Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: globalissues.org

Stories and comments across the archive that link to globalissues.org.

Comments · 150

  1. Re:Welcome to reality by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 1 · on US Government Will Be Scanning Your Face At 20 Top Airports, Documents Show (buzzfeednews.com)

    I found some websites that have interesting info on poverty. The first one seems to suggest that around the year 2000 less than half the world was in poverty, but the graph stops just short of that. The second one says it plainly that after 2005 it dropped below 50%. I'm looking for more info, as you have to go by whatever their definition of poverty is. I did like the chart that showed dissatisfaction with living conditions, it showed that some "poor" people still had a pretty good life, while other poor folks had a really really bad life by their own measure. Cambodia, China and Bangladesh people were as satisfied or more satisfied than the survey in the USA. Naturally, you have to figure answering a survey isn't always accurate due to cultural norms about how acceptable it is to say your life sucks.

    https://ourworldindata.org/ext...

    http://www.globalissues.org/ar...

    https://ourworldindata.org/upl...

  2. Re:Remind me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Study Finds That Banning Trolls Works, To Some Degree (vice.com)

    What makes you think corporations becoming larger than the government will happen? That's one of many things that anti-competition law is designed to prevent.

    Are you sarcastic? I'm sure you are!

    South Korea is also known as "Republic of Samsung":

  3. Re:Remind me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Study Finds That Banning Trolls Works, To Some Degree (vice.com)

    What makes you think corporations becoming larger than the government will happen? That's one of many things that anti-competition law is designed to prevent.

    Are you sarcastic? I'm sure you are!

    South Korea is also known as "Republic of Samsung":

  4. Re:Remind me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Study Finds That Banning Trolls Works, To Some Degree (vice.com)

    What makes you think corporations becoming larger than the government will happen? That's one of many things that anti-competition law is designed to prevent.

    Are you sarcastic? I'm sure you are!

    South Korea is also known as "Republic of Samsung":

  5. Re:Remind me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Study Finds That Banning Trolls Works, To Some Degree (vice.com)

    What makes you think corporations becoming larger than the government will happen? That's one of many things that anti-competition law is designed to prevent.

    Are you sarcastic? I'm sure you are!

    South Korea is also known as "Republic of Samsung":

  6. Re: I wonder if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Norway, the Country Where No Salaries Are Secret (bbc.com)

    https://cdn.theatlantic.com/as...
    Well the 1% already pays more than any other group..

    http://cdn1.globalissues.org/i...
    Think the war-spending should be cut down a bit?

    But why should the % be different between between someone that earns less than someone that earns more? Why should it be 30% for someone and 50% for someone else? I would say that is an unfair system..

    I say let everyone pay the same % on their income independently of how much they earn.. Possibly let the first $10k be tax-free for everyone.

  7. HAHAHAHAHAHA Americans and international law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on US Asks Vietnam To Stop Russian Bomber Refueling Flights From Cam Ranh Air Base

    UN says US violating international law, calls for closure of Guantanamo
    US Attack On Syria Violates International Law
    US drone strikes violate international law, harm civilians: Amnesty and HRW (VIDEO)
    NATO Violates International Law
    US: Prolonged Indefinite Detention Violates International Law
    UN says US drone war in Pakistan violates international law
    The Military Admitted Force-Feeding Gitmo Detainees Violates International Law and Medical Ethics
    US violates int’l laws; moves USS Enterprise into Pakistani water near Balochistan
    International community concerned America violating international law by striking Syria
    Americans Abandon International Law

    Whether they realize it or not, Americans are increasingly embracing policies that undermine the international rule of law, with self-identified liberals, in particular, seemingly reversing their positions on matters such as the Guantanamo prison camp, extrajudicial assassinations and arbitrary detention.

    A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, for example, found that 70 percent of the American public approves of the U.S. government’s decision to indefinitely keep the Guantanamo prison open, despite widespread international condemnation of this policy.

  8. Re:2% is nothing by Facegarden · · Score: 1 · on NASA Gets 2% Boost To Science Budget

    I'm gonna have to throw this one back at you buddy... You don't know what you're talking about. Military spending is about half of social welfare spending (a good rule of thumb for our budgets is about 1/3 Military, 1/3 Medicare/Medicaid, and 1/3 Social Security). That has been true for a while now. See this graphic for actual data: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/defa...

    But the thing is, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are all programs where Americans pay into a program and then get that money back at a later date either as direct cash or as medical care. Military spending, on the other hand, is money that goes nowhere. Sure, we employ Americans, but if your plan to promote jobs is to just give everyone a government job then we might as well be socialist. Hundreds of millions of dollars of military spending goes to bombs we literally vaporize. A shitload of money in the last decade went to building those big ass MRAP trucks that cost $1m apiece that we ended up handing to local law enforcement around the country for free because the military never actually needed them. The US bought $485m in new jets from Italy for Afghanistan and then scrapped them for $32k because they didn't work. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/f...
    US Military spending is RIFE with pork.

    Do you know how large the military budget is? It is way too big. In 2010 the budget was $700 Billion a year. In 2000 it was only $300B a year, and we were still BY FAR the world's largest military. We've added $400 BILLION dollars to our YEARLY military budget in the last 14 years. And it wasn't Obama that committed to that military spending, it was Bush. The president who committed to massive wars without paying for them (actually decreasing taxes at the same time).

    This is how our military spending stacks up to the rest of the world.
    http://cdn1.globalissues.org/i...

    If Obama wanted to add $10B a year to helping Americans, you'd probably flip. But unchecked spending on the military is just fine by you?

    The budget that is going through the House tonight has $490 Million for a fighter jet that doesn't work and the military does not want. Meanwhile, we are cutting $92 million from the food stamp program.
    http://bulletin.represent.us/5...

    Military spending in this country is fucking insane man, you literally have no idea. I can tell by your invocation of Obamacare as somehow a significant force in our debt that in fact you have no idea what you are talking about. Obamacare doesn't move the needle. And don't just shout that you know otherwise. You've been lied to and you've eaten it up. Go find the factual data that says Obamacare increased our budget by even 1% of our military spending. It's okay, I'll wait.

  9. The USA - biggest arms dealer in the world by mwu · · Score: 1 · on Canada Poised To Buy 65 Lockheed Martin F-35 JSFs

    http://www.globalissues.org/ar...

    but hey, they are trying to be more ethical ...

    http://lubbockonline.com/world...

  10. Re:Fuck Obamacare by rea1l1 · · Score: 1 · on Can the ObamaCare Enrollment Numbers Be Believed?

    1.7 Trillion. If you have a better source, I welcome it. Much of our military budget is hidden in other budget categories via legalese. I assure you, the corruption runs deep.

    http://www.globalissues.org/ar...

  11. Re:Lets divert some military funds by Urza9814 · · Score: 1 · on Back To the Moon — In Four Years

    But honestly, what do you think would happen if the US military were suddenly defunded? Do you think the other countries would be like - good for them! We don't need militaries any more any how and certainly not a single one of us big countries with our current militaries would ever dream of using our forces again the US, even as defenseless as they are right now with all their resources and food and two coastlines and pop music...

    39% of GLOBAL military spending is from the USA.

    Second place is China -- at 9.5%. Then Russia, at 5.2%.

    So, say we cut our current spending in half. Who exactly do you think is going to have the resources to invade? We'll still be devoting about twice as many resources to our military as *all of our enemies combined*. We can cut that spending. By a HELL of a lot. The only thing we'd lose is the ability to randomly invade a bunch of countries in the middle east and africa while we pretend to be the world's nanny.

    And shit, we spend more than 4x as much as China, but we're in no rush to invade *them*. 8x as much as Russia, but there's still NOBODY who likes the idea of all-out war there either! We could probably cut far more than half and still be alright.

    http://www.globalissues.org/ar...

  12. Re:Speaking of dodging questions. . . by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 3, Insightful · on White House Official Tracked Down and Fired Over Insulting Tweets

    How can you have a "war on terror" if you quickly take out the high profile leader of your worst enemy? That was one long decade of profits that they bought themselves...

  13. With all the problems in the world... by MRe_nl · · Score: 5, Insightful · on 8 Users of Silk Road Arrested, 'Many More To Come'

    Let's focus on recreational drugs!
    It's as if we don't want peoples attention on the real criminals.

    Sociopath plutocrats and their dogs.
    http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

  14. Re:Meaningless ... by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 1 · on Google Speeding Up New Encryption Project After Latest Snowden Leaks

    Here is the evidence you wanted that the US is different to the other first world nations, especially in regards to spying but that is all common knowledge hardly requires repeating. That is why the US is subject to more scrutiny than the rest - we are leading the rest of world by example, for good or for worse.

    Two wrongs do not make a right.

  15. Re:And it begins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Noodle Robots Replacing Workers In Chinese Restaurants

    The middle class in our nation *is* opulently wealthy, compared to most of the world.

    Stats from 2005 (would give a more current source if I had one...this is close enough).

    If you think our society can workably pay a living wage that puts everyone on par with the American or European middle class, then you live in a fantasy world.

  16. The Arms Trade is Big Business .. by dgharmon · · Score: 1 · on Video Game Industry Starting To Feel Heat On Gun Massacres

    The world spends some $1,000 billion annually on the military. How is this so?

  17. USA is very rich. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful · on We Aren't the World: Why Americans Make Bad Study Subjects
    The poverty line is defined by our almighty government as some $ 23K/year (2012 $) for a family of four. International poverty threshold is some $ 1825 a year (2005 $). Even allowing for inflation, there is an order of magnitude different.

    In the last election cycle the Republicans tried to point out that what America calls poor would not be called poor in most other nations. But they got lots of flak and backed off. But there is some truth in noting that "there is no food in the fridge in my kitchen" sounds crazy to people who don't have homes, and those who do don't have kitchens, and those who do dont have fridges! It like the story about the poor written by a rich kid. "There was a poor man. His butler was poor, His chauffeur was poor, His cook was poor and so was his maid.

    A household barely on the poverty line in USA is richer than 80% of the world! About 10% of the world, or 700 million people or twice the population of USA, lives in less than $365 a year! Again these dollar figures are not the foreign exchange rate based dollars. These are "purchase power parity" dollars. Which means the $365 buys in the poor country, what $365 would buy in the USA.

    So the conclusions of this study are rather obvious.

  18. Re:I'm done. Where's my million dollar grant? by Genda · · Score: 1 · on Cambridge University To Open "Terminator Center" To Study Threat From AI

    What you say is true, but what you fail to mention is that the dent we've made in these problems is in many cases superficial, and the distance we have yet to go is overwhelming. For Example: Still about half the landmass on the planet is some kind of war zone, and a bit less than 10% of the world's landmass is the scene of serious war and social conflict and its consequences. If you want to go here. The good news is that the actual number of people directly impacted by war and social conflict has dropped markedly, the bad news is that the number of people who have come under the influence of potentially warlike regimes has dramatically increased and the potential for war has actually risen (think Muslim Brotherhood throughout the Middle East.)

    As for poverty, though we've made marked strides in life threatening poverty and human suffering on the planet, chronic poverty remains a terrible problem for as much nearly a third of the planet. One in seven people in the world suffers chronic hunger and malnutrition. Here are a couple good sources of the state of the world's poor Poverty Stats and Facts and Hunger Facts and Stats and any suggestion that we've got the problem well in hand is just a bit premature.

    And last there's ignorance. There is maybe a glimmer here with the advent of Humanitarian gifts of computers with satellite links for the third world and online education like the Khan Academy. However, the vast majority of the third world still has no infrastructure, no technology, little educational opportunity, and radical religious groups in many places that are dedicated to destroying secular education and particularly education for girls and women. So there's the inherent ignorance in places with out resources, the impact is literally on billions of people. Then there are the people who are being subjected to strict religious education and indoctrination, accounting for billions more. Finally there are the masses of the world who are the victims of government propaganda, poor public schooling, and a society that neither respects nor acknowledges intellectual performance or free thinking. Control the memes and control the culture. Here's a test. Sing the MacDonalds "Bic Mac" jiggle. Okay, now sing the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" or perhaps "The Star Spangled Banner". Notice something? The fact that first world's head is full doesn't ensure the fact that the content isn't fecal in nature. We have a long way to go to eliminate ignorance, deceit, mysticism, prejudice and the purposeful misleading of large groups of people by their governments. Or perhaps you see something don't

  19. Re:Financial Success by theArtificial · · Score: 1 · on How the Pirate Bay Can Be an Asset To Game Developers

    lol I think they just weren't content with the mere few millions they got. I mean who can live on that?

    Depending on where you live, for the sake of argument let's assume the first world, someone in the 3rd world could say the same thing about you. About half of the world lives off of $2.50 a day or less.

    Buyers can pay zero or whatever they please up to £99.99 (about $212) for the album in MP3 form...

    ...The band and its managers are not releasing the download’s sales figures or average price, and may never do so. “It’s our linen,” Mr. Hufford said. “We don’t want to wash it in public.” A statement from the band rejected estimates by the online survey company ComScore that during October about three-fifths of worldwide downloaders took the album free, while the rest paid an average of $6.

    Factoring in free downloads, ComScore said the average price per download was $2.26. But it did not specify a total number of downloads, saying only that a “significant percentage” of the 1.2 million people who visited the Radiohead Web site, inrainbows.com, in October downloaded the album. Under a typical recording contract, a band receives royalties of about 15 percent of an album’s wholesale price after expenses are recovered. Without middlemen, and with zero material costs for a download, $2.26 per album would work out to Radiohead’s advantage — not to mention the worldwide publicity.

    From the New York Times. Obviously there is some merit to this model otherwise we wouldn't see more indy bundles. Unless the band releases figures we can merely speculate as to how successful it really was.

  20. Re:Cue the straw men. by Americano · · Score: 1 · on Millions In China Live In Energy Efficient Caves

    It's much closer to an uregulated rampant free market economy. Which is why it has very, very poor people and very, very rich people.

    As opposed to the glorious days when Chinese communists were actually communist, and EVERYBODY was very very poor?

    53% below the poverty line in 1980; about 8% in 2001. Or, using a different source, the poverty rate fell from 85% to 16% in that same time period.

    Income inequality has certainly gone up in China, but bear in mind that prior to the late-70's reforms where China started opening up their markets more, the number of people living in poverty was simply staggering, no matter which criteria you judge by. The move to an "unregulated rampant free market economy" has had a far greater net-positive impact than your throw-away comment about it producing "very very poor and very very rich" people suggests. China was - by either of the poverty criteria shown above - mostly, if not almost *entirely* full of "very very poor" people under Communist rule. Free market reforms have helped change that, increasing average income and lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.

  21. Re:Meanwhile... by Whiteox · · Score: 2 · on China To Begin Submitting Air Pollution Reports

    There is actually negative evidence that has been measured. It is called Global Dimming. Global dimming effects are lessened rates of evaporation and cooler temperatures. Global dimming is caused by particulate matter from pollutants.
    So you could say that burning oil can regulate itself by some margin.
    http://www.globalissues.org/article/529/global-dimming

  22. Re:Except by Tastecicles · · Score: 1 · on DOJ Drops FOIA Rule To Permit Lying

    I'll call your citation and raise you some numbers right here.

    And here's the Grimmett Report which breaks it down even further by indicating where those arms are going.

  23. Re:I need this explained to me.. by Blakwing · · Score: 1 · on United States Loses S&P AAA Credit Rating

    It doesn't solve the problem at all or come anywhere close to it. However to address the first claim.. http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/08/05/289395/u-s-defense-expenditures-dwarf-china-iran-north-korea/ Per that article the US only spends 6 times more than a handful of countries combined. And according to this article http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending the US spends less than 1/2 of the rest of the world combined. And Alternet has it's usual smear pieces saying that Defnse spending is actually $1 trillion. But if you go here http://investmentwatchblog.com/us-spends-more-money-on-defense-than-the-next-17-countries-combined/ they say that the US only spends as much as the next 17 countries combined. But as a percentage of GDP.. The US ranks 3rd on that specific list. And lets not forget.. Those Defense costs INCLUDE the spending on all 4 wars we're in. And if you go here http://www.wallstats.com/blog/total-military-and-national-security-spending-in-the-us-federal-budget/ you can see a breakdown of what exactly entails "Defense" spending. So what goes into Military spending? Are you going to cut the VA? Vet benefits? Vet health care? Enlisted salaries? The FBI?, TSA? (YES PLEASE), Border Security? ICE? CIA? "Defense" does not mean Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines only.. This is NOT to say that there isn't waste or room to cut. Merely that nothing substantial will be gained from it. And to the rest. You didn't list any numbers as to exactly how much you planned to rake in with those taxes and whom would pay them. Remember.. Almost 50% of the country has no tax liability at all. And neither they, nor those who rely on their votes, will allow them to be taxed in any appreciable way. Also consider your tax increase plan. Right now the top 25% already pay between 86 and 87% of ALL the taxes. The earning breakpoint to be IN the top 25% is a family AGI of only $67,000. Which means that a family with 2 working parents making $33,500 each should be subject to an 8% increase in income taxation. Now.. I know you said 20%.. But the readily available charting goes from 10% to 25%.. And the break point to get into the top 10% is $110 for a family. So there's only about $40k difference between the top 10% and top 25%. Meaning one doesn't have to move very high up the chain in family income to get from the top 25% to the top 20%. But still.. For your plan to work out it means that, in order to spend as much as people do and pay your taxes, incomes for everyone will have to rise by your stated amount (13%). eg.. If I have $100 to spend on video games and, with taxes, I buy 5 games at $20.. If your tax increases go through I now only have $92 to spend. In addition the games, with taxes plus your 5% VAT, now cost $21.. I only buy 4 games at $88 and maybe buy some pop or something with the remainder. What the VAT does, as every tax does, is take money out of the private sector. That's 1 game developer that didn't sell a product where he normally would. And trickle the effects up and down the supply chain.. You've also reduced the GDP of the country by 13% (8% income plus 5% VAT).. A real world example would be the gas prices/taxes here in the US. With higher gas prices states are losing money on gas taxes. Consider $.05 per gallon tax and a family with a fuel budget of $100. At $1 per gallon the family buys and uses 100 gallons of gas.. The state collects $5 in taxes. Gas prices double. The family spends $100, gets and uses 50 gallons. The state collects $2.50. The state sees their decrease (which they have and is one reason they're considering

  24. Re:The best defense is a strong offense by nagnamer · · Score: 1 · on Chinese Military Admits Existence of Cyberwarfare Unit

    I beg to differ. http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

  25. Re:Well, you got to feel pity for them by TheEyes · · Score: 2 · on Voice of America Site Forced Offline By 'Iranian Cyber Army'

    Debt was two years ago. This was famine; food prices have gone up by thirty percent in the past year, due to several factors but most notably global warming causing higher instances of storms, leading to lower crop yields around the world.

    Iran might go on about American President X being the some sort of demon, or President Y declaring war on them, but what they really needed to worry about was the third horseman...

  26. Re:Is anybody really surprised? by Facegarden · · Score: 1 · on Science Programs Hit Hard By Proposed Budget

    The US accounts for 46% of all world military spending. China, for comparison, accounts for 6% (assuming the numbers are accurate).

    Check out this graph:
    http://cdn1.globalissues.org/i/military/10/country-distribution-2009.png

    From
    http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

    Our military spending is INSANE.

    Another chart (I found these all via google. I cannot vouch for their accuracy. But they seem legit) shows the proportion of spending for various things.
    http://www.federalbudget.com/

    All this stuff shows me is that we could cut every other program in *half* excluding the last 4, and we'd barely make a dent.

    People want to cut science and research and all the things that will make our future better, but we keep throwing away all our money on all this other crap!

    People want to cut "pork" in these little programs that amount to 0.1% of our budget, but no one is willing to tackle the big ones. I'm so fucking sick of it.
    -Taylor

  27. Re:Is anybody really surprised? by Facegarden · · Score: 1 · on Science Programs Hit Hard By Proposed Budget

    The US accounts for 46% of all world military spending. China, for comparison, accounts for 6% (assuming the numbers are accurate).

    Check out this graph:
    http://cdn1.globalissues.org/i/military/10/country-distribution-2009.png

    From
    http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

    Our military spending is INSANE.

    Another chart (I found these all via google. I cannot vouch for their accuracy. But they seem legit) shows the proportion of spending for various things.
    http://www.federalbudget.com/

    All this stuff shows me is that we could cut every other program in *half* excluding the last 4, and we'd barely make a dent.

    People want to cut science and research and all the things that will make our future better, but we keep throwing away all our money on all this other crap!

    People want to cut "pork" in these little programs that amount to 0.1% of our budget, but no one is willing to tackle the big ones. I'm so fucking sick of it.
    -Taylor

  28. Re:Job Security is the only security by 3seas · · Score: 4, Interesting · on DARPA Wants To Know How Stories Influence People

    Why are they spending tax payers money for what is already known and available through any field of story writing, be it fiction or fact or some combination?

    If there is any urgency it only because the near 7 billion people on this planet are starting to wise up to the less than 1% fabricating crap that causes problems for the rest of us. Ultimately we all are not going to need or be able to afford the ongoing BS produced by politicians and control freaks of war game players Instead those wasted resources on destructive technology can be far more effective in fixing real world problems and hence greatly reducing motivations of war and terrorism and... bla bla bla destructive fabrications for the self supported dependencies of the addicted to the mental handicap of having a lack of morals and ethics. And there can be plenty left over to put them into rehab for life.

    What the World Wants, but not the mentally handicapped control freaks otherwise it'd already be happening.

    What we have instead is even more on defense for 2011 than shown HERE

  29. We are the super-wealthy by paylett · · Score: 5, Insightful · on IRS Nails CPA For Copying Steve Jobs, Google Execs

    Half the world lives on less than $2.50 a day.
    80% lives on less than $10 a day.

    We are the super wealthy.

  30. Re:Urgency by jfengel · · Score: 1 · on US Offers $30M For High-Risk Biofuel Research

    Spending about as much money on the military as the rest of the world combined? Yeah, that's fucked up.

    http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

    I'm all for the US military and believe it should be the biggest in the world. But we could cut it by half and still be several times bigger than anybody else's. And that alone would close the deficits that are projected for 2013.

  31. Re:SEE! by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1 · on Boeing Gets $89M To Build Drone That Can Fly For 5 Years Straight

    How do you think American independence was won? What would you have done against Hitler's rise? Written him a sternly-worded letter?

    Indian independence was won without war; some have argued that American independence could have been won similarly. I haven't analyzed the issue in depth, so I remain agnostic, but it should be noted that the Founding Fathers envisioned a nation without a standing army, defended by citizen militias. It is interesting that serving in an institution whose existence the Founders saw as anathema is considered a patriotic act these days.

    Hitler would not have come to power without the stage being set by WWI. Against his rise I would have suggested 1) not having an age of colonialism and militarism that created a World War; 2) that failing, destroying the German economy and humiliating the German people at the end of the war; 3) that failing, not giving economic and political support to Hitler as he came to power, as in fact many Americans did; 4) that failing, boycotts, limited blockades, and a policy of isolating Germany as it became more militaristic; 5) that failing, as soon as German troops and tanks rolled into Poland, swift but restrained military response, surrounding Germany and the invaded territory, total and complete blockade.

    When the time comes, how do you propose we secure our freedom (or the remnants of it) and our very survival?

    I propose we cooperate with other human beings as much as we can, with an aim to make us all free and all survive. "Us vs. them" thinking is the root of the problem.

    Yes, I know there are nutcases out there; I teach martial arts and self-defense classes, so not only do I believe there is a time to open up a can of whoop-ass, I teach people how to do it. But that option should be way down on the list, and most of our energy should be directed at finding ways to avoid having to open up that can.

    The U.S. could cut is military budget in half and still outspend any other nation more than three-to-one. Our military spending is 46.5%, nearly half, of the world's total budget for destruction; China is in second place with 6.6%.

    Meanwhile, all U.N. programs equal less than 2% of world military spending. If we put half of our current military budget to work on finding ways to feed, clothe, house, cure, and educate people around the world, we could outspend the U.N. 11-to-1 in promoting peace, security, and human welfare, while still maintaining military might that no other nation could challenge -- certainly much more than adequate for defending the nation.

    That we choose not do do this, but instead run a military-industrial complex for the benefit of the investment and political classes, occasionally makes me question our survival potential as a species.

  32. Re:LOL! "Iran's rigged election broke over Twitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on From Slaying Dragons To Dictators
    I really wasn't trying to sound snoody, it's just the Anti-American bias is sad. But on your points...

    We're glad you rocked up to WWII and all, but don't forget we were already fighting the Nazis when you didn't want any part of it. We were a tiny island nation with no chance whatsoever of winning but we still fought with everything we had.

    Right, but your country wanted no part of it until it was threatened. (Austria and Czechoslovakia weren't enough), as did we. Which is in my opinion more noble, yet far more dangerous than the pre-emptive war idiology that Hitler scared us into from that point forward.

    Alan Turing was British, I'll give you the other two though.

    What I should have said was the digital computer by George Stibitz - but of course Turing is at least as appropriate - selective history on my part. Maybe I should have replaced Computer with Slashdot. :)

    Last time I looked the US wasn't even in the top 10 as a percentage of GDP.

    18th actually, using GDP. But there's something to be said for the fact that if you add up the actual amount given by the top 10 annually, you'll reach the amount the US gives.

    Really... All I am trying to say is that we export at least as much good as evil in the world.

  33. Re:Yeah. by vivian · · Score: 2, Interesting · on Warships May Get Lasers For Close-In Defense

    Have a look at actual military spending figures world wide. If anyone is going to be using any swarming tactics, it's the US, not Korea or China. Land war, of course China is going to have more boots on the ground - but not more drones/missiles etc. at their current spending levels.

    http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

    You ever wonder why the US is having economic problems? Here's a hint: Have a look at what happened to the USSR. Perhaps if less money was actually spend on weapons and technology to blow shit up, and more was spend on capital infrastructure that is actually useful for production, the US wouldn't be in as big an economic the hole it is these days.

  34. In Other News by lobiusmoop · · Score: 4, Insightful · on US Says 4.3 Billion People Live With Bad IP Laws

    80% of the world lives on less that $10 a day, 50% live on less than $2.50 a day
    2.5 Billion people don't have access to good sanitation, and nearly a billion use unsafe drinking water. But let's make sure they have good IP laws, yes? Something about 'eating cake' comes to mind while reading this article.

  35. Re:What "empire" by surfcow · · Score: 5, Informative · on Former Astronauts Call Obama NASA Plans "Catastrophic"

    I respectfully disagree.

    US military spending accounts for 48% of the world's total military spending. (Look it up. http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#WorldMilitarySpending)

    For comparison, US military spending is 5.8 times more than China, 10.2 times more than Russia, and 98.6 times more than Iran.

    The US is the world's top arms merchant, sometimes selling to both sides in a given conflict.

    The US has military installations in 60+ nations.

    The US sometimes literally installs governments and supports many petty dictators and corrupt puppets - in exchange for their loyalty and cooperation.

    All this sounds like an empire to me.

    But don't believe me. Do some research. Hit wikipedia, google "World military spending", study world history, etc.

    If you still believe the US is not an empire, explain why not. Help me understand the distinction. I am willing to give you a fair listen with an open mind.

  36. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on US Missile Defense Test Fails
    The fallacy of your point has already been covered in a thread above:

    Sure there are spin-off's from the military spending - even the internet was a spin-off - and hell you'd expect to at least get something out of massive military spending. The point is that society would get more money's worth of development tech and benefit a great deal more and if all those billions of R&D dollars were directed to constructive projects directly rather than wait for accidental spin-offs from military projects. To argue against that idea you'd have to demonstrate that spending on military projects is the only efficient way to get good constructive and useful technology developed... a pretty tall order.

  37. Re:Money by Smegly · · Score: 1 · on US Missile Defense Test Fails

    Nobody is blaming technology here, merely the political motivation behind where all the public R&D dollars are directed. Sure there are spin-off's from the military spending - even the internet was a spin-off - and hell you'd expect to at least get something out of massive military spending.
    The point is that society would get more money's worth of development tech and benefit a great deal more and if all those billions of R&D dollars were directed to constructive projects directly rather than wait for accidental spin-offs from military projects. To argue against that idea you'd have to demonstrate that spending on military projects is the only efficient way to get good constructive and useful technology developed... a pretty tall order.
    By the way, NASA Velcro did not come from military spending.

  38. Re:Not spending-wise...the US is by far #1 by eggnoglatte · · Score: 2, Insightful · on Mum's the Word On Google Attack At Davos

    The US spends more money in total than the next dozen or so nations combined: http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#InContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestoftheWorld

    Note how the US is just slliiiiiiiightly less than half of that pie chart, and the United states spent 5.8 times what China did in 2008. Let's also not forget who is embroiled in two wars- Iraq and Afghanistan.

    And just how much longer do you think the US will be able to afford that? What happens when China stops financing the US deficit by buying up all the US bonds? US citizens are too much in the hole themselves to be able to afford buying those bonds.

    This is the crucial mistake the US has made: it has blown its wealth on two wars that mean nothing. Those made a few people with Haliburton shares filthy rich, but the country is in real trouble for it now.

  39. Not spending-wise...the US is by far #1 by SuperBanana · · Score: 4, Informative · on Mum's the Word On Google Attack At Davos

    and the most powerful military.

    The US spends more money in total than the next dozen or so nations combined: http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#InContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestoftheWorld

    Note how the US is just slliiiiiiiightly less than half of that pie chart, and the United states spent 5.8 times what China did in 2008. Let's also not forget who is embroiled in two wars- Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Per capita for the US, looks to be about $2500 in 2004, now $3200: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PerCapitaInflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG

    Why not have a look at where that places us relative to everyone else? For some reason "Nationmaster" doesn't list the US, but here you can see that figure is $1000 more than the next-highest, Israel (all the figures are from 2004): http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_exp_dol_fig_percap-expenditures-dollar-figure-per-capita

    GDP-wise, America outspends at a percentage twice the world average; Russia actually beat the US relative to GDP on a couple of occasions, but that probably has more to do with Russia's GDP being in the toilet.

    http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ms_mil_xpnd_gd_zs&idim=country:USA:CHN:GBR:RUS&tdim=true&tstart=567993600000&tunit=Y&tlen=20

  40. Re:Love the space program by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1 · on NASA Satellite Looks For Response From Dead Mars Craft
    Really now, this is fairly common knowledge.

    http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/35 (scroll down to "Quality-adjusted aid and charitable giving/GDP (%)")

    While we give a lot in absolute terms it's a pittance compared to other countries in relative terms.

  41. Re:Is it really that necessary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting · on US Air Force Confirms New Stealth Aircraft

    1) Your stat is completely inaccurate. The US spends 41.5% of the world's total military spending.
    2) Your stat is meaningless. As a percentage of GDP, US military spending is certainly high but it's not even close to the highest (which is Saudi Arabia) and is similar with other countries with a military focus (like Russia).
    3) The US spends less as a percentage of GDP now than it has in many many years of its history. In fact, if you consider war era defense spending, we spend less now than we ever have in the last 100 years.

    How's that for fun facts?

    p.s. some of this info you can get from here: http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending
    for the history information, you'll have to dig harder. I built my own spreadsheet to learn more about government spending (and what parties are responsible for it).

  42. Re:Taxes, taxes, taxes by witherstaff · · Score: 1 · on Calling B.S. On Amazon's Taxation Arguments

    The US spends more on military spending than almost the entire rest of the world combined. (41% of 1.5 trillion for 2008) The 300 million a pop F22 is pretty cool, but really, 300 million each? I'm all for a strong military but as Eisenhower said "beware the military industrial complex".

    I'm in Michigan. Due to a budget crunch every non-critical state employee (Not the police, toll bridge operators, etc) was warned of immanent layoffs. All 40 some thousand of them. That works out to over 700 people employed by the state for each county. This doesn't take into account the county or township / city level people. If that isn't bloat I don't know how else to classify it.

    After a few hour shutdown the budget was passed. Of course this upcoming go around there won't be $1 billion from the stimulus to help the budget so talk is already about raising taxes, in the state with the highest unemployment in the nation...

  43. Re:Rednecks? by Agram · · Score: 2, Insightful · on Environmental Chemicals Are Feminizing Boys

    This is not a flaw of the education but rather a direct result of politicians meddling with things they know nothing about for the purpose of personal gain. Everyone knows education is the big ticket item that is close to the hearts of a largest contingent of voters (parents). We have idiots who want to use education as their "publicity stunt." Basically, they push a poorly designed law because they have the power to do so and then use that to gloat at then next election how they've done something profound for "the nation." What they fail to do, however, is support such a law with adequate funding. It is simple folks, if you want a person do more things, eventually they'll have so much on their plate that everything they do will have to end-up being half-baked. This is not because they are poor teachers but rather because they are overstretched by the growing pile of new laws while their funding is being continually cut (thus making hiring of new staff who could help in the process of coping with this virtually impossible). So, what actually happens as a result of this kind of behavior is that there is a growing pile of poorly designed rules/regulations/laws that educators then have to deal with, that they do not have time to do anything other than stupidly designed tests, including recognizing advanced children and giving them a chance to truly shine.

    So, if you think this is a problem (I certainly do), I would say go to your local congressman and/or representative and tell them to put their dollars where their mouths are and to back off from education agenda with stupid laws without consulting those who are actually supposed to enact those laws. Did you know that in US annual education budget is one twentieth of the military budget and one third of government operations, making it basically the smallest piece of the pie? (see following chart -- yes, it's that little tiny, barely visible chunk). Now ask yourself how many kids are enrolled in education every year vs. how many soldiers/personnel we have in military...

  44. Re:Military budget is... by Zephiris · · Score: 1 · on Lawmakers Voice Support For NASA Moon Program

    I guess you went the TLDR route

    I said 41.5%, which is considerably less than 'more than every other country combined', and only the last two figures from 2001 and 2003 are from the budget.

    The source which your URL quotes ( http://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2009/05 ), says that most of the increases have been 'emergency' approved and fast-tracked outside of normal budgetary procedures.

    And from http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0607-03.htm , "In 2003, U.S. spending stood at $405 billion, SIPRI said.". This chart, from your link, also bolsters that, since the amounts there are in 2009 dollars, and previous reports in 2003/2004 dollars. http://static.globalissues.org/i/military/us-spending-2000-2010.png That's an astounding difference of 9 billion dollars. 2%. Not as far off or irrelevant as you're implying.

  45. Re:Military budget is... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1 · on Lawmakers Voice Support For NASA Moon Program

    The numbers that you are quoting for the USA look like the amount earmarked for the DoD in the congressional budget, not the total military spending, which includes special bills passed to fund specific wars and discretionary spending. The grandparent is apparently (slightly mis-)quoting these figures, which show that the USA is responsible for around 41% of all military spending in 2008 (not quite half, but not far off).

  46. Re: $30/hour. by MRe_nl · · Score: 1 · on Obama Sides With Bush In Spy Case

    Try 10 dollar per day.
    http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

  47. Re:Silly climate change questions... by YttriumOxide · · Score: 0, Offtopic · on New Type of Particle May Have Been Found

    1. How much has the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere gone up since the industrial revolution? How much has the temperature gone up?

    CO2: Around 40%
    Temperature: Around 1 degree Celcius

    2. When and why were Europe and North America deforested? Why does it matter?

    Europe experienced a lot of deforestation at the hands of mankind between 1100 to 1500 AD. There wasn't much after that until recent years, when it has again become a serious problem.
    America experienced little deforestation until the arrival of European settlers, and there has been extensive deforestation since then, mostly over the last two centuries.

    As for why it matters: Forests are a good CO2 sink. Losing them at the same time as releasing unprecedented quantities of CO2 in to the atmosphere will lead to a situation we have not had before and therefore can only make educated guesses as to what will happen.

    3. What bad effects of the temperature rise have been observed since the industrial revolution? How sure are you that the bad effects are attributable to global warming?

    If I may, I won't just concentrate on what the temperature rise has done, but instead the overall effects of temperature, increased CO2 and so on. It's not fair to look at only one part of the story...

    Possible (debatable) effects: More flooding, tornadoes and extreme weather than we had before.
    More definite effects: More swans in Siberia, colural foliage fading, severe damage to coral reefs, ocean acidification and more...

    4. How much are you predicting that the carbon dioxide levels will rise?

    I'm not predicting anything... It's probably safe to say "between not much and quite a lot". Please go look at some research yourself for estimates.

    5. How much are you predicting that the temperatures will rise?

    I'm not predicting anything... It's probably safe to say "between not much and quite a lot". Please go look at some research yourself for estimates.

    6. What bad effects are you predicting due to increased temperature?

    Similar to the effects we're experiencing today (see above), only worse relative to the amount of climate change inducing factors involved (including, but not limited to, CO2, temperature rises (from any source) and so on).

    7. Isn't it true that without the greenhouse effect, the earth would be a frozen ball of ice and life would be very difficult on the planet?

    Yes, that is true, which is why no-one is suggesting we strip the atmosphere off the planet - things would be rather unpleasant.
    This is a very silly question though, because you know full well that it's not a binary situation "we have a greenhouse effect"/"we don't have a greenhouse effect". What matters is how MUCH of a greenhouse effect we have. Too little or too much are both bad situations.

  48. You say that... by toby · · Score: 1 · on Gov't Computers Used to Find Info on "Joe the Plumber"

    ...Like it's a bad thing.

    Americans seem to like learning things the hard way. If your taxes had not been so successfully funneled into private hands (the major purpose of the Iraq war and most other Bush-Cheney initiatives) then you might now be enjoying the healthcare, education and infrastructure that the rest of the world buys with their taxes.

    They're not just for guns and bombs. Imagine if even a fraction of that colossal waste on weapons, and corporate thievery, was actually spent on improving life for Americans...

  49. Re:Killing machines without a conscience by Britz · · Score: 1 · on USAF Enlists Shrinks To Help Drone Pilots Cope

    The point I was trying to make was that because of the complexity of the LOAC (and the somewhat questionable ethics of recent versions of it), as well as the fact that they only constitute the US governments opinion, the conscience (as the supposed basis of all laws) is still the best guide to what course of action to take. It's only a rough guide, but the general direction is clear. Maybe our differences in that point stem from the fact that you were raised in a country with a legal system based on common law, whereas I was raised in a country with code law. So I might be more comfortable with a limited set of basic "codes" to base my decisions on.

    You might also want to note that only treaties signed and ratified by the US government go into the LOAC (as your link states) and that the US did not sign or ratify some very important international treaties that deal with international conflict. Therefore those are not part of the LOAC. For example the UN CRC:
    http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Abuses/Child.asp
    Also the US decided to withdraw from other treaties. For example the ABMT:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty

    So I can safely assume that given the complexity and chaos of war and the complexity of the legal background it is in fact
      IMpossible to be a professional and fight wars in a legal manner.
    Contrary to your earlier statement.

    But when war happens I suppose it is possible to try and fight in a professional manner consulting your conscience and later on try to reason with it that it was necessary to kill a bunch of people even though it feels bad. And that is a process every soldier has to go through if they are not a psychopath.

  50. I don't think that's correct... by mario_grgic · · Score: 1 · on Your Medical Treatment History Is For Sale

    According to this, 43% of the budges is spent on military and wars, whereas only 2.9% is spent on social programs:

    http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp

    Truth be told 12% is spent of responses to poverty (which probably includes international aid).

    However, the budget could be re-organized and national health care could be financed out of the budget without increase in taxes.