Slashdot Mirror

Here's an interesting report from FP Magazine on obesity as a global epidemic. Interesting to note that obesity seems to occur independent of the financial factors that you would assume cause obesity. Report is a PDF download. tcd004

This is very simliar to this piece from Foreign Policy Magazine in September of 2004 "The World's Most Dangerous Ideas" tcd004

This is true to a point, but this far emphasizes the generosity of the United States. See this article.

A starving individual will certainly choose food over a laptop, but not all third-world countries are teeming with starving people rather most countries have a potential for a rising middle-class who lack the education and information necessary. The choice isn't between a laptop or a fish, it's the choice between a livelihood dependent on foreign food-supplies or a life of opportunity and all of its residual benefits.

Government is standing up to IP owners? That must be why the US Congress keeps on extending the copyright term, or why just yesterday, it became known that the music industry is trying to hijack serious crime legislation in Europe, which would equate file sharers with terrorists and mobsters.

The suggestion that the IP debate is balanced against IP owners seems ludicrous to me. See this article for more more arguments (Bugmenot - countrywise/globalportal).

tcd004

tcd004

We are at a critical moment in human history--perhaps not as dramatic as that of the Cuban Missile Crisis, but a moment no less crucial. Neither the Bush administration, the congress, the American people, nor the people of other nations have debated the merits of alternative, long-range nuclear weapons policies for their countries or the world. They have not examined the military utility of the weapons; the risk of inadvertent or accidental use; the moral and legal considerations relating to the use or threat of use of the weapons; or the impact of current policies on proliferation. Such debates are long overdue. If they are held, I believe they will conclude, as have I and an increasing number of senior military leaders, politicians, and civilian security experts: We must move promptly toward the elimination--or near elimination--of all nuclear weapons. For many, there is a strong temptation to cling to the strategies of the past 40 years. But to do so would be a serious mistake leading to unacceptable risks for all nations.

For those who are dumb enough to think that this is such a good idea, first read the article Apocalypse Soon, written by the man who was the person came closest to presssing that button in US history, R obert McNamara AKA Kennedy Administration's Secretary of Defense during the Cuban missile crisis.

Zonk, my boy, you've done it. First the dupes, then the misleading headlines, and now this. This is the last drop. I can't stand your editorship anymore. Zonk, I hereby award you the dubious honor of being the first editor whose stories are banned from my /. homepage.

I agree about http://foreignpolicy.com/ not updating often enough, well said.

* I think we are agreeing on Iran being an area of concern.
* It seems you believe that a precision bombing strike on Iran's Uranium refining facility would be a good proactive solution with minimal loss of Iranian lives;
* I don't believe Iran would declare war on the U.S. in the event of such an airstrike, but it's possible (how would we respond if they managed to bomb a Fort Riley, Kansas? Would we declare war? Quite Probably.)

My point is this: The USA has far more to fear in the next decade(s) from FAILED nation states than from STRONG ones. (I'm quoting ForeignPolicy.com's article "The Failed States Index") http://foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=30 98. Iran can be seen as a quasi-successful state in that they have some functioning democratic institutions, basic rule of law, and some non-state-owned media. All the above are limited in power and scope, but the longer they persist, the more people get used to them and learn to work within them.

I agree about http://foreignpolicy.com/ not updating often enough, well said.

* I think we are agreeing on Iran being an area of concern.
* It seems you believe that a precision bombing strike on Iran's Uranium refining facility would be a good proactive solution with minimal loss of Iranian lives;
* I don't believe Iran would declare war on the U.S. in the event of such an airstrike, but it's possible (how would we respond if they managed to bomb a Fort Riley, Kansas? Would we declare war? Quite Probably.)

My point is this: The USA has far more to fear in the next decade(s) from FAILED nation states than from STRONG ones. (I'm quoting ForeignPolicy.com's article "The Failed States Index") http://foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=30 98. Iran can be seen as a quasi-successful state in that they have some functioning democratic institutions, basic rule of law, and some non-state-owned media. All the above are limited in power and scope, but the longer they persist, the more people get used to them and learn to work within them.

I'm really sorry, but: I must compliment you on your extraordinary ability to construct run-on sentences; it's difficult to follow you but I'll try ...

Police, like tanks, are economically wasteful ONLY if everyone is honest. If there were no crime, it would be silly to have people enforcing laws. I agree with you that Police ARE essential, but would count their cost as basic infrastructure costs, like fire protection and insurance. Businesses crave predictable risks above most everything else.

Much of your comment is confusingly worded, but I think you're saying:
* we should police the middle east or a 'mafia' will rise there;
* this policing will pay off later with more stability and thus lower defense costs;
* OPEC is fighting renewable energy.

You might want to consider the implications of bombing Iran before being cavalier about it. I understand your frustration over being unable to stop their nuclear ambitions and thinking unilateral action (as with Iraq) will solve this.

The situation is complex. Bombing another Islamic country, like Iran, will generate lots of hatred (as well as killing people there). Iranians are proud people, with a long, rich, powerful history, a strong desire to join the rest of the world in technological and socioeconomic advancements. Current economic and political power is concentrated in rigid, somewhat intractable religio-politico oligarchic structures. They have a huge generation gap (young=liberal, old=powerful=conservative). Educationally, the tradition is memorization (with much less critical thinking than is taught in the U.S.).

Bombing their reactor will do little to slow their progress. Bombing Germany in WWII only slightly slowed industrial output, it only decentralized it. The same will occur in Iran. Plus, we now have a proud nation that won't listen to us or our alies, they're put into a defensive posture, and must prove something to the world to save face.

Good foreign policy has both a carrot and a stick. Check out http://foreignpolicy.com/. Yes, the world is complex, and complexity is yucky, but there are ways to help the world be a better place without reflexively using the military (many leaders of which would wholeheartedly agree with that statement).

Two comments here.

a) The AC message I'm replying to is spot-on.
b) Thanks, tcd004 for pointing me toward http://www.foreignpolicy.com/index.php. It's made it into the News bookmarks.

Still, some economists argue that China isn't growing nearly as quickly as it could. How could that be?

One probable cause is that infrastructure for research and development has a long way to go in many developing Asian countries, especially China. Having some history behind your scientific community has its benefits. Thats why, even with our moral and ethical hurdles in the way, we're still winning the "great stem cell race." For now.

(enjoy the plugs for great articles in my favorite magazine)
tcd004

Still, some economists argue that China isn't growing nearly as quickly as it could. How could that be?

One probable cause is that infrastructure for research and development has a long way to go in many developing Asian countries, especially China. Having some history behind your scientific community has its benefits. Thats why, even with our moral and ethical hurdles in the way, we're still winning the "great stem cell race." For now.

(enjoy the plugs for great articles in my favorite magazine)
tcd004

Still, some economists argue that China isn't growing nearly as quickly as it could. How could that be?

One probable cause is that infrastructure for research and development has a long way to go in many developing Asian countries, especially China. Having some history behind your scientific community has its benefits. Thats why, even with our moral and ethical hurdles in the way, we're still winning the "great stem cell race." For now.

(enjoy the plugs for great articles in my favorite magazine)
tcd004

This is like the FBI's report last week that it had no evidence of al Qaeda sleeper cells operating in the United States currently. Only a fool would believe that this means we have defeated terrorism on our own soil.

Well, you could do some reading as to what al Qaeda actually is, preferably from people who seriously researched them for years, instead of just swallowing the government line of "a global terror network". You can start here. What you'll probably find, the more you read, is that the odds that al Qaeda has any sort of network, any sleeper cells, in the US is very low indeed. Given that, the fact that the FBI failed to find any is hardly suprising at all.

Jedidiah.

Conflict of Interest: Two men, whose family and business associates and friends have extensive investments in global oil businesses, are president and vice-president of the entire U.S. government.

Using dishonest means, these men convinced U.S. taxpayers to pay for killing people in Iraq. What has been accomplished there? The killing under Saddam was less than the killing under George Bush.

One thing that has been accomplished, however, is that the profit from oil contracts involving Iraq has been shifted from Saddam to U.S. companies. This was accomplished while minimizing the support for U.S. troops.

Visual Aid: Iraq Body Count Visual Aid. Many people can't look at this without becoming so overloaded that they become irrational.

The U.S. government is now far more in debt than ever before: Debt Clock. If you are a U.S. citizen, you are expected to pay. Those who want corruption in the U.S. government want the government to borrow. The corrupters find ways to transfer the money to their pockets.

The U.S. government has fought 24 wars since World War II. The system of violence works by creating fear so rich people can profit.

How to understand U.S. violence: For reasons beyond the scope of this comment, the mental illness called anger has been increasing in women in the United States. In general, men in the United States lack the social skills necessary to deal with this anger, so they do not provide a counter-balancing force. It is the general increase in anger and the general breakdown of U.S. society that has caused many people in the U.S. to look for outlets for their anger. Anger is easily re-directed by leaders with simplistic rationalizations that are presented as logical, and doing so has been quite profitable.

It is a characteristic of angry people that they don't think clearly. Another characteristic is that they look for ways to avoid knowing they are angry. Many people in the U.S. believe that they are superior people who should be allowed to kill because that is the only way of improving the world.

Ya, because the distruction of the twin towers on 911 was just a hoax.

Sure, it happened. What we don't really have is much evidence that it was anything more than a freak occurence. How many terrorist attacks have occured on US soil? How many attacks in the US have been foiled? Have you actually looked at any of those cases of "terrorist cells" in the US? They pretty much all either got quietly dismissed, or otherwise shuffled down and effectively dropped.

Exactly how big an organisation is al Qaeda really? I mean, besides what the administration has told you about a globe spanning terrorist network with amazing resources, what do you actually know about al Qaeda? Try digging around a wee bit and read material from people that were following Zawahiri and bin Laden from prior to all this. This article might be a good place to start.

If you look at the statistics, global terrorism has been in decline since the mid to late 80's. Aside from the occasional anomaly (9/11), the only growth area of terrorism in the last 10 years has been... Iraq in the last 2 years.

Countries in the Indian Ocean just suffered from an earthquake and tsunami that literally killed 100 times as many people as 9/11. Most people seem willing to accept that that was just a freak occurence. Sometimes bad things happen. It is possible that 9/11 was just a freak occurence, and in no way indicative of a vast and powerful global terrorist network. How can we know? The evidence for the vast network is surprisingly lacking if you actually look at it.

Jedidiah.

Don't miss this bit on how the EU is planning to use Quantum Crypto to subert and avoid the U.S.'s rampant digital espionage.

tcd004

Yeah, but look at the map they made: aside from the USA, Canada, Sweden, and Austria, the surveyors basically ignored the first world. The sampled as many developing and under-developed countries, where it seems safe to assume that the average people are far less likely to have a computer or broadband access at home.

For people in these places, access to a cybercafe is about the only option -- which is why the surveyors looked at the ratio of average hourly cybercafe rates cost to average daily wages. That's why the "expensive" $5.00 average in the USA and the $4.30 in Canada gets a bright green "cheap" rating, while the "cheap" $0.60 average in Ghana and $1.35 in India get a deep red "expensive" rating.

Most of the world's population aren't wealthy westerners like the average Slashdot reader!

See this interesting short piece in FP about how military contractors, the Office of Naval Research and Law enforcement agencies are testing plogs on their projects and networks.

Tcd004

Yes, and here's the story from the May/June 2002 issue of Foreign Policy on Japan's gross national cool referred to in this Washington Post article.

ForeignPolicy.com has a slightly older article (2001) that discusses this same phenomenon.

I'm really tired of the japanese enforcing their culture on all of the rest of us earth-dwellers. I mean come on! I can't even walk down the street with out tripping over a sushi restaurant, or an anime video store. Now they're taking over disney! Is nothing sacred! /sarcasm

Read this interesting article detailing how japan can leverage it's cultural roots to overcome it's economic hardships:
Japan's Gross National Cool

Then, on a less serious, unrelated note, read:
Ricard Gere's Ass Zoo

tcd004

Yes, i've got his troop.cgi program tucked away on my hard drive. On december 26th of 1999 he hacked our website ( http://www.foreignpolicy.com) and posted this page:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/12HOME.HTML

I imagine that troop.cgi progam is sitting on more than 3 webservers out there.

Yes, i've got his troop.cgi program tucked away on my hard drive. On december 26th of 1999 he hacked our website ( http://www.foreignpolicy.com) and posted this page:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/12HOME.HTML

I imagine that troop.cgi progam is sitting on more than 3 webservers out there.

On protecting the "commons" in a Open Source world.
The Internet Under Seige

The digital divide is often an ethereal concept without any hard facts to show its actual existence. However, it is easy to see when various indicators are compared and contrasted. Take this "Globalization Index" prepared by Foreign Policy Magazine. The results are very much skewed towards countries with advanced tech sectors. This chart of the gulf in the digital divide over the past 5 years is particularly interesting.

In your article The Internet Under Siege you describe how corporate interested are "Fencing Off the Commons", restricting the ability of the public at large to publish content. You cite how cable broadband services "has asserted the right to discriminate in the Internet service it provides." I've no experience with cable broadband, but have been strongly affected by the ability of the large telecom companies to drive smaller DSL providers out of business. In my area, DSL is now available only from two providers the local phone company and a major telecom, 3 smaller organizations have stopped offering service. There seems nothing to be done about many of the telecom tactics for eliminating the smaller players, e.g. it would take months for the phone company to provision a DSL line, unless you happened to be purchasing the DSL from the phone company. But the law proposed above would seem to work against one of their tactics.

The "standard" contract which I must now sign to obtain DSL service, that is, the contract I must sign unless I pay approximately 10 times the "standard" rate for "business grade" service, contains a provision which says that I may not run any servers. I can't legally publish web pages, create and service my own e-mail address, or otherwise use the Internet connection to allow anybody to contact me. (Can you hear echos of the phrase "voice over IP"?) However, this provision is not enforced and many individuals run the risk of having their Internet access terminated because they violate the "no servers" provision, putting up personal web sites and so forth. With about two lines in a router configuration file, the phone company could easily block all the servers in violation of their contract, but they choose not to do so. Clearly, the big telecoms don't wish to drive customers away to the independent ISPs, which place no such restrictions on Internet use.

If there was a law, similar to some zoning laws I have heard of, which says that contractual restrictions on servers, or bandwidth for that matter, unenforced for a certain period are void, would this not help reign-in the controls which large corporate interests are attempting to place on the Internet? Or would there be little practical effect as the ISP could cut-off service leaving it up to the consumer wait for the courts to re-establish his Internet access?

Karl O. Pinc <kop@meme.com>

Read it here China's Dot-Communism

and read about the restriction of innovation on the internet here: The Internet Under Seige by Lawrence Lessig

tcd004

I work for a magazine called foreign policy. Late last year we did a very interesting set of rankings that rated how "global" different countries are. We worked with AT Kearney to develop a system to measure and compare things like, # of secure interent hosts, amount of foreign direct investment, # of long distance telephone calls. The results of the study were interesting and suprinsing. This year we'll be publsishing the same report in January.

I work for a magazine called foreign policy. Late last year we did a very interesting set of rankings that rated how "global" different countries are. We worked with AT Kearney to develop a system to measure and compare things like, # of secure interent hosts, amount of foreign direct investment, # of long distance telephone calls. The results of the study were interesting and suprinsing. This year we'll be publsishing the same report in January.

He asks:

What is to become of English? It may well gravitate increasingly toward the higher social classes, as those of more modest status turn to regional languages for more modest gains. Or it might become widely disliked as a linguistic bully, even as it is widely learned. Resentment of both the predominance of English and of its tendency to spread along class lines could in the long term prove a check against its further globalization.

After reading about the people trying to preserve dying languages (Whole Earth, Spring 2000), I came to think that everyone should have a local language that ties them to their own culture and then another regional/global language. Fishman suggests that these languages will have different functions (cultural identity, religion, commerce etc.) If these languages are around children from their early days, then learning these languages will presumably not be the problem it was for me.

I am prepared to believe this kind of mental flexibility is an intellectual benefit. But, I would be interested in a comment from /. readers in Quebec or some other heavily bilingual country. I have been given to understand that there are parts of Quebec for which it is difficult to speak in English. Is that true? If so, is it (solely) a cultural resentment of English or is biligualism realy tough for lots of people? Do geeks in Quebec have trouble with multiple languages?

----------------

If someone speaks three languages they are trilingual, if they speak two languages they are bilingual, if they only speak one language they are American.