Slashdot Mirror

A recent article in the Economist http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10430246 may provide helpful context to Americans trying to understand the thinking here.

What you say is true only for batteries specifically, not for electric cars in general. There's nothing stopping you from changing the electrolyte or the battery itself. In fact, it's been done before... in 1907 - http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9719105

An enlightened boss would realize this, and have a flexible working arrangement where everybody could choose the environment they are more productive i

Actually, my boss (well, CEO) figured this out quite a while ago and seems to be doing pretty well with it.

IN 2006 EMI, the world's fourth-biggest recorded-music company, invited some teenagers into its headquarters in London to talk to its top managers about their listening habits. At the end of the session the EMI bosses thanked them for their comments and told them to help themselves to a big pile of CDs sitting on a table. But none of the teens took any of the CDs, even though they were free. "That was the moment we realised the game was completely up," says a person who was there.

This Economist article http://economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10498664 paints an even bleaker future for the recording industry. So the last part of your post seems the most probable.

Quote:

IN 2006 EMI, the world's fourth-biggest recorded-music company, invited some teenagers into its headquarters in London to talk to its top managers about their listening habits. At the end of the session the EMI bosses thanked them for their comments and told them to help themselves to a big pile of CDs sitting on a table. But none of the teens took any of the CDs, even though they were free. "That was the moment we realised the game was completely up," says a person who was there.

Quote:

IN 2006 EMI, the world's fourth-biggest recorded-music company, invited some teenagers into its headquarters in London to talk to its top managers about their listening habits. At the end of the session the EMI bosses thanked them for their comments and told them to help themselves to a big pile of CDs sitting on a table. But none of the teens took any of the CDs, even though they were free. "That was the moment we realised the game was completely up," says a person who was there.

See http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10436089 and http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119941453085566759.html The Journal article is more pertinent and includes a nice plot of the price of oil in euros, dollars and gold over the last few years, but isn't free.

Actually there are other problems associated with the classmate and all the other low cost PC ideals.

#1 Built for profit will ultimately mean the end user will have to pay out of pocket for profit margins. In most modern PC companies this means support, or bundled software with nagware.

#2 If these laptops end up with Windows on them, they will be asked to purchase AV, Spyware, and ultimately face what everyone else in the modern world faces. Support nightmares fixing windows machines or having to reinstall the OS every year because education on a windows machine means something completely different than on a Linux machine. And the whole idea was to allow these kids to muck with the OS, something you will not be doing on a windows machine.

#3 None of the other solutions are built to the same standards as these XO machines. Drops from 6 feet, dust proof, water resistant try that with the eeepc.

#4 power consumption. anyone else have a pull string for power on your classmate.

And if you read the article on the OLPC by the economist http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10472304

you will find that they seam to have missed the whole point of why these exist. He had to do to terminal mode to get youtube to work? And youtube is all of a sudden is a make or break education tool?

I'll be specific. The OLPC is an overrated piece of junk. Is sticking kids with this kind of garbage (as opposed to an Wintel system, which might at least teach them how to use a system that 90% of the world uses) really supposed to help them?

Negroponte has done more for humanity than any CEO, CFO, POTUS (except maybe Carter).

Oh yes, some jerkoff who designs a laptop that sucks and markets it (he ain't GIVING it away, you know) to governments that he will ultimately only piss off is definitely comparable to Bill Gates, who has given and will give tens of BILLIONS of $ to Africa for education and to fight disease and hunger.

I just PRAY your post was intended as a joke. Saying that MS (or, more particularly, Bill Gates) has never done "crap for children's education anywhere" *has* to be intended as humorous irony.

But which in the long run is easier and cheaper to build and maintain?

Which is more likely to attract developers, run the most software? The mass-market laptop built with off-the-shelf parts or the customized OLPC?

"The Economist" had some tough words for OLPC and Negroponte last week:

First, the implementation...is terrible. In their zeal to rewrite the rules of computing for first-time users, OLPC shipped machines with a cumbersome operating system. ... Major PC vendors spend millions in research and development to enhance a computer's usability; OLPC tried to reinvent the wheel and came up with an oval.

Second, the go-to-market execution...was imperfect. There was a lack of documentation, support and methods to integrate the PCs into school curricula, teacher training, and the like. OLPC seemed to think that just by handing out laptops, everything would sort itself out. ...[The] consumer is not the nine-year-old user with infinite time on her hands, but a government bureaucrat who has to evaluate the machines relative to other options.

Since the project launched in 2005, commercial rivals have emerged: Intel's "Classmate" at around $250; Acer's laptop at $350; Everex PCs with Zonbu software at around $280; Asustek Computer's Asus Eee at under $400; and an Indian competitor, Novatium Solutions, which created a basic "NetPC" for around $80. There are many more.

OLPC initially treated all these activities as threats rather than competitors. ... But all computer buyers will have to compare the XP to a lot of other products in the market--something that never seemed to have struck OLPC's staffers as a possibility, but should have.

This leads to the final problem that has done the most to disappoint OLPC's fans: the hubris, arrogance and occasional self-righteousness of OLPC workers. They treated all criticism as enemy fire to be deflected and quashed rather than considered and possibly taken on board. Overcoming this will be essential if the project is to succeed past its first release. ... The OLPC staff will need to learn to listen to the candid criticism of outsiders for the second-generation of the laptop--or they do not deserve to build one.

Ultimately the OLPC initiative will be remembered less for what it produced than the products it spawned. The initiative is like running the four-minute mile: no one could do it, until someone actually did it. Then many people did. One clunky laptop per child

This article http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10472304 displays a very different, and more convincing, view of the OLPC failure than the ronpaulesque anti-corporate attitude in the comments here.

OLPC's problems, which can be distilled into four main areas, risk turning a wonderful idea into a plastic paperweight.

In their zeal to rewrite the rules of computing for first-time users, OLPC shipped machines with a cumbersome operating system. For example, adding Flash to do something like watch a YouTube video requires users to go into a terminal line-code and type a long internet address to download the software: it seems impossible to cut-and-paste the address. ... OLPC tried to reinvent the wheel and came up with an oval.

Second, the go-to-market execution...was imperfect. There was a lack of documentation, support and methods to integrate the PCs into school curricula, teacher training, and the like. OLPC seemed to think that just by handing out laptops, everything would sort itself out...The consumer is not the nine-year-old user with infinite time on her hands, but a government bureaucrat who has to evaluate the machines relative to other options.

That leads to the third problem. Since the project launched in 2005, commercial rivals have emerged: Intel's "Classmate" at around $250; Acer's laptop at $350...There are many more...All computer buyers will have to compare the XP to a lot of other products in the market--something that never seemed to have struck OLPC's staffers as a possibility, but should have.

This leads to the final problem that has done the most to disappoint OLPC's fans: the hubris, arrogance and occasional self-righteousness of OLPC workers. They treated all criticism as enemy fire to be deflected and quashed rather than considered and possibly taken on board. Overcoming this will be essential if the project is to succeed past its first release. Technology products improve based on user feedback. The OLPC staff will need to learn to listen to the candid criticism of outsiders for the second-generation of the laptop--or they do not deserve to build one.

Ultimately the OLPC initiative will be remembered less for what it produced than the products it spawned. The initiative is like running the four-minute mile: no one could do it, until someone actually did it. Then many people did. ... Mr Negroponte's vision for a $100 laptop was not the right computer, only the right price. Like many pioneers, he laid a path for others to follow.

One clunky laptop per child.

Well, with the cost of coal being a fraction of the cost of oil, it might just make economic sense from a fuel cost standpoint to bring back the steam locomotives. Of course there will be problems, such as carbon and particulate emissions, boiler maintenance costs, and safety concerns (improperly managed boilers can fail catastrophically) which doomed almost all of the old steam locomotives to the scrapyards over 50 years ago.

Although there are a fair number privately operated steam railways operating as either scenic railways or rolling museums, both in the US and Europe, the Diesel-Electric locomotive or electrified railways continue to be dominant in most of the First and Second World. The technology exists for building a new generation of steam locomotives which would address many of the problems of their 19th and early 20th century counterparts, and do it at much greater efficiencies, but there is hardly a groundswell of activity aimed at making this a reality.

In what way isn't it sustainable?

Is that specifically because of the 35 hour week or because of overall bureaucracy?

Overall bureaucracy was my impression.

Personal anecdotes aside, there's no clear proof of a negative impact on employment (though also no positive effect.

I presume you're talking about the shortened work week, rather than the bureaucracy in general. Of course, given that it was supposed to help unemployment, that it doesn't help suggests that it should be repealed and replaced with something else.

That sounds good in theory. However without government interfering the individual employee has far too little bargaining power. [...] The only alternative is collective bargaining, which once again means no individual choice.

It depends on the size of your collective and the size of the employer, and also on the nature of the work.

One person threatening to quit can mean a big deal to a five-person company, especially if they're a heavy hitter. For a company of five thousand, not so much. But negotiating collectives can be large enough to negotiate effectively without being large enough to prevent employee choice entirely.

Aside from making collectives bigger, one could make companies smaller. Technology has made it orders of magnitude easier to run a small company these days. A good portion of the large companies I've seen are fed more by power to bully and cheat, rather than the typical justification, economy of scale. Perhaps a progressive tax based on company size would be more effective at improving employee negotiating power than a one-size-fits-all solution.

And for a fair number of people, I don't think they need government help. As the value of knowledge and skill increases relative to capital, employers have a much bigger incentive to keep people happy. See this article on SAS, for example. For them, the government-mandated work week is purely a hindrance.

Yet, why would Czar Vladimir Putin go through all this trouble to produce an impressive showing at the polls? He is already quite popular. His party, United Russia, could have easily won control of the Duma without the election rigging.

"The Economist" has finally provided an answer to this puzzling question. "The answer almost certainly lies in the ever more vicious--and open--rivalry among the Kremlin's political clans. Perhaps Mr Putin upset so many rich and powerful people that the prospect of losing control over the transition of power may simply have been too dangerous for his inner circle, and for himself. For all his talk about foreign threats and domestic enemies, what Mr Putin really fears is his entourage and a war among the clans. Winston Churchill once described the Kremlin's political tussles as being like a fight among bulldogs under a carpet: outsiders hear plenty of growling but have few clues about the victor's identity until it emerges."

Renegade political factions (run by former and current members of the FSB, successor of the KGB) operate within and outside the Kremlin. Each faction is like a gang, and the gangs kill each other. They answer to no one. So far, Putin has used his power to keep the factions under control.

Putin needed an impressive showing in the election in order to demonstrate his political power -- to the siloviki. He controls the United Russia party. Since the party won more than 66% of the seats in the Duma (due to the rigged election), the party -- and Putin -- can alter the constitution at will.

Of course, Putin is gambling that his scheme will work. He may lose the gamble. One of the renegade factions may assassinate him.

In this context, you can understand the comments by Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachev won the Nobel Peace Prize for releasing the Eastern Europeans from the yoke of Soviet oppression. He has criticized the steadily eroding freedoms that he initiated in Russia in the late 1980s, but he has refrained from directly criticizing Czar Vladimir Putin.

Putin is indeed a czar, but he is a far better ruler than one of the thugs in the siloviki. These thugs likely killed both Alexander Litvinenko and Anna Politkovskaya. Even if Putin wanted to solve their murders, he has no power to do so. If he attempted to find the killers, then he may be killed.

P.S.
"The Economist" seems to provide much better analysis of Russian politics than Washington provides. What exactly are our Russian "experts" in Washington doing?

you are correct PPP for the U.S. is higher than europe, but my point was the quality of life is no better in one industialized country over another just because the U.S. has more billionares than the UK or France does not mean the average person is any better off - at least they don't have to worry about if they have healthcare or decent schools... http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf Also I agree we need to do more than conserve - I am a physicist an I have nothing against nuclear power - but that is no excuse not to make use of the resources you have in an efficient manner - especially if others are already doing it. Finally your point about Atlanta is a good one - here we have a huge sprawling mess with a poor water supply to boot - what the heck were we thinking? gee, maybe zoning is a good idea. If we can't rework Altanta it will continue to be an inefficent mess (maybe the water shortage will get them to downsize) you can dream that power will become so cheap that it will not matter and nobody will have to change the way we do anything but there is no guarantee that will happen. They thought nuclear power would make electricity so cheap you will not have to meter it - didn't quite work out that way, power consumption always comes with a cost, and nuclear power has a cost. To design our infrastructure is such an energy intensive way is a bad idea, it assumes energy will always be cheap - future infrastructure should be focused on reducing our dependance on energy, not increasing it.

Also reported a year before that in The Economist.

http://economist.com/search/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_QPGRTPD&CFID=27211624&CFTOKEN=19337193

1. According to a report by "The Economist", the Japanese government, by 2005, had apologized 17 times for the role of the Japanese in World War II. The Japanese government even gave a written apology to the Korean government.

2. According to a report by "The Washington Post", Tokyo paid $500 million of war reparations to Seoul in 1965.

3. According to a CNN report, a "Time" magazine report, and several other reports, Nazi symbols are popular in Korea. "A small photo of Adolf Hitler adorns the entrance to the Fifth Reich, an upscale watering hole in Seoul's Shinchon university district. A larger picture of the Führer hangs across from the bar, where waiters and waitresses with swastika arm badges mix drinks that have names like 'Adolf Hitler' and 'Dead'."

4. Koreans have viciously treated non-Koreans in South Korea. The Chinese immigrant community has succeeded in nearly every Asian country (including Japan). The exception is South Korea. The Chinese population in Korea declined from 50,000 to 10,000. "Many Chinese claim they were forced out by the Seoul authorities."

5. A reporter at "The Economist" wrote, "Koreans have always prided themselves on ethnic homogeneity, and feared and distrusted outsiders."

6. The U.S. State department has warned, "Citizenship [in Korea] is based on blood, not location of birth, and Koreans must show as proof their family genealogy. Thus, ethnic Chinese born and resident in Korea cannot obtain citizenship or become public servants."

7. "Purity" of blood is extremely important in Korean culture. "Traditional reverence for familial bloodlines [in Korea] and the social stigmas attached to adoptees as well as children who are disabled, mixed race or born out of wedlock limit local enthusiasm for the [adoption] program. Thus, international adoption continues to outpace domestic." "Because of societal values emphasizing the importance of bloodline, children were adopted domestically only by extended family or blood relatives."

Although a tiny percentage of Japanese citizens supports a revisionist history (as evidenced by the shocking memorial next to Yasukuni Shrine), the overwhelming majority of Japanese is aware of the correct history of World War II: specifically, the Japanese military initiated a war of aggression.

However, this unfortunate history is no justification, whatsoever, for the the racist and bigotted attitudes of the Koreans. Korean citizens who reside in Japan but who refuse Japanese citizenship should be treated as foreigners. These Korean "refuseniks" are loyal to either South Korea or North Korea. The Japanese government should fingerprint all Korean "refuseniks".

1. According to a report by "The Economist", the Japanese government, by 2005, had apologized 17 times for the role of the Japanese in World War II. The Japanese government even gave a written apology to the Korean government.

2. According to a report by "The Washington Post", Tokyo paid $500 million of war reparations to Seoul in 1965.

3. According to a CNN report, a "Time" magazine report, and several other reports, Nazi symbols are popular in Korea. "A small photo of Adolf Hitler adorns the entrance to the Fifth Reich, an upscale watering hole in Seoul's Shinchon university district. A larger picture of the Führer hangs across from the bar, where waiters and waitresses with swastika arm badges mix drinks that have names like 'Adolf Hitler' and 'Dead'."

4. Koreans have viciously treated non-Koreans in South Korea. The Chinese immigrant community has succeeded in nearly every Asian country (including Japan). The exception is South Korea. The Chinese population in Korea declined from 50,000 to 10,000. "Many Chinese claim they were forced out by the Seoul authorities."

5. A reporter at "The Economist" wrote, "Koreans have always prided themselves on ethnic homogeneity, and feared and distrusted outsiders."

6. The U.S. State department has warned, "Citizenship [in Korea] is based on blood, not location of birth, and Koreans must show as proof their family genealogy. Thus, ethnic Chinese born and resident in Korea cannot obtain citizenship or become public servants."

7. "Purity" of blood is extremely important in Korean culture. "Traditional reverence for familial bloodlines [in Korea] and the social stigmas attached to adoptees as well as children who are disabled, mixed race or born out of wedlock limit local enthusiasm for the [adoption] program. Thus, international adoption continues to outpace domestic." "Because of societal values emphasizing the importance of bloodline, children were adopted domestically only by extended family or blood relatives."

Although a tiny percentage of Japanese citizens supports a revisionist history (as evidenced by the shocking memorial next to Yasukuni Shrine), the overwhelming majority of Japanese is aware of the correct history of World War II: specifically, the Japanese military initiated a war of aggression.

However, this unfortunate history is no justification, whatsoever, for the the racist and bigotted attitudes of the Koreans. Korean citizens who reside in Japan but who refuse Japanese citizenship should be treated as foreigners. These Korean "refuseniks" are loyal to either South Korea or North Korea. The Japanese government should fingerprint all Korean "refuseniks".

I think that the term you'd be looking for would be 'displacement'.

Thanks, "displacement" may work. Another word I thought of when I read the above was "distort" and I'll try it too.

My house needs to be heated. I'm outside of NG range, so my main choices are electric or propane. Right now propane is substantially cheaper than electric - but with the right setup(like a geothermal heat pump), electric would be cheaper.

I rent now but it's kind of like "rent to own". When the building is transfered to me I plan on converting the heating as well. Right now a boiler in the basement, burning propane, provides heating with only 1 thermostat covering the building. What I want to do is first improve the insulation, my apartment on the first floor can get warm while the apartments above will be cold. Then if feasible I want to use a geothermal heat pump as well. I'll use radiant floor heating and create heating zones for each apartment controlled by thermostats in each apartment. A person would be able to have the bedroom warming up before they hit the sack then lower the temp once they're out the door. The kitchen zone would then warm up before they got up so the floor wasn't cold while cooking. Now, do I really expect people to setup the room like that? No, but they will have the ability.

It'd just take a large capital investment - which isn't worth it at this time.

Yea, I hope I'll be able to save enough after a few years, I want to get a loan for it but still want to make sure I have at least most of the money. I could either take out a second mortgage or an equity line of credit, then roll it into a new mortgage when interest is low.

If it gets bad enough - you see more people driving electric cars because they're cheaper.

I think it was late last year but it of been early this year when I read about a study the "Economist" had that basically said those in the US pay something like 17% of their income on transportation. When oil prices are low they'll drive expensive gas guzzlers but when oil prices are high they drive fuel efficient vehicles.

On to your list of links... I found #4 interesting, because it considers not charging for CO2 emissions a subsidy.

In a way I consider a subsidy myself. Instead of the government giving the money, it's future generations who will have to pay. The Inuit in Nunavut are already paying. And not just for Global Warming, but for industrial pollution as well. Although the Inuit neither make nor consume Polychlorinated biphenyl, known to be highly toxic, their blood as been shown to have high PCB levels. Heck they even have high levels of DDT.

I hate to say it, but I think that they need to stop concentrating on reducing energy usage for a while and concentrate on appliance longevity. Chopping 10% off the electricity usage of an appliance makes sense when it lasts 20 years, but the average today is often less than 10, and for some is as low as 5, on average.

Oh, I'm in total agreement. It seems nobody takes pride in making something that can be handed down to grand and great grand children today. I lost it but about 15 years ago I had the shell of a Zippo lighter with the graving of a Chinese dragon that was made in the 1930's. It was in great shape. Design today is for planned obsolescence. Things should be made to last a long tyme, then easy to recycle. There's a good book partially on this, "Natural Capitalism". It has case studies of how company X improved it's bottom line by cleaning up pollution,

Not quite yet. While AC has an advantage over DC transmitting long distance at low voltages, at high voltages DC has the advantage. There are discussions in Europe to use high voltage CD current long distances. By stringing up all of Europe with these power lines it would make it easier for Europe to develop alternative energy sources. For instance while it may not always be windy in Spain it may be in Germany or Poland, and Turkey could provide solar power part of the tyme. Some months back I think IEEE's "Spectrum" had an article of this, here's one from the "Economist", "Where the wind blows".

This pro-Kremlin blogger belittles the human-rights groups in Russia. Then, he claims that the Kremlin is a really nice guy, not a beast.

Well, read the story of Russian riot police beating the crap out of human-rights advocates. In 2007 April, peaceful protestors gathered in Moscow and St. Petersburg. The OMON (the Russian riot police) attacked them. "The OMON beat everybody nearby, including journalists, with truncheons and fists. And they arrested people indiscriminately, among them the man with the flowers, a group of transvestites and even a small boy. ... A small peaceful group was intercepted by the OMON. An old man tried to save an old woman from arrest; a dozen club-wielding men viciously attacked both. ... Supporters and journalists who gathered outside the police station were beaten again. ... hundreds were arrested and dozens hospitalised."

This little fucking pro-Kremlin blogger says that the Kremlin is a nice guy.

I think not. The Kremlin is a Russian beast -- a total fucking animal.

We Westerners will not shut up about the shit that the Kremlin is doing to Chechens, Georgians, and -- yes -- even Russians.

We want the whole world to know about the utter brutality of the Kremlin. Thank Buddha for an organization like "The Economist".

Numbers are still growing; but recently--it is impossible to know exactly when--an inflection point seems to have been reached. The rate of population increase began to slow. In more and more countries, women started having fewer children than the number required to keep populations stable. Four out of nine people already live in countries in which the fertility rate has dipped below the replacement rate. Last year the United Nations said it thought the world's average fertility would fall below replacement by 2025. Demographers expect the global population to peak at around 10 billion (it is now 6.5 billion) by mid-century.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9545933

Enjoy.

It's a myth that our debt is large or crippling. Doubly so when you look at historical levels of the national debt.

Triply so when you consider that as the dollar looses value, so does our debt, while our cheaper currency drives exports and growth.

It's true that the U.S. economic situation is not perfect. We don't print money on trees, and our growth rate isn't good, there are class issues, and inefficiency is growing. However, our environmental situation is _pretty good_ these days, and for the most part (at least in terms of environmental contaminants, and deforestation) there is a good deal of substance (read "balls") to the U.S. economy. Watch the yuan continue to grow in value, and renewables continue to be ever more viable in the face of escalating oil prices, and you'll see that the U.S. shall continue as a strong economy for the forseeable future.

We're hardly pawning off our assets to pay our debts. The only thing that's happening now is that foreign countries no longer value our debt as AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, driving the value of the dollar down; which makes sense, as it was overvalued. Our purchasing power shall decline, however, our incentive to work hard, produce, and sell to the rest of the world grows. All we have to do is a)ride out the occasional correction, as we are doing now, and b)find politicians willing to exercise fiscal restraint and work towards budget surpluses, as well as a sustainable, cheap source of energy.

Hopefully, the market will take care of the second part, and the 2008 election will take resolve the first.

before you get too upity about anti-standby legislation, such laws would take the form of "no more than X watts when off" rather than "no standby". in the article from the economist below, a california law banning the sale of new TVs that draw more than 3 watts when not in use. that has the effect of a "ban" of standby, but it does not lead to flying toasters.

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5571582

Yes we have ... the first draft was published almost 7 years ago.

"and when we finish mapping it, we won't understand it."

We do understand a few parts of it ... but I agree that we don't have any "big picture" view.

But progress is being made in Moore's law style. See

http://www.economist.com/theworldin/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8134230&d=2007

The problem is financial, not political. There are millions of people in Africa who are hungry

When the African country of Zimbabwe went from being a breadbasket, growing enough food to feed the populations and still leaving plenty for export, to a nation need aid to feed the country it was not financial in nature. President Robert Mugabe forced all of the commercial farmers, many of them white, off of the farms and gave the farms to his cronies and supporters. Because these people did not know how to farm Zimbabwe now depends on foreign aid to feed the population.

Parent has a point. There could well be a large reduction in phishing sites--at least temporarily.

From TFA: "Naturally, in this sphere, as in other spheres, we should be thinking about adhering to Russian laws, about making sure that child pornography is not distributed, that financial crimes are not committed," he continued. "But that is a task for the law enforcement agencies. Total control and the work of the law enforcement agencies are two different things."

But then there's the Russian Business Network http://economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9723768, which has been an ongoing problem for some time. It's apparently politically protected.

We DO spend enough on technology and education. It's been a while since I've seen the numbers, but I believe that we spend more, both per-capita and in absolute terms, on education than most other countries.

You're confusing spending on education with quality of education. Many countries spend less than the USA and have much better standards of literacy and numeracy in primary schools. Here's a quote from "The Economist": Australia has almost tripled education spending per student since 1970. No improvement. American spending has almost doubled since 1980 and class sizes are the lowest ever. Again, nothing. Actually the whole article is very interesting: find it here

That the "freedom-loving" slashdotters are all — posters and moderators — claiming to be happy, that the big lie of "cell phones may interfere with safety equipment on board" is being used to stop their fellow passengers from using their cell phones on the planes.

Evidently, the ends justify the means... Lying to millions of travelers to prevent a tiny minority of them from being inconsiderate, while at the same time offering them an option to pay $6/minute for the same sort of inconsideration...

Economist held a generally favourable view of her work. Last year it reviewed her book "Tough Choices"... The second link is freely readable by all.

Economist held a generally favourable view of her work. Last year it reviewed her book "Tough Choices"... The second link is freely readable by all.

Not necessarily the tightest ship, though. Tesco has more able distribution systems, especially for smaller shop sizes.

Islamic societies are horribly backward in terms of economic and scientific development. It doesn't require a genius to figure out why:
A society that takes away rights from 50% of its population cannot prosper. Societies that oppress women are invariably under-developed, strife-riven and backward.

The notion of being forward, developed is not new. This is not the only "golden time" humanity had (although I would prefer this one than any other, simply because I was born in this one). People have been happy/happier, societies have been developing WITH at least Mathematics being studied/applied/researched upon without any problem whatsoever.

On the other hand, idea of gender equality is a new one. Yeah that's right! Prosperity has NOTHING to do with human rights (also a new idea).

Societies prosper when they are stable. Stability has nothing to do with human rights. For example, slavery did not just stop after French revolution, but science still prospered. Stability has only one thing to do: social cooperation. That happens when people are focused on what they have to do. So we had society like India where more than 50% people were living a short life of insect while a bunch of people did enormous research in astronomy and mathematics. Or Arab, where things were preserved and cared for when others were sleeping in Dark Age. Or NOW, when people doing scientific research do not make more than a 0.5% of society. The problem with any individual country in middle Asia (irrespective of religion) is poverty and lack of resources (and no, Arab is not "in general" rich. It has got a bunch of people who are rich, and for all the rest of them, everything is expensive. Those who have been to Saudi Arabia or know someone from their will know that most of the work-force in SA comes from other countries which are poorer.

Management 101: In a situation of unrest in team, find something common. (So in a foreign land, Chinese hang around with Chinese even when they don't know each other).

Something similar could have been applied, but it cannot be because in a world of Globalization, it has hard to get people agreed on any thing. (For example, consider a future where NO one has ever heard of democracy. In such future, Myanmar is a stable prospering state if it is self-sustaining. A person who comes up with the idea of democracy will be laughed upon.)

This leads to the other conclusion: when you cannot hold your towel because the wind is too strong, shut the window!
In other terms, concentrate on "Islamic brotherhood" as being a common ground and shut the developments in non-Islamic world as alien.

That's all what is happening. The book in TFA is nothing new, you can buy material saying the conclusion on every street if you are in a Islamic country (barring Turkey, but see here: http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9867269 )

So repeat once again, Prosperity has NOTHING TO DO WITH human rights.

Any system that proclaims a monopoly on truth and mandates severe punishments for those who question the system cannot produce scientific progress.

But we are standing on shoulder of those giant which were burned when they said what they said, isn't it? Do you see the logical fallacy in your argument? It is called Begging the Question

Any society that produces riots in response to satirical cartoons cannot progress in the modern world.

Any person who dies cannot live. Remember, the reason a person cannot live is because he is not living.

What? Poison? You are trying to justify! THE PERSON CANNOT LIVE BECAUSE HE IS NOT LIVING!

Any society that always blames outsiders for its troubles will forever wallow in its own backwardness.

people are not generous enough to fund a healthy modern state

Sure some aren't but many others are. Sometimes it's government and regulations that cause the problems. I don't recall exactly when but sometime back in the late 1980 or early '90s Mother Teresa tried to open a shelter in New York City. She had all the financing set up but the city stopped it by regulation. And by taxing income, you're discouraging people from donating. Sure taxpayers get a tax writeoff but it's not a 1 to 1 writeoff. For someone in a 20% tax bracket, for every dollar donated they only get a 20 cent tax reduction. By reducing or eliminating income tax more people will be willing to donate. A common reason I hear people give for not donating is the government donates for them, with the point of a gun. Look at Bill and Melisa Gates and Warren Buffet, the Gates setup their foundation and Buffet gave billions of dollars to it. Wealthy philanthropists are in The business of giving.

Your disability payments would seem to be exactly the type of social service that forced pooling of money allows.

That's exactly what insurance does, it pools money then pays someone who contributed when they need it. In my specific case I wouldn't have needed insurance if those responsible for my disability had been held accountable. What happened was I was riding my bike when I left campus after class in college when someone who never should of been driving hit me with a moving van, apartment movers type. Witnesses to the accident said the driver was swerving all over the road. He was a diabetic and I was told he had a seizer while driving. However he had caused two accidents before mine from the same thing and and been hospitalized twice. He moved from one state to another because the first state issued a warrant for his arrest. If he had never been driving I wouldn't have been disabled from the accident, there wouldn't have been an accident. There was one though and if his employer had been fully held to account they or their insurance would of been made to pay full costs for my wellbeing 'til death. As it is, medical bills and lawyers fees ate up almost half of the final settlement.

Though I would guess if you're online much you have access to conveniences that many in the world would envy.

Some may envy it, but I don't. First, I don't like being idle. Prior to my accident my friends used to tell me I had to slow down, that I was doing too many things. I disagreed then and I disagree now. I also always believed I'd rather be dead than disabled. When I was in a coma the docs told my family it would be a miracle if I lived. If I could talk to those docs now I'd argue that point. After coming out of the coma my younger sister told me I kept screaming at anyone to let me die, even now more than 10 years later I still wish I had died. As far as I'm concerned my life has been a living hell.

The Economist is running an eloquent elaboration of this under the title Civil liberties under threat, The real price of freedom.

I will be plastering this series on my office door as it is published. Their version of parents statement:

If the war against terrorism is a war at all, it is like the cold war--one that will last for decades. Although a real threat exists, to let security trump liberty in every case would corrode the civilised world's sense of what it is and wants to be.

The Economist and CNN have crystal clear pictures of the protests and the crackdown. Maybe the Beeb needs to invest in better reporters? Or is this a story on how major outlets are using pictures taken by the public, because they are cheaper and more immediate? In either case, I think the story of the protest and the crackdown are bigger stories than the graininess of the pictures thereof.

If you try to give the lay person a complete picture of everything that goes into your experiments and conclusions, of course you will fail.

Not many writers know how to do this. Tom Standage, who edits The Economist's science and technology section, is about as good as it gets.

My link failed. Let me try again: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9833041

Good examples are the Iraq war, or the earth' climate change.

I wouldn't call it a weak paper, though.

Of course, it should be noted that all three currencies you note are considered to be rather undervalued compared to the dollar. The US has been complaining loudly about China in particular keeping the yuan artificially undervalued for some time; had China complied, the dollar would have fallen much further against the yuan.

Big Macs also seem to work well. http://www.economist.com/markets/Bigmac/Index.cfm

Corporations should pay pollution taxes, property tax and etcetera, but I don't see why they can't just pay a consumption tax on their expenses.

Maybe you can point out where I'm wrong but I see a consumption tax on what a corporation buys to make what they sale as a production tax. And I don't believe production should be taxed.

If we only tax fuels, than trucks, who cause far more damage then cars(damage is proportional to weight cubed), do not get taxed more. It is best to directly tax what causes the expense: the weight and miles driven. Licenses cost money, but not much, so the driver license fee in place should do it.

Ah but trucks do pay more in tax on the fuel, fuel is taxed by the gallon or other measure of volume, and it takes more fuel to operate a delivery truck than it does a passenger car for instance. And two reasons why it takes more fuel is because of weight and miles driven, along with less efficiency. Well actually it may be more efficient to move a given weight by truck than by car. I once read about a study, I think it was in the "Economist" magazine that compared the fuel needed to transport a given number of people between New York City and Washington DC by bus, car, and train. The car used the most fuel per person and the train the least. Of course the train, and bus, has to be full to get the benefit.

I skimmed over the pollution tax idea. Let me flesh it out a bit more: Every year, the government would auction off a certain number of CO2 credits(the number ideally determined by a council of scientists) to the highest bidder. These credits are licenses to emit a certain amount of CO2, and they can be traded between individuals and firms. Polluters at the end of the year need to demonstrate to the EPA that they have bought carbon credits to cover all of their emissions. The advantage of this over a simple tax is that the limited amount of CO2 that we set aside will go to the most profitable source, as everyone else will be priced out. This means that we will suffer the least economic damage for the most CO2 reduction. We currently have similar systems in place for SO2 and other pollutants, and it is working rather well.

I see this, I support a cap and trade regime wherein every year the maximum emissions allowed is reduced. However greenhouse gas and other air pollutants aren't only source of pollution. There's pollutants like PCBs that end up in water. General Electric for instance pumped a lot of PCB into the Hudson River in New York. There was Love Canal, the river that caught on fire I believe in Cincinnati, and others. There's another concern many may not classify as pollution but it's still related, drawing water from aquifers. For instance Intel and other semiconductor manufacturers have to use a lot of water in manufacturing. They need deionized water in manufacturing process to among other things rinse off contaminates. Or take Coke and Pepsi, they use massive amounts of water to make soda. Because of this water wells around soda plants in India used by the local people, for personal use like cooking and drinking as well as for watering crops, are going dry.

Property taxes cannot be levied by the federal government, by the constitution.

Oh, damn, I thought I said property tax at the state and local level but I didn't in this post you replied to. It must of been a post higher up... Nope, I clicked the parent links all the way up but didn't see anywhere where I said state or local property tax. My mistake.

Most of these endeavors from TFA may be pie-in-the-sky, literally; however, according to this article from the Economist the other week, the Goddard Space Flight Center has some serious plans for missions to the moon under direction of President Bush's Vision for Space Exploration. Going for the pie-in-the-sky plans may sound exciting and adventurous, but reality needs to set in eventually. Making gradual steps and acting when the technology is developed is the best plan to ensure safety and success in the space in the future.