Slashdot Mirror

I agree. It is all About the ranking

This is likely to be helpful in those countries where cell phones are abundant and where health care is so deficient. Diagnostic could even be offered remotely by western medical centers.

Or, world population growth trends might just continue and the world population will stabilize. Last week's Economist has an article that discusses this trend. The article projects that world population will reach 9.2 billion in 2050 and stabilize at that level. Of course, it's just a projection, but that's all anything is for the 2050 time-frame.

Birthrates drop as people become more wealthy and some of the poorest areas of the world have the highest birth rates. The notion that the solution to excessive population growth is to put the "excess" bodies on space ships and send them to live somewhere else is absurd - the cost of the launch alone likely exceeds the total cost of caring for the kid here on earth for the rest of their lives.

The supply of humans, like rabbits, is nearly unlimited - only the resources to provide for them are limited. It might make sense for some reason to send a few prime "breeding pairs" (human and/or non-human) to populate other celestial bodies - for example, if one believes that forms of life on Earth are unique enough in the universe and superior in some way to other life in the universe that it's important for some moral, ethical, or religious reason to preserve and propagate Earthly species even after the Earth is uninhabitable (having been baked to a crisp by our sun for example). But, doing so won't have a measurable impact on Earth's human population.

There's no need to bring Rush Limbaugh into this.

It's not universally true, but it is more or less an accepted fact.

Fertility rates are inversely proportional to income.

In the modern world there are a lot of reasons for this. The rich tend to have access to better education. therefore, they tend to try to start a career before a family (illustrated in comedic fashion by the Mike Judge movie Idiocracy). Then with their career dominating their lives, they usually only have a couple kids at the most.

More wealthy folks have better access to birth control. Again, better education plays into this. On the extreme end of the spectrum, you have folks who have superstitious beliefs. That doesn't help keep their fertility rates down any...

Economists and demographers have known about this correlation for centuries. And it's interesting because it goes across religions, across nationalities, race, and other factors. Poor Americans are just as likely to have a higher fertility rate as poor French, or Japanese. Poor Nigerians or Indians are even more likely because a poor American is fairly well off by Nigerian standards.

Side Rant: The Israelis in particular are worried about this effect because Israel is a democracy. And the Israeli Palestinians have a fertility rate several times that of Israeli Jews. Again, the average Israeli Palestinian is much poorer than the average Israeli Jew.

The Israelis are concerned because with the higher fertility rates of the Palestinian Israeli citizens, the Palestinians may become a majority in the "Jewish State" in a couple generations. This brings up all kinds of moral dilemmas for the Israeli government, who must try to balance it's commitment to a homeland for the Jews to it's commitment to democracy for all it's citizens.

A few minutes of on the Google came up with these:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14744915
http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164483
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/177/8/846/F19
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/correlation.aspx?v1=67&v2=31&y=2004

Also, I have no idea why you brought Rush Limbaugh into this. I'm about as progressive a character as you're likely to meet. I don't know anyone that disputes this data.

Cause is another matter. Progressives would tend to contend that the reason is education, the nature of pre-industrialized societies, higher mortality rates among poor nations, the tempo of life in wealthy nations and classes.

And Rush would say they all want their welfare checks or something.

You're right about the lack of heredity for short-fatness though. It is environmental / cultural, not genetic.

There's no need to bring Rush Limbaugh into this.

It's not universally true, but it is more or less an accepted fact.

Fertility rates are inversely proportional to income.

In the modern world there are a lot of reasons for this. The rich tend to have access to better education. therefore, they tend to try to start a career before a family (illustrated in comedic fashion by the Mike Judge movie Idiocracy). Then with their career dominating their lives, they usually only have a couple kids at the most.

More wealthy folks have better access to birth control. Again, better education plays into this. On the extreme end of the spectrum, you have folks who have superstitious beliefs. That doesn't help keep their fertility rates down any...

Economists and demographers have known about this correlation for centuries. And it's interesting because it goes across religions, across nationalities, race, and other factors. Poor Americans are just as likely to have a higher fertility rate as poor French, or Japanese. Poor Nigerians or Indians are even more likely because a poor American is fairly well off by Nigerian standards.

Side Rant: The Israelis in particular are worried about this effect because Israel is a democracy. And the Israeli Palestinians have a fertility rate several times that of Israeli Jews. Again, the average Israeli Palestinian is much poorer than the average Israeli Jew.

The Israelis are concerned because with the higher fertility rates of the Palestinian Israeli citizens, the Palestinians may become a majority in the "Jewish State" in a couple generations. This brings up all kinds of moral dilemmas for the Israeli government, who must try to balance it's commitment to a homeland for the Jews to it's commitment to democracy for all it's citizens.

A few minutes of on the Google came up with these:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14744915
http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164483
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/177/8/846/F19
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/correlation.aspx?v1=67&v2=31&y=2004

Also, I have no idea why you brought Rush Limbaugh into this. I'm about as progressive a character as you're likely to meet. I don't know anyone that disputes this data.

Cause is another matter. Progressives would tend to contend that the reason is education, the nature of pre-industrialized societies, higher mortality rates among poor nations, the tempo of life in wealthy nations and classes.

And Rush would say they all want their welfare checks or something.

You're right about the lack of heredity for short-fatness though. It is environmental / cultural, not genetic.

If you had read the Economist article, you'd know that this assumption has now been proven false. Birth rates start rising again after a certain level of affluence. People figure they can afford a few extra mouths to feed.

According to US Census, world's rate of population growth peaked at the 1960's and has been in decline ever since.

Furthermore, according to its own about page, The Economist has an agenda, so frankly, any claim made by it is suspect (assuming it even made the claim, since the article seems to be still missing). Do you have a link to a scientific study proving your claims?

I found the article by "The Economist". The article debunks the claim that increasing wealth results in a decreasing population. The implications for excessive population growth are alarming.

Yes. It was Vaclav Klaus, the Czech president and the rumour was that the Germans were talking about having him impeached for refusing to sign. Some background in the Economist and The Times. Of course, there's history between the Czechs and the Germans as we know...

they are the ones that are in a position to pick winners and losers.

Government pout them in that position, and can take their advantage away.

If this behavior is allowed, we will see the ISPs picking winners and losers amongs websites as well.

Which is why under the current circumstances I support net neutrality. Under a free market thought it would not be needed.

I might not have been clear, but I agree with this. My statements were more in response to the statements in the letter from the corporations. It's ironic that they're worried about one entity picking winners and losers and yet support the current model which does just that.

We can see this starting to happen already with ESPN360.

Isn't ESPN360 a content provider and not an ISP? I don't know, I don't watch sports and would rather be active instead of passive, but if ESPN charges for access to some content that is no different than any other content provider that charges for some content. The "Wall Street Journal" charges for some content as does "The Economist" and I have no problem with ESPN doing it. Heck Slashdot has subscribers paying.

The difference with ESPN360 is that they don't charge their customer for access to content like The Wall Street Journal. ESPN360 charges the ISPs. This means that only the subscribers the ISPs that agree to pay ESPN360 get to view the content. It's very much the same as the cable tv model where I can't view HBO without paying for a package including that channel.

I am the same as you in that I don't watch sports. But I would hate to be unable to read Slashdot because only customers on certain ISPs were allowed access without an option to pay directly for the content.

they are the ones that are in a position to pick winners and losers.

Government pout them in that position, and can take their advantage away.

If this behavior is allowed, we will see the ISPs picking winners and losers amongs websites as well.

Which is why under the current circumstances I support net neutrality. Under a free market thought it would not be needed.

We can see this starting to happen already with ESPN360.

Isn't ESPN360 a content provider and not an ISP? I don't know, I don't watch sports and would rather be active instead of passive, but if ESPN charges for access to some content that is no different than any other content provider that charges for some content. The "Wall Street Journal" charges for some content as does "The Economist" and I have no problem with ESPN doing it. Heck Slashdot has subscribers paying.

Falcon

According to an article that I read, a mix of negative and positive reviews makes the product more attractive than only positive reviews. It seems that this retailer is probably preventing sales by not letting negative reviews through.

The democrats don't want "head on debate", because such debates always involve propaganda from the bill's opponents.

It is possible to conduct the debate in a setting where such propaganda would not be able to interfere, but it would require a more formal setting and rules. The series of debates recently conducted by The Economist provide good examples of how real debates should be conducted.

the Republicans have been pushing flat-out lies about this bill. Like "death panels".

This is true. The "death panels" and "pulling the plug on grandma" were equally bad and dishonest tactics. However, two wrongs don't make a right as they say.

Or that it constitutes socialism.

If a system is not voluntary then it is socialism. Whether this is a good or bad thing depends upon your points of view, but we should not confuse socialism with freedom because in fact they are opposites.

Lots of capitalist countries have socialized medicine...it's not the same thing as a socialist economy.

It takes one major sector of the economy and socializes it. Again, whether you believe that is good or bad depends upon your point of view but it means that some part of the economy is now socialist. Socialism is an easy concept to grasp. It sounds good to many people and it is easy to understand the appeal, but the promises of socialism often ring empty in the end. The arguments for freedom, free enterprise and free trade on the other hand are much more subtle and difficult to understand. However, they ultimately produce a better and more prosperous society where they are allowed to grow and reach their full potential.

If you believe that socialized medicine is a good idea then ask yourself this: if taxes are high to pay for, among other things, universal single-payer health care would you feel like working as much or as hard? In the UK, for example, taxes are very high in order to pay for the National Health Service. High taxes create disincentives to work on an individual basis AND they create disincentives for businesses to hire additional workers. As former prime minister Margaret Thatcher put it, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money".

I believe that we could have the best system in the world, better than what we have right now and better than socialized systems overseas, if we would just following this plan, which was proposed by Milton Friedman back in 2001 (he was a bit ahead of the times on the health care debate). So actually, a lot of us want the same thing: good quality health care at reasonable prices. We simply disagree on the best means to obtain it.

Many kids in Asian countries also spend a lot of time at private institutes, after their regular classes.

Nevertheless, yes, American kids no not work hard enough to compete on a global level. The Economist had an article about this very issue a few months ago.

From what I've previously read I think commentators are emphasising the gameplay side of it without really explaining the educational theory underpinning it. The more relevant point - to me - is that traditional subject boundaries are removed allowing a single "lesson" to range widely, while allowing the freedom to zoom in on relevant material. The gaming side of it is just how the teaching content is delivered.

Right on. What is really sad is that slave labor isn't actually necessary to be a major exporter. According to The Economist, Germany comes in first: http://www.economist.com/markets/indicators/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13375970

Germany's 82m people (fn1) do about $1.4t in exports, or $17,000 in exports per capita.

The US has 307m people and $1.3t in exports: $4200 per capita. Of course, we decided to trade our manufacturing base for burger flipping skills over the past 25 years, and now view it as a given that it costs too much to make things here. In reality, there is no rational basis to think that products can't be built in a first world country with first world standards of living. The fact that Germany kicks our ass on this point proves it.

We really do need to do something, because the debt we're accumulating can only be paid off by creating wealth (making stuff people want). Service jobs just move wealth around and allow the government to take a cut on each transaction, but in no way create lasting value.

fn1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

First, on-topic: I think the heart-rate monitor is just to help kids (ok, and possibly instructors too) know how hard their hearts are working. I doubt this data will be stored. If it were, I might be concerned, but I would be really surprised if they did.

Now for the off-topic stuff. That's an awful analogy. Here's a better one (it's still awful, though, don't get me wrong). You have car insurance, and suppose you now wreck your car. Or someone else wrecks it for you. Or maybe a hurricane wrecks your car. It doesn't really matter. Your car gets wrecked, somehow, which may or may not be your "fault". And this is a weird kind of wreckage where, even after you take it to the mechanic, it wrecks itself constantly, even if you don't drive it anywhere. Now suppose you lose your insurance, because the car insurance company keeps raising your premiums, since, well, your car keeps wrecking itself (although, I'm not sure that "insurance" is the right word for whatever it is this company is providing at this point). Or maybe you lose your job because you can't get to work in your shitty car anymore, and that's how you lose your insurance (oddly enough, provided by your employer). So you need to get new insurance. But you can't get any, 'cause your car has a pre-existing problem which you cannot permanently fix, and what insurance company in their right mind would insure someone with a permanent problem? Explain to me how this system is fair.

See, the answer is that, for health insurance to work it needs to be mandatory (to ensure that healthy people subsidize unhealthy people), insurance companies must provide service regardless of current health conditions, and their pricing must be uniform (i.e., not depend on current health conditions). Anything else is not "insurance", but rather simply a different way of making people pay for their own medical expenses (which, I am sure, most libertarians would be completely happy with, but that is neither here nor there).

Notice that whether it's public or private is irrelevant, as long as those three conditions are met. Also notice that the whole point of insurance is that lucky people pay to make sure that unlucky people do not suffer catastrophic financial ruin, on the off chance that they too might become unlucky in the future. I guess a figure of note here is that 65% of personal bankruptcies involve high medical bills. Here's another quote from that blog:

A 2006 survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Harvard School of Public Health found that 25% of cancer patients and their families had used up "all or most" of their savings paying for treatment; 11% said they had been unable to get health insurance again afterwards; 6% said they had actually lost their insurance *because of having cancer*.

That is not how I had it explained to me. The Economist made it sound like Google was going to manage it like a cable TV provider. You pay Google a nominal subscription fee (say, $15/month), and they let you read anything to which they have access. The blog mentioned that they would allow for micropayments on top of that, but the money would primarily be in the form of a subscription service.

The Economist has a short but good piece containing their take on the book deal. Includes criticism of where they think the agreement could be dangerous, but also how it those trouble areas could be dealt with:

The Economist

I think it's an unwillingness to admit that their system isn't the best. You know the mentality - Number one! Number one!

Even free-market advocates think it's broken.

homosexuality is not a flaw? I mean, if ever I saw a trait that evolution would suppress, this would be it.

And yet, homosexuality exists, and separated twin studies show convincingly that there is a genetic basis for it. So maybe there is a flaw in your reasoning? Various hypotheses have been proposed, that homosexuality may benefit the family group rather than the individual, that it was only recently in history that it became usual for homosexuals to not have a regular partner of the opposite sex, that homosexual men rank higher than straight men on various tests of agreeableness and other positive personality tests, etc. Try Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality and The Economist: The evolution of homosexuality.

Poorly Made in China

Most of Paul Midler's work is coping with what he calls âoequality fadeâ as the Chinese factories transform what were, in fact, profitless contracts into lucrative relationships. The production cycle he sees is the opposite of the theoretical model of continuous improvement. After resolving teething problems and making products that match specifications, innovation inside the factory turns to cutting costs, often in ways that range from unsavoury to dangerous. Packaging is cheapened, chemical formulations altered, sanitary standards curtailed, and on and on, in a series of continual product debasements.

Well, de gustibus non est disputandum. The Awfulbar isn't an advantage if I'm navigating to, e.g., slashdot.org, or en.wikipedia.org, or nytimes.com. It is an advantage if I am going, say, here: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica. I can type "dem" in the Awfulbar, and it will find it. If I can't remember the URL, I can also search by title, e.g., "economist blog politics". What's really super-great is Chrome's Heinousbar, er, Omnibar, which searches one's history, bookmarks, and Google. I imagine that, for you, that's even worse. Luckily, the world is large enough that we can both use software which works the way we want it to.

IMHO, we really need to start talking about taking away cable and in some places fiber monopolies.

The Economist, a pro-free-market newsmagazine, proposed something like that recently:

Thanks for the link, I missed that issue.

The "Economist" is a Free market, and liberal (libertarian in the US), publication which is why they may propose that. Cable, and fiber, owned by the same company that offers the service it is capable of is a monopoly and opposes free markets.

Falcon

IMHO, we really need to start talking about taking away cable and in some places fiber monopolies.

The Economist, a pro-free-market newsmagazine, proposed something like that recently:

With broadband networks, the role of the state has less to do with limiting handouts than increasing choice. Fibre-optic networks can be run like any other public infrastructure: government, municipalities or utilities lay the cables and let private firms compete to offer services, just as public roadways are used by private logistics firms. In Stockholm, a pioneer of this system, it takes 30 minutes to change your broadband provider.

Unfortunately, I doubt there are very good prospects for this: the business model of the telecom firms depends inherently on rent-seeking enabled by lack of competition.

According to this picture ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg , from an article published in The Lancet), while cocaine is more harmful than alcohol & tobacco, it's only marginally more addictive than tobacco. So it's not like you do coke once, and then spend the rest of your life craving the next hit.

Fundamentally, the so-called "War on drugs" is a world-wide 100 year old failure that rolls on with the weight of a dogmatic belief in its own righteousness and moral panicking. Nobody is saying that being a drug addict is good, but it should be treated like a medical problem, just like alcohol or tobacco addiction. For the long story, see e.g. http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13237193

Is that an adaption of Parkinson's Law?

The cold-blooded killers of this couple locked their bullet-riddled bodies in the trunk of a car.

If that murder is not pure evil, then what is pure evil?

The researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute need only to interview Putin and to download his thoughts into their AI computer. It will instantly exhibit pure evil.

Where is James Bond when you need him? A problem in the Kremlin needs to be fixed. Pronto.

The U.S. government loves freedom! Just ask the beneficiaries of Operation Iraqi Freedom, they love the U.S.A. and American Freedom!

Funny you should mention that--yesterday I submitted a story about sex offender laws that links to this Economist piece that calls such laws unjust and ineffective. Now that the Illinois story got posted, I suppose /. has exceeded its moral panic issue for the day, but it's nonetheless intriguing that the backlash stories are now cropping up.

Illiberal Politics: America's Unjust Sex Laws.

On the cover of the Economist this week:

America's Unfair Sex Laws
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164614

The one story of the woman classified as a sex offender for performing oral sex as a teenager is unbelievable.
It's hard to argue that at the very least a threat level classification for sex offenders wouldn't be a good idea

America's unjust sex laws

Aug 6th 2009
From The Economist print edition
An ever harsher approach is doing more harm than good, but it is being copied around the world

IT IS an oft-told story, but it does not get any less horrific on repetition. Fifteen years ago, a paedophile enticed seven-year-old Megan Kanka into his home in New Jersey by offering to show her a puppy. He then raped her, killed her and dumped her body in a nearby park. The murderer, who had recently moved into the house across the street from his victim, had twice before been convicted of sexually assaulting a child. Yet Megan's parents had no idea of this. Had they known he was a sex offender, they would have told their daughter to stay away from him.

In their grief, the parents started a petition, demanding that families should be told if a sexual predator moves nearby. Hundreds of thousands signed it. In no time at all, lawmakers in New Jersey granted their wish. And before long, "Megan's laws" had spread to every American state.

America's sex-offender laws are the strictest of any rich democracy. Convicted rapists and child-molesters are given long prison sentences. When released, they are put on sex-offender registries. In most states this means that their names, photographs and addresses are published online, so that fearful parents can check whether a child-molester lives nearby. Under the Adam Walsh Act of 2006, another law named after a murdered child, all states will soon be obliged to make their sex-offender registries public. Such rules are extremely popular. Most parents will support any law that promises to keep their children safe. Other countries are following America's example, either importing Megan's laws or increasing penalties: after two little girls were murdered by a school caretaker, Britain has imposed multiple conditions on who can visit schools.

Which makes it all the more important to ask whether America's approach is the right one. In fact its sex-offender laws have grown self-defeatingly harsh (see article). They have been driven by a ratchet effect. Individual American politicians have great latitude to propose new laws. Stricter curbs on paedophiles win votes. And to sound severe, such curbs must be stronger than the laws in place, which in turn were proposed by politicians who wished to appear tough themselves. Few politicians dare to vote against such laws, because if they do, the attack ads practically write themselves.

A Whole Wyoming of Offenders

In all, 674,000 Americans are on sex-offender registries--more than the population of Vermont, North Dakota or Wyoming. The number keeps growing partly because in several states registration is for life and partly because registries are not confined to the sort of murderer who ensnared Megan Kanka. According to Human Rights Watch, at least five states require registration for people who visit prostitutes, 29 require it for consensual sex between young teenagers and 32 require it for indecent exposure. Some prosecutors are now stretching the definition of "distributing child pornography" to include teens who text half-naked photos of themselves to their friends.

How dangerous are the people on the registries? A state review of one sample in Georgia found that two-thirds of them posed little risk. For example, Janet Allison was found guilty of being "party to the crime of child molestation" because she let her 15-year-old daughter have sex with a boyfriend. The young couple later married. But Ms Allison will spend the rest of her life publicly branded as a sex offender.

Several other countries have sex-offender registries, but these are typically held by the police and are hard to view. In America it takes only seconds to find out about a sex offender: some states have a "click to print" icon on their websites so that concerned citizens can put up posters wit

Yup. And in my experience it's still higher quality than any newspaper article. I have NEVER seen an accurate newspaper article on a subject I was conversant in. Not once. Which leads me to believe they're equally worthless on subjects I'm not conversant in as well.

Journalists are rarely qualified to understand the subjects they report on, so journalism is little more than the ability to write pyramid-style articles that fit the column width and stick to a 'so-and-so said.....' formula. The only thing you can trust is that so-and-so said that, and that is on a good day.

While I agree with you in general, an exception is The Economist. The articles on subjects I am conversant in (science mostly but other too) have invariably been spot on. A subscription gives at least ten hours of reading each week.

Highly recommended.

"...revenues reaching $140m by the end of 2010..."
http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14098313&CFID=75044961&CFTOKEN=55045025

The Economist's latest figures have the unemployement rate at 9.8% Sweden, 3.8% Denmark and 3.1% Norway. Sweden's rate is not seasonally adjusted.

Where are your 2% figures from?

Sufficiently large values of "2"?

The Economist's latest figures have the unemployement rate at 9.8% Sweden, 3.8% Denmark and 3.1% Norway. Sweden's rate is not seasonally adjusted.

Where are your 2% figures from?

Anyone wishing to actually do a proper comparison of unemployment and education should probably look at Eurostat's Unemployment rates of the population aged 25-64 by level of education (at least for Europe).

I would imagine the same principle might apply to those who in crowds who rush inbetween people or push past others.

While similar i'm not sure it fits 'the mob as a fluid' theory though:

http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2009/01/physics-of-crowds.html

Itself somewhat dismissed (at least in passing) for disregarding irrationality here:

http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/tq/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13174313

In all probability it may be that a cross of all factors is at work. Perhaps some people see it as queuing while others always look for the alternative way through.

According to a shocking report just published by "The Economist", "it was the kind of scene she had described many times. On July 15th at 8.30am, as she left her flat in Grozny, Natalia Estemirova was forced into a white Lada. She shouted that she was being kidnapped, but those who heard were too scared to report it. By the time her colleagues had found out, she was dead, murdered by three bullets in her chest and a control shot in the head.

There was a mark from a man's hand on her shoulder, where she was grabbed, and a bruise on her face, where she had been hit. Her wrists bore the marks of bindings. Ramzan Kadyrov, the authoritarian Chechen president, considered her an enemy. And she died as one. She documented hundreds of similar cases in Chechnya, supplying witness statements and photographs, forcing prosecutors to investigate and the media to write about kidnappings, torture and killings, often conducted by people in official uniforms. Much of what the world knew about Chechnya came from her and her colleagues at Memorial, a heroic group which started by documenting Stalinist crimes but continued to trace their modern-day consequences, especially in the Caucasus."

Natalia Estemirova was born to a Chechen father and a Russian mother. She was a history teacher. One day, upon seeing the dying bodies of Chechen victims killed by Kremlin-backed militia, she swore to help the victims of gross human-rights violations in Chechnya.

She did indeed help the victims by documenting their tragic lives and condemning the Kremlin and the Kremlin-backed government in Chechnya. Allied with Anna Politkovskaya, Estemirova obtained the only conviction of a Russian thug for brutalizing and killing a Chechen.

When the Kremlin-backed government of Chechnya killed Estmirova, it killed the soul of Russia. The evil in the Kremlin rivals the worst evils of Chinese society.

Buddha may forgive Vladimir Putin, but I cannot. God damn him.

Yeah, I remember when I first learned to use google. Listen, you're going to have to actually learn to read books to get the truth rather than from dipshits on the internet.

I have read books. I only have a fraction of the books and magazines I've bought but I still have 100 plus books and hundreds more magazines. These books and magazines range from culture to economics to science and technology. I bought Adam Smith's "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" which I gave to my younger sister as well as "Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution" which is on my bookshelf right behind me. I subscribe to "Reason" magazine and regularly read the "Economist". Besides reading I've also learned from my family. One of my sister's a Certified Public Accountant who runs her own accounting business. Her husband is a Certified Financial Planner who has run his run business as well as worked as a daytrader.

My family started in the low income bracket, my dad retired as an enlisted airman in the US Air Force. And while my mom raised 3 children she worked her way through a technical school to become a lab tech in a hospital. All three of us children worked our way at least partially through college. My older sister's now a nurse. And not only does my younger sister run her own business she's also a property owner. Among others she owns the apartment building I live in. Now I haven't gotten a Bachelor's degree never mind the PhD I wanted. But that was because of an accident I had while in college. Due to an injury and disability I survived my college degree plans were put on hold. And now I don't know when, or if, I'll be able to start taking classes again. I am hoping though that I can get back to college where I plan to study international business and economics.

On the surface he of course does not support these things but his progeny tell a completely different story.

Yea and all Germans were responsible for Hitler.

I suppose you've never heard of Glass-Steagall?

I know about the Glass-Steagall Act, which created the FDIC and some banking regulations.

Your knowledge of history is extremely superficial. It's what comes from learning everything from wikipedia and google searches.

Your knowledge of me is what is extremely superficial. And on that note I'm ending this.

Falcon

The politically correct reaction, which is also the wrong reaction, is to violently point at the "slightness" of the difference and to then claim that the "slightness" of difference means that all races are the same. The objector -- who is typically African and typically quite angry -- will accuse the person pointing out the difference to be a racist.

However, we should calmly look at the facts. Even small genetic differences can produce very large differences in appearance, behavior, and intelligence. These small differences explain the superior intellect possessed by Europeans and Japanese. The result, on a societal level, is that European society and Japanese society are richer, by several orders of magnitude, than African society. Africa is ia wasteland. Africans contributed almost nothing to the development of science and technology.

For further proof that ethnic groups differ in intelligence, look at Ashkenazi Jews. Subjected to centuries of discrimination, these Jews struggled to survive. Those who were not smart enough to overcome the discrimination died. Those who were smart enough to overcome the discrimination thrived. Over the course of centuries, this evolutionary pressure eventually boosted the IQ of Ashkenazi Jews. Albert Einstein is an Ashkenazi Jew.

Here is the bottom line. Africans (and African-Americans) are a failure because they lack the IQ to succeed. Affirmative action is wrong because their failure is not due to "oppression" from Asians and Whites. Africans are a failure because they lack the intelligence to succeed.

The politically correct reaction, which is also the wrong reaction, is to violently point at the "slightness" of the difference and to then claim that the "slightness" of difference means that all races are the same. The objector -- who is typically African and typically quite angry -- will accuse the person pointing out the difference to be a racist.

However, we should calmly look at the facts. Even small genetic differences can produce very large differences in appearance, behavior, and intelligence. These small differences explain the superior intellect possessed by Europeans and Japanese. The result, on a societal level, is that European society and Japanese society are richer, by several orders of magnitude, than African society. Africa is ia wasteland. Africans contributed almost nothing to the development of science and technology.

For further proof that ethnic groups differ in intelligence, look at Ashkenazi Jews. Subjected to centuries of discrimination, these Jews struggled to survive. Those who were not smart enough to overcome the discrimination died. Those who were smart enough to overcome the discrimination thrived. Over the course of centuries, this evolutionary pressure eventually boosted the IQ of Ashkenazi Jews. Albert Einstein is an Ashkenazi Jew.

Here is the bottom line. Africans (and African-Americans) are a failure because they lack the IQ to succeed. Affirmative action is wrong because their failure is not due to "oppression" from Asians and Whites. Africans are a failure because they lack the intelligence to succeed.

Faced with centuries of discrimination, Jews and, in particular, Ashkenazi Jews responded by working 20% harder than the general population. Those who were very smart survived. Those who could not compete in these harsh conditions died. Over centuries, these evolutionary pressures significantly boosted Jewish intelligence.

In general, Europeans and Asians are the folks who migrated out of Africa to reach geographic endpoints: Poland, England, Russia, Japan, etc. The migration subjected these folks to harsh climatic conditions. Those who were sufficiently smart survived. Those who lacked adequate intelligence died. Over thousands of years, these evolutionary pressures significantly boosted European and Asian intelligence.

By contrast, Africans -- in their comfortable, warm environment that did not have any natural disasters -- did not endure any evolutionary pressures to boost intelligence.

Nearly 100% of science and technology was developed by Europeans and Asians. A disproportionate share of the technical contributions were accomplished by Jews.

IQ tests consistently show that Jews and -- in particular -- Ashkenazi Jews are above average in intelligence. Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQ among ethnic groups. The difference between Ashkenazi-Jewish IQ and typical European IQ is about 7 points.

By contrast, African IQ is about 15 points below European or Japanese IQ.

Note that IQ tests are not biased in favor of "Whites". The Japanese achieve the same IQ score that the Europeans achieve.

Clearly, the folks with the lowest intelligence are Africans. They accomplished almost nothing. Africa is a wasteland. If a European marries an African, then the European condemns her child to lower intelligence.

in the US there are typically around 12 Doctors involved in the average Americans healthcare. have you ever been to a doctors office?

I last went to my Doc's office 3 days ago, on Thursday and I had 2 different appointments. Next Thursday I have 2 more appoints. Each of these appoints are with specialists, counselors or therapists who cost less than my doctor does. I am both disabled and a diabetic, yet I doubt I'll see half of your dozen docs this year. You'd have to go back more than 10 years before you can count 10 docs I've seen in an official capacity.

having worked in the medical field as a healthcare professional for a while i've seen firsthand the fiasco that is the US heathcare system. sorry folks, you arent getting "the best healthcare in the world" not even close. in fact

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

the US fares pretty abysmally.

France, which is listed number 1 in your list, is still having trouble with "runaway health-care inflation". Canada, which comes in 8 places before the US, still has people coming to the US for surgeries. For those who can afford it the US has about the best medical care in the world. Of course in part because of, and in part caused by, medical tourism other nations are catching up. Why have surgery in the US when you can have it done in India quicker and cheaper? Ah, a freer market.

Falcon

Errm, his term limit expires in January. Zelaya certainly appears to have been playing fast and loose with his country's Constitution, but more so did the military and the Honduran Congress. What is clear is that in Honduras, the military is calling the shots and regardless of the circumstances, that is not right.

There have been some very vivid demonstrations of the impacts of cyber-warfare, such as the attacks on Estonia and Georgia, Chinese and Iranian suppresion of free speech and media, air traffic control penetrations, and demonstrated penetrations of SCADA networks (power grid in particular). In Estonia, gov't services were disrupted, and the local equivalent of 911 was broken. Georgia was not as badly dinged as Estonia, largely because they're less reliant on networked services. (c.f. http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12673385 ). Power grid infrastructures (as well as telecom, oil pipelines, etc.) are highly automated in the US, and have been demonstrated to have been attacked (c.f. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123914805204099085.html?mod=googlenews_wsj ). Having accidentally broken chunks of telecom infrastructure, I know how easy it is to create large-scale disruptions through control networks - even without ill intent. The FAA IG has reported that air traffic has already been disrupted by system breaches (c.f. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124165272826193727.html, http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/ATC_Web_Report.pdf ).

And this is the stuff that's publicly visible. There is definitely an iceberg effect here - there's a lot more under the surface that isn't readily visible to the public. There's good reason the Pentagon doesn't publish the full extent of attacks (successful and not) perpetrated against the DoD infrastructure - it's not a good idea to let attackers know how much you see (and don't). But the concern is based on real threats, and real attempts - this is not hysterical speculation. The rules of engagement haven't been defined (when is a hack attempt serious enough to merit retaliation? what's a 'cyber-exercise' v. an act of war? how definite does attribution of an attack need to be to become a diplomatic issue?). There are countries that are pushing all these envelopes to gain an edge.

So if this stuff is already going on at a low-rumble level, the threat is demonstrated, and the consequences can be foreseen, wouldn't it be irresponsible not to develop techniques and strategies to ensure this bad stuff doesn't happen?

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean people aren't out to get you.

What site brings real news? (except Slashdot, of course)

news.bbc.co.uk

www.channel4.com/news

www.economist.com - A good place to go if you want to see the news before it happens

Cheap, proven, clean, unsubsidied, nuclear energy thank you.

Nuclear power is neither clear nor unsubsidized. The world's largest producer of nuclear power is France, and it dictates nuclear power plant be built and pays for them. SO does China, India, and Russia. The European Pressurized Reactor being built in Finland is "beset by long-running construction problems, schedule and cost overruns, and all-round hilarious ineptitude and controversy." And "is already running three years behind schedule due to a multitude of factors including quality control issues." It is also being built by Areva which is owned and subsidized by the government of France.

There's some uranium in the ground (which is actually poisoning our wells and room air in eastern part of Finland).

And you don't think mining more won't be worse? Fact is is without subsidies nuclear power would not be profitable.

Falcon

oil companies have replaced The Elders of Zion or Rothchilds

Except Rothschild is Jewish and was in oil. Rothschild Investment Trust controls Royal Dutch Shell Oil.

The margin for survival in the deserts is MUCH lower.

Which is one reason, though by far not the only one, I oppose the border fence in the Southwest.

I'm actually kind of sick of east coast people deciding that that deserts of the west are completely expendable for their own gains, but their native local habitats are not.

Yea, that really pisses me off about the environmentalists on the East Coast. Offshore from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras there are excellent cites for wind farms, however NIMBYs there fight against them. Especially Kennedy.

The only real energy solutions is probably a mixture of "alternative" fuels that don't compete with food crops, solar/wind, tidal, nuclear, and conventional fuels, as the region demands

Agreed but I'd add one thing, "Rebuilding the Power Grid. Not only build a long distance High Voltage Direct Current infrastructure but make the grid smart.

Falcon

This says 500,000 in the US for drugs, but, doesn't break it down on a per drug basis:
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13415267

Equally important, it says nothing about the type of violation. Previous poster tried to make a claim to the numbers in jail for possession; this article doesn't say what the 500,000 people were jailed for.

I have mentioned before that functionally, marijuana enforcement is actually quite analogous to alcohol enforcement; if you do either in your own home (and stay there) your chances of being arrested are essentially zero. This number of 500,000 in jail "for drugs" does nothing to refute my claim.

I was just reading an article that suggests doing it the other way round is the correct way.