technology to hit the US with nukes or biological or chemical warfare.

Then there's Iran and Iraq, with weapons programs of their own, and possibly also an interest in buying from North Korea, China, or Russia.

when you can just drive down from Canada with a suitcase nuke

First of all, you have to get a suitcase nuke. They're not exactly easy to make (remember how big the first atomic bombs were?), and only a few countries in the world can make them (Russia, US). In other words, you probably have to buy one from Russia.

Second, you have to get it in to Canada. While we do have huge unguarded borders up north, you're going to have a hell of a time getting it from the Yukon or wherever to the 49th parallel. Also, the US is pushing for increased Canadian border security and unified policies on security and entry into North America. I think they're aware of the issue.

Third, you have to cross the US border. While I don't know for sure, I would bet there are hidden radiation detectors at all the border crossings. Liquid scintillator column-style detectors are incredibly sensitive, and it would be nearly impossible to shield the near-critical fissionable material in a bomb from the detectors (the gamma rays produced have too much penetrating power). I happen to work at a particle accelerator with just such detectors on the shipping gates (to prevent accidental removal of contaminated material), and you wouldn't know they're there if there weren't signs. They just look like part of the fence posts. Of course, it would be silly for the government to make the existence of such detectors public knowledge, because that would mostly defeat the purpose, which is to catch terrorists.

Finally, suitcase nukes are low-yield (as in around one kiloton). The man-with-the-briefcase approach also doesn't have the same political or military effectiveness that a working ICBM has. Rogue Country X has to actually use a suitcase nuke to convince the world that they have the capability, and then they'll get blown to smithereens by the US. Not much is accomplished besides killing a few hundred thousand Americans (worst-case), and getting Country X's population reduced to single digits. On the other hand, if it becomes known that X has ICBMs in hardened silos, then they're suddently part of the Nuclear Club, and they get to play with the big boys. After all, look how nice the world is being to China, what with giving them the Olympics and all (worked really well in Berlin in 1936, didn't it?).

crack dealers have not formed a giant conglomerate that's pretty much immune to legal action

They have, its called the CIA.

The GPL probably makes some assumptions that are more true under US and European law than elsewhere, but it is, fundamentally, a contract. The Code of Hammurabi (1792 BCE) contains enough of the fundamentals of contract law that a time traveler could probably defend the GPL with little else. Of course, there are some assumptions in the GPL that might be a little tough to exlpain in aincent Babylon, but the terms of the GPL are clear enough that you could identify a flagrant violation in almost any legal enviornment.

Yes, China is a communist country. But, communist or not, it does have a working system of contract law. Keep in mind that China has a large, complex and vibrant economy. They make everything from locomotives to DRAMs. Without contract law, none of this would be possible.

And I've heard enough about the Chinese government refusing to obey intelectual property standards. This simply isn't the case. While they might make noises and gestures as if they were still communist, the reality is very different. They are signatories of most or all of the international conventions on patents, copyrights and trademarks. It is true that there are plenty of honest-to-goodness software pirates (I hate the using term "pirate") in China, but this is more of an enforcement problem than a legal problem. The government simply doesn't have the resources to investigate and prosecute IP violations the way the US does. That's just a fact of life when your country's per capita purchasing parity is only $3,800.

Before you go posting about countries you've never visteded and/or know little about, you should do a little homework. I use the CIA factbook. Here's the entry for China.

--

Just wanted to post to this discussion regarding the impending involvement of the Canadian government in providing guaranteed broadband access to all Canadians. I just want to submit a post that I hope will help address some of the comments made by some of the US posters and hopefully provide some insight into Canada and why the Canadian government plans to do this.

First of all, Canada is not the US. While that might sound inflammatory it is in fact the truth. I am not suggesting Canada is better, worse or otherwise, merely that it is different.

In Canada we have approximately 30 million people. This is about the same population as the state of California.

Canada is the second largest country in the world in terms of land mass. Slightly larger than the US. Total size 9,976,140 sq km . From the CIA factbook http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ ca.html

That means we have approx. 30 million people spread unevenly across a massive amount of land area. This is an important fact as it underscores why in Canada it is often the case that the government needs to act in this way. To make sure the people in Iqaluit get the same access to the wonders of the modern world as those in Toronto.

If this was left up to private companies it simply would not get done. I am not attacking private companies or capitalism. I am completely a free market proponent and believe in the efficiency of the market place. However as a Canadian I know that despite my personal leanings there is a point at which private companies can not or will not make the right choice for Canadians, all Canadians.

In some cases the special requirements of Canada require special intervention by the government. There is not some big ideological purpose at work here, merely the fact that Canada, due to population density has developed a different role for government in creating infrastructure.

This project comes as no suprise to Canadians and is part of a long tradition of successful government involvement in projects of this nature.

• Trans-Continental Railway: without which there would be no Canada at all as it was a requirment for British columbia to enter confederation.
• TransCanada Highway: A 7800km(approx 4900mile) stretch of road that goes from the tip of Newfoundland in St. John's to Victoria on Vancouver Island in British Columbia.
• Telephone System: All telephone companies in Canada are or were run by provinial "crown" corporations. These private corporations were run by non government employees and often chaired by government appointees. The government was also the major, or primary stock holder. Their goal was to provide self sustaining access for all Canadians to quality telecommunications. In the early to mid 90's these companies for the most part were privatized, but not before they gave Canada a telecommunication system second to none. I remember having my cable modem installed in Saskatoon Saskatchewan while I was going to school in 1996, and DSL was available even earlier. Actually DSL was original intended to provide TV and movies over Twisted Pair. That was an utter failure by the end of 1995, but soon Sasktel caught on that they could actually make money providing access to this new fangled Internet. :)

• Countless other crown corporations and utilities were created, run and then deregulated by the government. Some were to provide infrastructure, others to create new industries (eg. Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan). So when the Canadian government says we are gonna spend $4.5 billion to provide broadband internet access to Iqaluit Canadians for the most part say ok, regardless of political affiliation.

  We know that as a nation this is the only way that all Canadians can get access to the same services. Yes it costs money, both private and public, and yes it requires government intervention. No it is perhaps not 100% capitalist in its efficiency, however the fact is as Canadians we accept that this type of government involvement is necessary to make life work here. If we did not do things this way we would have 1 or 2 modern cities and the rest of the country would still be in the 19th Century.

  So please take into consideration when trying to place idealogical motives on this latest in a long line of Canadian government sponsored projects. We do it this way because that is how we make things work here.

  All things considered I think we do a pretty darn good job of keeping our country always near the top in terms of technology, standards of living and education. We cannot be doing things too terribly wrong, even if we do things a little bit different from our neighbors to the south. So I think I will go play some online games with my friend in the Yukon. She happens to have cable modem too, just like I do in Calgary, one of our most prosperous cities. Hmm it seems like we are not far off that universal broadband access as it stands thanks to government regulation of the cable industry. :)

  Cheers. :)

Very independent and forward thinking society.

Infant mortality rate (deaths/1000)
Sweden: 3.5
U.S.: 6.8

Life Expectancy (years)
Sweden: 79.6
U.S.: 77.1

Child poverty (%)
Sweden: 2.4
U.S.: 20.3

Very independent and forward thinking society.

Infant mortality rate (deaths/1000)
Sweden: 3.5
U.S.: 6.8

Life Expectancy (years)
Sweden: 79.6
U.S.: 77.1

Child poverty (%)
Sweden: 2.4
U.S.: 20.3

(And don't talk about Sweden like it was paradise either - they have a yearly national dept equal to 133% of their GNP. That's a burn rate that would make some dot coms flinch!)

I think you may be confusing deficit and debt and the GNP with the government revenue.

Swedish government statistics show that government expenditures are about 56 per cent of the GDP (roughly comparable to the GNP).

Sweden indeed uses deficit financing as the United States did until recently. However, national economic accounting principles are quite different from corporate accounting principles. Among many other reasons, governments can cover debt costs by printing money or raising taxes, an option obviously not open to private enterprise.

In addition, many companies stay in business with high losses as long as their income can cover the interest payments on their debt. Successful startups typically lose money for years before making a profit.

The economics of bankrupt dotcoms is much different. They had expenditures several times their revenue and thus ran through their venture capital. They usually had very low debt since their working capital was provided by investment, not loans. Banks will rarely lend money to startups.

The Swedish growth rate of 3.8% is reasonably healthy compared to the U.S. growth rate of 4.1%

The Swedes are doing okay. The dotcoms should be so lucky.

(And don't talk about Sweden like it was paradise either - they have a yearly national dept equal to 133% of their GNP. That's a burn rate that would make some dot coms flinch!)

I think you may be confusing deficit and debt and the GNP with the government revenue.

Swedish government statistics show that government expenditures are about 56 per cent of the GDP (roughly comparable to the GNP).

Sweden indeed uses deficit financing as the United States did until recently. However, national economic accounting principles are quite different from corporate accounting principles. Among many other reasons, governments can cover debt costs by printing money or raising taxes, an option obviously not open to private enterprise.

In addition, many companies stay in business with high losses as long as their income can cover the interest payments on their debt. Successful startups typically lose money for years before making a profit.

The economics of bankrupt dotcoms is much different. They had expenditures several times their revenue and thus ran through their venture capital. They usually had very low debt since their working capital was provided by investment, not loans. Banks will rarely lend money to startups.

The Swedish growth rate of 3.8% is reasonably healthy compared to the U.S. growth rate of 4.1%

The Swedes are doing okay. The dotcoms should be so lucky.

One of the world's poorest and least developed countries, Somalia has few resources. CIA World Factbook Entry for Somalia