Slashdot Mirror

99% Is way off. According to this site, it's actually a little less than half of Americans that have ever, at some point in their lives, used an illict drug.

Still a hell of a lot more people than have ever tried spamming.

Well from the same site using link here. They list only seven contintents. I quote the following text from same page. "The Caribbean islands, Central America, and Greenland are considered part of North America. " Emphasis mine. Ignorant indeed.

Remember, because it costs almost nothing to make

Oops. Typo? Freudian slip?

Software has a very high cost to make. It requires highly skilled laborers, and lots of time to make. Making high-quality software is difficult, and by the nature of things it's difficult for a programmer to make software that's easy to use.

Notice I never argued against open licenses. Also, I never argued that software costs little to reproduce. It costs about $0.50 to make a CD-R, if you don't mind a vanilla, paper case.

I argued (and still argue) that software piracy reduces the actual saleability of soft wares. It essentially makes a vendor compete against himself, and therefore should legitimitely be called "theft", because doing so takes value away from the goods that highly qualified personnel spent lots of time to create.

If you want to gouge people, then you can hardly blame them for using it and not paying you.

Don't like the price? Don't buy it. Think it's wrong? Write your own open-licensed product and give it away. There's certainly plenty of people who are.

The ONLY time your arguments might have weight is in the case of a monopoly, and in these United States, we have protections for that, too.

Why do you feel the need to justify theft? Your arguments cast a pall from those of us who are dedicated to using and supporting truly open, free licenses on software!

There you go!

ignorant.

There you go!

ignorant.

There you go!

ignorant.

There you go!

ignorant.

There you go!

ignorant.

There you go!

ignorant.

There you go!

ignorant.

There you go!

ignorant.

There you go!

ignorant.

1. No additional funding to implement this law has been provided to any state (other than some initial "seed money"). 2. Testing of grades 3-8 and 10 is mandatory in all states next year for Math and Reading. Science will be added to some grades after that. 3. It costs Connecticut HUNDREDS of millions of dollars to write, administer, grade, and analyze these tests. 4. Where did President Bush go to school agian? HINT: It wasn't public. Was education broken way back then, or just him?

I saw a documentary about oil and energy efficiency a while ago that stated that solar power would required 1/3 of the world's land in solar panels in order to meet the world's energy needs. Hmm...

http://www.jc-solarhomes.com/solar_energy_facts.ht m

Assume each square metre can receives 1 KW hr per hr. Assume 20% efficiency for photovoltaics. So 0.2 KW hr per hr per metre.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001729.html says a kw hour is 3412 BTUs, so photo voltaics produce 0.2 * 3412 = 682.4 BTU/hr per square metre.

http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/energy/stats_ctry/Stat1. html says the 1998 U.S. energy consumption was about 94 quadrillion BTUs Assumong 8 * 365 hours of decent sunshine in the desert year around. So that's 100 * 10^15 / (8 * 365 ) = 34 * 10^12 BTUs/sunshine hour.

(34 * 10^12 ) / (682.4 ) = 49 * 10^9 square metres = 49 * 10^9 / 10^6 = 49000 square kilometres = 223 KM by 223 KM or 140 miles by 140 miles.

If you "want" the entire world to consume energy at per-capita rates like the USA, then assuming the US population is 300M, and the world population is 6B, then 6*10^9/(300*10^6) * 49000 = 980000 square km. The Earth's land surface area is claimed to be 148,300,000 sq km, so 980000 / 148300000 = .006608 or less than 1% of the Earth's land surface area.

Mind you, for infrastructure that huge, you have to build roads, support buldings, etc. So even if a factor of 3 off, that's still about 2% of the surface area.

Also, once demand for photovoltaics reached 1% of the above, I imagine the industry would drive efficiency from 20% to higher levels. So 1/3 of the land surface area is way too high.

The real problem with photovoltaics is the cost. http://store.yahoo.com/sancor/50w.html will sell you a 502mm x 939mm panel for $588, or 588 / (502 * 939) * 1000000 = $1247 per sq metre. Let's be hopeful that in quantity, wholesale lots, we could buy this for $1000 per sq metre. 980000 * 1000 * 1000 * 1000 = $980 trillion. Note that the annual GDP for Earth, according to http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print /xx.html is $51.48 trillion. That figure is at purchasing power parity. I'll leave it others to speculate whether photovoltaics can be manufactured cheaper in third world countries or not. If you don't think so, then considering that the U.S. economy is about $11 trillion, and that it is blamed for consuming about 1/2 the world's resources, the non purchasing power parity world GDP is probably closer to $22 trillion.

There needs to be a 10X reduction in the price/energy ratio of photovoltaics. Do that, i.e. reduce the cost of the solar energy to meet the world's needs to an investment of about $100 trillion, amortize it over 30 years, and I'm sure we can find the money and land to do this.

So now it's intent that makes something wrong? By your reasoning, if none of us participated in WWII, the death of millions of Jews would be perfectly okay because we didn't intend to cause it. Even though we would have been complicit in our inaction. This type of thinking is why the UN is a useless body.

Yes, 'intent' is that thing that makes something wrong. Sort of like the difference between manslaughter and 1st degree murder. The US never killed Jews, nor did they intend to, which makes that example rather moot. Just so you know, the genocide of Jews occurred after the war started when Hitler decided to take over Europe. And another thing, if you say the UN is a useless body, Jews were getting exterminated by the millions long before the US got involved. If it weren't for the Japanese, the US would have just sat back and watched. Otherwise, why else would WWII have started in 1941 according to your history, a full 2 years later than when it really did?

if one must intend to cause death for it to be wrong, then the US military is exonerated. Accidents cannot be intentional.

I hardly call dropping bombs an acccident.

Again, just showing your ignorance. One of the main planks of the pro-war stance was "freedom for the Iraqi people". WMDs were just the clincher

My ignorance? Surely you jest. Here's a timeline with all the associated White House Press releases. But in case you're to proud to read, the first several lines include statements from your leader's State of the Union Address, President Bush calls Iraq part of an "axis of evil," and vows that the U.S. "will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." No where do I see "free the opressed".

Then explain what the huge fuss was about Weapon Inspectors? Sure, they were UN, but they didn't find anything, nor did your military after the invasion. The focus was to find these WMDs to justify your war. Now, spinsters worked their magic, and you all think it's for Iraqi freedom. What next? Iranian freedom? North Korean? Hell, North Korea even blatanly said they have nukes. No need for weapon inspectors, why not just march your collective freedom providing army over there? The likely reason why GWB hasn't done so is because North Korea would hand your asses back on a nuke missile plate, and because North Korea has fuck all in terms of oil. No business there. Check out all the contracts US companies have received from Iraq... Haliburton? Explain that one genius.

Don't get me started on Blair. He's just a damn "yes-man" kissing GWB's ass. It's no surprise the British don't like him. I'm just happy that they don't have the military might to cause more problems.

As for the first Gulf War, I didn't forget, I just didn't see the problem there. You had Iraq invade a foreign country, Kuwait needed help, US provided it. The coalition won, that's that. Don't need to annihilate a country to show them their defeated.

For peacekeeping in those said nations of Cyprus, Bosnia, etc. What do you propose? At least our solution does not involved using weapons to destroy. I never said it was a perfect science, but according to you, getting involved without using violence is not a solution. So go ahead big shot, tell us what you would do? Ignore it? Bomb them? What? You got a better plan?

Certainly trying to stop a war is much better than actively starting one with a sovereign nation.

You're stating this as an absolute? So we never should have declared war on Germany or Japan during WWII? Or perhaps you admit that this is a matter for situational ethics, and a much more complicated issue than your hippie beliefs will allow you to admit?

Of course it's an absolute. Why is war a good thing? People DIE. The reason why war was declared on Germany and Japan was because they were actively killing and invadin

These radicals want to see the forced death or conversion of all non-muslims.

see also:

http://www.cnn.com/US/OKC/ Oklahoma City Bombing

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/161537 0.stm North Ireland et al.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9803/20/japan.gas.anniv/ Subway gassings in Tokyo

Muslin terrorism is a VERY SMALL percentage of acts of so called terrorism.

the last non wartime "terrorist" attack on US soil carried out by non-US citizens was http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html 1975 (Puerto Rican Nationalists) and http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html 1993.

pretty good track record compared to most other countries.

These radicals want to see the forced death or conversion of all non-muslims.

see also:

http://www.cnn.com/US/OKC/ Oklahoma City Bombing

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/161537 0.stm North Ireland et al.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9803/20/japan.gas.anniv/ Subway gassings in Tokyo

Muslin terrorism is a VERY SMALL percentage of acts of so called terrorism.

the last non wartime "terrorist" attack on US soil carried out by non-US citizens was http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html 1975 (Puerto Rican Nationalists) and http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html 1993.

pretty good track record compared to most other countries.

Seven Summits

Oh cry me a river. Boohoo, they're taking pictures of me in my Ferrari with their big bad cameras. Make them stop, please.

If you get into show business, and you don't realize you are giving up your privacy, then you are a moron.

And yes, I made up "stupidization," and parent: it's 'paparazzi' and 'libel.' And parent is wrong, also -- libel and slander cannot be charged easily against someone who has said things about a 'public figure.' See http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0835522.htm l for information about The New York Times, Co. v. Sullivan.

GTA: San Andreas sold roughly 2.1 million copies in the first 4 days. Lets say in all there were 10 million copies sold in the US (probably a conservative estimate. I can't seem to find solid numbers, even in take2's financial statements)

Now, if 1% of the copies caused people to shoot another person, that would be 100,000 murderers created by the game since its release at the end of October. A crime spree like that would be front page headlines across the country!

So lets say 0.1% of them became murderers. (We're already below the margin of error for most polls and quite a few research studies) That would be 10,000 people out of ~291million (in July 03). New York City had a population of 8,085,742. Assuming an even distribution, that would be 270 murderers in New York city alone, half of the murders for the year of 2004 (which was the lowest rate for the city since the 60's).

Below 0.1% you're no longer arguing statistical correlation vs. causal relation, you're talking about coincidence. Or in this case, the kids blaming their bad behavior on anything but themselves.

The concept has been arround for a while.
see here or here for examples.

Conversely I have never heard of old world vs new world except where it comes to speciation. Of course, not living in the old world or the new world might cut down my exposure. :-)

The Taliban allowed terrorist organizations to run training camps in their territory and, from 1994 to at least 2001, provided refuge for Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization. The relationship between the Taliban and bin Laden is close, even familial--bin Laden fought with the mujahideen, has financed the Taliban, and has reportedly married one of his daughters to Mullah Muhammad Omar. The United Nations Security Council passed two resolutions, UNSCR 1267 (1999) and 1333 (2000), demanding that the Taliban cease their support for terrorism and hand over bin Laden for trial.

there are no mention of the direction of the streak or the location of the photograph taken. but suprise suprise I see B52's
regularly fly (thursdays at 0700 and 1600) a route E-NNW and visa versa which I presume is changeover crews to/from Diego Garcia (Camp Justice) leaving contrails. So it is possible that such trails exist on non comercial traffic routes. In the absence of commercial traffic at this height/direction (above 35'000 ft) If you not aware of the time/directions you may mistake it for something else.

clinton

bush

by your logic, there was big devil behind clinton.

clinton

bush

by your logic, there was big devil behind clinton.

Mostly correct, though "recently" was 1996:

Perot, H. Ross (Henry Ross Perot), 1930-, American business executive and political leader, b. Texarkana, Tex., grad. Annapolis, 1953. In 1957 he resigned his commission and became a salesman for IBM. In 1962 he founded Electronic Data Systems (EDS), one of the first computer data service companies. In 1984, he sold EDS to General Motors, but retained an interest in the company. Bitterly critical of General Motors management, he sold his remaining interests in EDS to GM for $700 million (1986). He diversified into real estate, gas, and oil and in 1988 started a new computer service company, Perot Systems.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0838476.html

On June 7 (96), after 11 years of GM ownership, EDS became an independent company. EDS announced a major restructuring, replacing the Leadership Council with an Executive Council and a Global Operations Council. The new structure was designed to bring smaller, more agile decision-making bodies closer to EDS organizations and clients. EDS also established a new board of directors and named several new corporate officers. GM announced a 10-year service contract with EDS and a similar agreement covering its international operations. On June 10, shares of a new EDS stock began trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "EDS." The following day, EDS shares began trading on the London Stock Exchange.

http://www.eds.com/about/history/timeline.aspx

• The Vice President
  
• Speaker of the House
  
• President pro tempore of the Senate
  
• Secretary of State

Also, I should mention that the oldest records we have of written Hebrew are from around 1000 BC.

See here

It's not like Moses was trying to encrypt the 10 commandments on his laptop... We're talking the Bronze Age here, after all.

The twin cities probably distort the overall picture for the state. You'd probably see the same for Missouri and Kansas if you removed Kansas City and St. Louis from consideration.
I would generally agree with you. Each of these states has a top 50 city, Minneapolis, Minnesota and Wichita, Kansas. The two largest privately held companies in the U.S. are located in MN (Cargill) and KS (Koch) with revenues of $48B and $40B respectively. However, ...

The twin cities probably distort the overall picture
Hormel has its headquarters and R&D in Austin, Minnesota, the Mayo Clinic is headquartered in Rochester, Minnesota, Cargill started in Austin, Minnesota and is headquartered in Minnesota, etc. Of course, Minnesota has large companies in the twin cities (e.g. 3M is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota.)

see the same for ... Kansas if you removed Kansas City
The largest city in Kansas is Wichita (not Kansas City). The aircraft industry in Wichita (e.g. Boeing, Raytheon (Beech), Cessna & Learjet) is a big employer in Wichita and Koch is headquartered there.

My guess is that the rural areas in MN and KS are seeing a population decline; I am too lazy to actually check. Other than "spillover" from large urban areas (e.g. Las Vegas), I suspect rural areas are losing population all over the U.S.; does anyone know if this is true in upstate NY?

The twin cities probably distort the overall picture for the state. You'd probably see the same for Missouri and Kansas if you removed Kansas City and St. Louis from consideration.
I would generally agree with you. Each of these states has a top 50 city, Minneapolis, Minnesota and Wichita, Kansas. The two largest privately held companies in the U.S. are located in MN (Cargill) and KS (Koch) with revenues of $48B and $40B respectively. However, ...

The twin cities probably distort the overall picture
Hormel has its headquarters and R&D in Austin, Minnesota, the Mayo Clinic is headquartered in Rochester, Minnesota, Cargill started in Austin, Minnesota and is headquartered in Minnesota, etc. Of course, Minnesota has large companies in the twin cities (e.g. 3M is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota.)

see the same for ... Kansas if you removed Kansas City
The largest city in Kansas is Wichita (not Kansas City). The aircraft industry in Wichita (e.g. Boeing, Raytheon (Beech), Cessna & Learjet) is a big employer in Wichita and Koch is headquartered there.

My guess is that the rural areas in MN and KS are seeing a population decline; I am too lazy to actually check. Other than "spillover" from large urban areas (e.g. Las Vegas), I suspect rural areas are losing population all over the U.S.; does anyone know if this is true in upstate NY?

Why only consider small (100,000 - 200,000) sized cities in rural states?
Here are profiles of the fifty largest cities, which vary in size from 350,000 to 8,000,000. I was going to attempt to pick out the cities which might be considered to be inexpensive and located in rural states; I realized that this was very subjective and just provide the complete list:
Albuquerque, N.M., Atlanta, Ga., Austin, Tex., Baltimore, Md., Boston, Mass., Charlotte, N.C., Chicago, Ill., Cleveland, Ohio, Colorado Springs, Colo., Columbus, Ohio, Dallas, Tex., Denver, Colo., Detroit, Mich., El Paso, Tex., Fort Worth, Tex., Fresno, Calif., Honolulu, Hawaii, Houston, Tex., Indianapolis, Ind., Jacksonville, Fla., Kansas City, Mo., Las Vegas, Nev., Long Beach, Calif., Los Angeles, Calif., Memphis, Tenn., Mesa, Ariz., Miami, Fla., Milwaukee, Wis., Minneapolis, Minn., Nashville-Davidson, Tenn., New Orleans, La., New York, N.Y., Oakland, Calif., Oklahoma City, Okla., Omaha, Neb., Philadelphia, Pa., Phoenix, Ariz., Portland, Ore., Sacramento, Calif., St. Louis, Mo., San Antonio, Tex., San Diego, Calif., San Francisco, Calif., San Jose, Calif., Seattle, Wash., Tucson, Ariz., Tulsa, Okla., Virginia Beach, Va., Washington, DC, and Wichita, Kans. .

For many of these cities, housing prices are reduced because rural land is available nearby and more housing can easily be added. (Try that in Seattle.) All (almost all?) of these cities have a national or international airport nearby. These advantages means workers can live well on lower salaries and companies can conduct business conveniently and inexpensively.

Solar - inefficient, one of the most expensive methods of generating electricity, although prices are dropping.

Of the ones on your list, this is still the least evil, and least intractible. Right now, to meet the USA's energy needs it would at least 15 *trillion* dollars to set up enough photo-electric collectors. This is about 1.5 times the USA's annual GDP, [293027571 * 37800 / 10^12 = 11.07 trillion dollars ] and so, is a tad expensive, though when one considers that most people own houses with mortgages that far exceed their annual personal incomes, not totally out of line.

Still with a combined 10X improvement in photo electricity (cost and efficiency) and/or conservation, it becomes a no-brainer (modulo the environmental effects of solar energy taking heat from the ground, but we can always add some CO2 to the atomosphere if we cool the planet down too much).

Calculations for those interested (I am assuming centralized solar plants in the deserts of the USA):

http://www.jc-solarhomes.com/solar_energy_facts.ht m says each square metre can receives 1 KW hr per hr. Assume 20% efficiency for photovoltaics. So 0.2 KW hr per hr per metre.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001729.html says a kw hour is 3412 BTUs, so photo voltaics produce 0.2 * 3412 = 682.4 BTU/hr per square metre.

http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/energy/stats_ctry/Stat1. html says the 1998 U.S. energy consumption was about 94 quadrillion BTUs. Assuming 8 * 365 hours of decent sunshine in the desert year around, and round 94 up to 100, that's 100 * 10^15 / (8 * 365 ) = 34 * 10^12 BTUs/sunshine hour.

(34 * 10^12 ) / (682.4 ) = 49 * 10^9 square metres = 49 * 10^9 / 10^6 = 49000 square kilometres = 223 KM by 223 KM or 140 miles by 140 miles for a single central power plant.

http://store.yahoo.com/sancor/50w.html will sell you a 502mm x 939mm for $519, or 519 / (502 * 939) * 1000000 = $1101 per sq metre. Let's be hopeful that in quantity, wholesale lots, we could buy this for $300 per sq metre. So 49 * 10^9 * 300 = 14.7 trillion dollars.

Even if all of the numbers thrown around in the post are valid, would you have said that a president that received a majority of the vote should not win?

So, by your reasoning, do you believe that Al Gore should've won in 2000?

Oil 39%

Natural gas 24%

Coal 23%

Nuclear 8%

Hydropower 3%

Other 3%

The coal, nuclear, and hydro are almost all for electricity generation. If we got up to roughly four times as many nuclear plants as we currently have, we could stop burning coal, and we'd be up with France (see here in total energy from nuclear power.

Oil is used mostly for transportation (and feedstock for the chemical industry). Without a major breakthrough in transportation energy (hydrogen, fuel cells, batteries), nuclear can't replace oil for transportation,

Most successful eh? I guess all of those countries with lower unemployment rates, longer life expectancies, and shorter work weeks are just green with envy.

Yeah, especially since they're probably paying about 75% or more in taxes.

Also, according to this site,
and others I checked, the USA has lower unemployment than most European countries, so I'm not sure which countries you're talking about.

I got my information from here

1980 - 538 Electoral Votes
Ronald Reagan 50%/Pop 90.5%/EVotes (EVotes do not come close to pop vote)
Jimmy Carter 45%/Pop 9.1%/EVotes
John B. Anderson 5%/Pop 0%/EVotes

1984 - 538 Electoral Votes
Ronald Reagan - 59.2%/Pop - 97.5%/EVotes (EVotes do not come close to pop vote)
Walter F. Mondale - 40.8%/Pop - 2.5%/EVotes

1988 - 537 Electoral Votes
George H. Bush - 53.8%/Pop - 79.3%/EVotes (EVotes do not come close to pop vote)
Michael S. Dukakis - 46.2%/Pop - 20.7%/EVotes

1992 - 538 Electoral Votes
William J. Clinton - 43.3%/Pop - 68.8%/EVotes (EVotes do not come close to pop vote)
George H. Bush - 37.7%/Pop - 31%/EVotes
H. Ross Perot - 19%/Pop - 0%/EVotes

1996 - 538 Electoral Votes
William J. Clinton - 50%/Pop - 70.5%/EVotes (EVotes do not come close to pop vote)
Robert J. Dole - 41.5%/Pop - 29.5%/EVotes
H. Ross Perot - 8.5%/Pop - 0%/EVotes

2000 - 537 Electoral Votes (One elector left her ballot blank to protest Congress)
George W. Bush - 48.4%/Pop - 50.5%/EVotes (Should have lost due to pop votes)
Albert A. Gore - 48.9%/Pop - 49.5%/EVotes
Ralph Nader - 2.7%/Pop - 0%/EVotes

2004 - 526 (really 538 but CNN is not showing all) Electoral Votes
Bush - 49.8%/Pop - 52.1%/EVotes (EVotes and Pop votes close and both pick same winner)
Kerry - 46.8%/Pop - 47.9%/EVotes
Nader - 3.4% - 0%/EVotes

As you can see, the Electoral votes have not aligned with the popular votes since at least 1980. It wasn't until 2000 that the EVotes aligned with the Pop votes, however they were still of and won the election for Bush.

There are categories of citizenship, US citizenship DOES NOT entitle you to vote for President.

Persons whose residence(citizenship) is in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico(A territory), Guam, The US virgin islands, etc are not represented in our national government, the "senators" and "representatives" from Puerto Rico, are little more than spectators in Congress, although they do get to participate in debate, they do not get to vote on issues or participate(by voting) in committees.

I think you are missleading this conversation...

Yes, there are different countries with many different problems. Unfortunately violence is everywhere. But you are hidding some important information... which is the worst about north-american culture (and I say North... because I am an american.. south-american.. for some reason US citizens confuse the fact that America is a whole continent and not just a country)... kid's games:
Check here
I quote:
April 14, 2003
New Orleans, La. One 15-year-old killed, and three students wounded at John McDonogh High School by gunfire from four teenagers (none were students at the school). The motive was gang-related.
April 24, 2003
Red Lion, Pa. James Sheets, 14, killed principal Eugene Segro of Red Lion Area Junior High School before killing himself.
Sept. 24, 2003
Cold Spring, Minn. Two students are killed at Rocori High School by John Jason McLaughlin, 15.


... and let me know what's the difference... perhaps that they don't have a clue about what they are doing?

If a high-school student can get weapons that easy... how come the US is safe?

But yeah.. perhaps is much better keep looking for copyright, patent and trademark issues, right? In the mean time, this little psychos plan something to kill your brothers or sons.

> So while there may not be a lot of hard proof, it makes a lot of sense.

Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884893.html

2003 (May): Suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

2003 (May): Four bombs killed 33 people targeting Jewish, Spanish, and Belgian sites in Casablanca, Morocco.

2003 (Aug.): Suicide car-bomb killed 12, injured 150 at Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia.

2003 (Nov.): Explosions rocked a Riyadh, Saudi Arabia housing compound, killing 17.

2003 (Nov.): Suicide car-bombers simultaneously attacked two synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 25 and injuring hundreds.

2003 (Nov.): Truck bombs detonated at London bank and British consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 26.

2004 (March): Ten terrorists bombs exploded almost simultaneously during the morning rush hour in Madrid, Spain, killing 202 and injuring more than 1,400.

2004 (May): Terrorists attacked Saudi oil company offices in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, killing 22.

2004 (June): Terrorists kidnapped and executed American Paul Johnson, Jr., in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

2004 (Sept.): Car bomb outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, killed nine.

Futher noting that the gov't tends not to release information about attacks that they've thankfully been able to suppress (i.e. thwarted before anything public occured), it appears to me that Al Q is generally active outside of Iraq as well as within Iraq.

In other words, increased Al Q activity within Iraq may only mean something if Al Q activity significantly decreases elsewhere; FYI you may have been influenced by the "Worldwide terrorist attacks down in 2003" headlines originating this past Spring from the State Department. Unfortunately they "gamed" their report; it ignored terrorist activity after October 2003, but compared it's numbers to earlier annual reports that actually included 12 month-years' worth of data.

Yeah, you might not have so many dead babies and you'd live longer. What an awful outcome.

Oh, sorry, there go those inconvenient facts again.

I think the numbers you're using include infant deaths. The huge decrease in infant deaths affects the final number a great deal without extending anyone's ability to go deeper into "old age".

(Rats, now I wish I hadn't posted the grandparent article as AC).

Yes and no. You are right: decreases in infant and child mortality brought up the average a lot, but didn't do anything for the life expectancy of people who survived childhood. "average life expectancy at age 0" is not relevant to a 20-year-old or a 40-year-old or a 60-year-old.

However, life expectancy for old people has been going up too. Here are some tables:

Life Expectancy by Age, 1850-2001

For example: American white male, age 60. Life expectancy in 1900: 14.35 years. Life expectancy in 2000: 20.0 years. That is a 39% increase in one century.

That's not as pronounced as "American white male, age 0", which improved from 48.23 years to 74.8 years, an increase of 55% in one century.

NCHS - FASTATS - Life Expectancy

Again limited to the United States. The second table is a nice PDF, "Life Expectancy at birth and 65 years of age by sex and race, 1900-2000".

The earliest figures for 65 year old life expectancy are from 1950. Let's grab one: "all races, both sexes, 65 years old". 1950 expectancy: 13.9 years. 2000 expectancy: 18.0 years. That's a 29% increase in half a century.

I don't have any figures for maximum life span, which would be hard to measure. I agree with you that it doesn't look like we're going to get to 180 just by curing all forms of cancer and stenting up our hearts.

What I'm trying to say here is that "lifespan extension" appears to me to be something of an illusion."

Lifespan extension is real.

But at this rate, in 2050 the life expectancy of an American 60-year-old will be about 23 years. (29% increase from 18.0 years). That is nowhere near "live long enough to live forever".

Personally, I am hoping for "live long enough for a revolution in medicine" or "live long enough for workable cryonic suspension" or "live long enough for uploading".

He's just another neo-conservative who sees the world through rose colored glasses.

Where the hell did you pull that number? Good rule of thumb, when you make up statictic, at least throw a webpage up somewhere that backs it up. Perot received 8% of the overall popular vote, his best being 14% in Maine. Quite a victory for a 3rd party and it is a shame it didn't lead to a better showing by 3rds in '96.

Let's see...

- Republican president
- Republican-controlled House
- Republican-controlled Senate AND
- 5-to-4 Repuglican control of the Supreme Court

And here's How A Bill Becomes A Law

Did we learn NOTHING from Schoolhouse Rock?

He said he will do all that is humanly possible and necessary to make certain that terrorists never strike again on U.S. soil.

Can anyone deny that President Bush has not delivered? America the terrorists' No. 1 target has recovered from its tragic wounds and rebounded. It remains safe to this day.

Terrorist attacks on U.S. soil are rare. Take a look at this timeline, which seems relatively complete. Find the ones on U.S. soil. It turns out that there's only 5: 1920 1975 1993 1995 2001. So there may or may not be any statistical change in the past four years -- we wouldn't know; the sample size is too small. This is a totally unfounded assertion.

I was going to stop, but this article is too hilarious.

What might a lesser leader have done, faced with the daunting task of deciding America's course against withering, partisan attacks from Democrats, media propagandists, disingenuous U.N. officials and disloyal White House operatives selling their souls for profit during a time of war?

A lesser leader might have caved in. President Bush has stood his ground.

SELLING THEIR SOULS FOR PROFIT! YES! IT'S LIKE A VIDEO GAME!

Seriously, what the shit is this shit? Most people in America would not profit from being attacked, and would therefore do what they could to prevent attacks. This much is true. Or is the author referring to making the decisions themselves?

A lesser leader might have caved in. Or he might not have. What about a greater leader? Would HE have definitely NOT caved in? Is Bush right on the edge of caving and not caving? My point is that this is an entirely meaningless statement, intended again to make the reader think, "who's the lesser leader?"

Argh! Can't stop!

In his 20 years in the U.S. Senate, Kerry, a Navy war hero, hasn't risen above the rank of seaman for his uninspiring legislative record. He's been inconsistent on ma

There are 4,000 abortions a day in the US, I would like to see some statisitc that in 1960 there were that many abortions a day (1.5 Million a year)

Well, maybe not 1.5 million a year- but certainly above 1 million a year. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0193727.html This article suggests that the teen pregnancy rate in general has fallen since the early 1960s- and the abortion rate more so- but that was before the Bush Admin's fiscal policies induced the jump in the abortion rate that you reference (Clinton had it down to 1.3 million/year- but then again, he didn't have the tax-break-induced recession to deal with, and when the cost of a live birth pushes $2000 even with insurance vs $400 for an abortion, it's easy to see where those who worship money will be going- to the abortionist rather than the delivery room).

Abortion is 100% about when human life begins, there can be debate on that issue, anything else is a smokescreen.

Among thinking individuals, there is no debate left on that issue- LIFE begins at conception, it's a biological fact that can't be disputed. Legal personhood begins at birth, but that's only because the US Constitution has yet to be amended to fit with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which in Article 2 says you can't use birth to discriminate against human beings (among other things that people commonly discriminate on).

But you are 100% right about Bush being ineffectual when it comes to abortion. The republican and the democrats both abuse this and other issues for no other reasns than getting votes..

Depending on your source, someplace between 12% and 21% of abortions could be avoided simply by making birth and motherhood have the same econimic impact as abortion and career upon the family. In 1948, a Democratic First Lady stepped forward in the United Nations to dare suggest that pregnancy and motherhood be granted equal economic protection to work- and it got written into the Declaration of Human Rights. I want to see a pro-life candidate who is willing to make that a reality- to give up some corporate profits to reduce abortion. Until I see that, I will never again vote on pro-life issues alone.

Of course that's why you're spraying anti-Israeli propaganda ;)

(a) Israel is building a big fuckoff wall *way outside* those borders, conveniently annexing large swathes of territory that do not belong to Israel with NO JUSTIFICATION

(a) Take a look at the map. Look at the scale. Israel is less than 50 miles across and 300 miles wide. It is smaller than California. And who's surrounding them? Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt. Israel did not have a treaty with Egypt until 1979, Jordan, until 1994. That means that this tiny country was surrounded by hostile countries. Countries that have gone to war against Israel four times betwen 1948 and 1972. Israel is small, is surrounded by hostile neighbors who explicitly have attempted to "drive the Jews into the sea." What would you do? If you say you would act any less agressively, you're either a pacifist or a liar.

(b) Israel is pursuing a systematic policy of colonising a foreign territory with 'native' Israelis

(b) Old news. They're pulling the settlers out. Though I agree with you that the settlements were wrong and stupid. The settlers are zealous idiots that have jeopardized the lives and safety of the less zealous Israeli citizen.

(c) Israelis forces are performing violent operations against civilian, terrorist and militia forces alike with no real concern as to which is which, outside its own territory, with no international sanction and indeed against international law and consensus

(c) And the exact same thing is happening in Iraq. If you have a force that hides in civilian territories, there will be civilian casualties. Unfortunately, the Hamas does not have clearly demarked buildings and uniforms for the Israeli army to combat! I'm sure if the Hamas was really concerned about their fellow Palestinian's lives they would do so. But they dont.

Let me ask you - suppose you had a neighbor who liked to throw grenades into your yard, mail you explosives in an attempt to blow you up, and has told everyone that their goal is to destroy you (this is Hamas' stated goal) and your family? How would you react?

(d) the Israeli government actually talks about maintaining the genetic purity of Israel (ah the irony) in the sense of making sure that at least 50% of Israelis are Jewish so that there can never be a 'democratic coup' inside Israel at election time

The state of Israel is a theocracy, by Jews, for Jews. The modern state of Israel might not have ever happened if it weren't for the Holocaust. Jews want to have a nation where it's safe to be Jewish, where they are never prosecuted for their religion or ancestry. As a democracy, they don't get that guarantee if the Arab population goes over 50%. Demise by war or demise by population expansion -- either way it means the end of the Jewish state.

By the way, You don't have to be born Jewish to become a citizen, so your "genetic purity" argument is bogus.

(e) Israel, unlike other nations, is completely ignored in all the hubbub from the west about nuclear proliferation despite possessing 100-200 nuclear warheads.

See my response to (a) above. It's not like it has Canada to the north and Mexico to the south. Israel, for its very survival, has to be tougher and meaner than any Arab country out there, or it will be run over and crushed.

Forget the ring. The ring is popcus

ITYM "bupkis"

I keep hearing of all these slippery slopes. We never seem to slide down any of them though. Perhaps it is tin foil hat material.

Are you serious?

Take a look at nearly any section of the U.S. code and you'll see thousands of examples of slippery slopedom. Let's see...

Gun control. We went from the Constitution's 2nd amendment, written at a time when the citizens had far more firepower and advanced weaponry than the government and guaranteed that the Federal government had no authority to limit that right to the recently expired federal ban on scary-looking weapons.

Copyright law. We went from a reasonably short period of protection (14 years with an optional additional 14 years, which both encouraged authors and musicians to keep creating AND benefitted the public) to the extension of copyright to an absurd "author's life plus seventy years" for individuals. Or there's the lovely DMCA which specifically prohibits me from mucking about with the innards of my own personal, private property.

Even more ironic, the government is fighting for exactly the same right that they've taken away from the citizenry with the DMCA:

"'circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner." ( Source)

That's precisely what they're trying to do by forcing back-doors. My emails are protected by copyright. More importantly, they're private communications and not subject to unwarranted search and seizure (that pesky fourth amendment). Still not convinced that we've been veritably skiing down some slopes yet? How about...

Income Tax: We started out with sales/manufacturing taxes, flirted with an income tax during the civil war, then got rid of it entirely, and declared it unconstitutional (which it was until the 16th amendment), then put it back.

But even in 1913, most people had no tax burden, and the very richest were taxed at an insanely low rate. If you had earned income over $500,000 in 1913 dollars your tax rate was 7%. Compare that to the rate in 2003: 35% if you made $311,950.

I'd like to visit the slope you live on, because the one I seem to be living on is more slippery than a California hillside in the rainy season.

• Auto Deaths for 2003
• Cars: 14.9 per 100,000
• SUVs: 16.4 per 100,000
• Pickup trucks: 15.2 per 100,000
• Vans: 11.2 per 100,000