Slashdot Mirror

OH WAIT--THIS ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT RURAL TRANSPORTATION, WHICH EVERYBODY KNOWS IS DIFFERENT THAN COMMUTING IN MAJOR URBAN AREAS.

The problem is that this study is quite specific, somewhat flawed, and somewhat misleading. The first paragraph of the linked study states:

"Riding public transportation can save an individual an average of $8,691 a year based on the May 5, 2009 national average gas price and the unreserved monthly parking rate, according to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA)."

Nowhere in that statement do I see "individual that commutes in Major Urban Areas"

Maybe in the quote from the President of the APTA (the group that did the study) he will clarify:

"In these uncertain economic times, individuals are looking for ways to do more with less," said APTA President William W. Millar. "Riding public transportation is one way to immediately save a significant amount of money. You can save money and save the planet."

Nope, it still just the generic individuals.

I actually happen to live in a "Major Urban Area". I live in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex which is the 9th largest by population in the US[1]. Now continuing on in the linked article, it claims that in Dallas, I should be able to save $8,364 per year. If you read the methodology of the study, however, you find that they simply took the cost for a monthly unlimited public transportation pass for the area vs. the 2009 AAA average cost of driving for the area. The problem with this is that it doesn't take into account the feasibility of using public transportation. From where I live, the nearest place to get on a train or a bus is about 15 miles, too far to walk in my opinion. From where I work to the nearest public transportation stop is again about 10 miles. Just so you don't think I live out in the country, my neighborhood has over 3,000 homes in it and my office is less than 10 miles from D/FW airport, one of the largest airports in the world. The problem is that we are too spread out here. Public transportation can't work. Sure, it is fine sometimes for getting around downtown, but you have to have a car. If you have to have a car, then maintenance, cost of the car, and insurance are going to be a factor no matter what. Gas and the extra wear and tear aren't as big as a difference as they make it out to be.

My major problem with this whole report, is that it makes somewhat sensationalist claims and really tells nobody anything. Once of the cities where the findings of this report are quite true is New York. I have had several friends that have moved from here to New York and one of the most common things I hear is how no one drives and most people don't own a car. They all use public transportation or possibly taxis. So it would seem, from my admittedly anecdotal evidence, that the people this affects the most, already knew and the rest likely can't do much about it anyway.

So to sum up, I would say

OH WAIT--THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT SAVING MONEY USING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN THE 5 CITIES IN THE US WHERE IT IS ACTUALLY FEASIBLE, WHICH EVERYBODY THAT LIVES THERE KNOWS ABOUT ANYWAY

[1] http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884087.html

Greenpeace opposes anything with co2 exhaust AND hates the one solution to the co2 problem that might actually work (today, not in 50 years) : nuclear power

There are at least two problems with this statement. Nuclear power is not a solution to CO2, and it will not work today. It takes years and years to build a nuclear power plant. The last one to go online in the US took more than 20 years to build. But even if you could build one in 5 years, that's still not today. However today you can erect 5 megawatt wind turbines quickly. If you erect 20 a month, in 1 year you'll add 1,200 megawatts of capacity a year and in five years you'll have added 6 gigawatts of capacity. Even if the energy captured comes to half that that's still 3 gigawatts. According to Infoplease the largest plant in the US is Palo Verde 2, Ariz. which has a capacity of 1,335 megawatts. It took more than a decade for Palo Verde 1 and 12 years for Palo Verde 3 to go online, it doesn't say how long Palo Verde 2 took.

They are also already decided : they oppose nuclear fusion, if and when it becomes available.

If true I think Greenpeace is wrong. In general I think fusion may provide much of our energy, however I'd like to see a life cycle analysis when it does become feasible.

Also greenpeace ignores massive co2 exhaust where it is politically inconvenient : ever looked at a wind turbine ? Every last square millimeter you see is reprocessed oil. On the inside, tons of components are made with oil, and the remainder, the steel supports, are made by burning coal (that's how cast iron is still made, coal is just too cheap and convenient. Everywhere you mine iron you will find coal deposits on top of it, between it, ...)

The same applies to nuclear power, even more so. Nuclear power plants require massive amounts of concrete and steel, which requires massive amounts of coal to burn.

Falcon

From 1983 until 2001, Islamic terrorists directly struck U.S. interests somewhere in the world in a spectacular fashion with a frequency on the order of every two years. Since September 11, 2001, the only successful terrorist attacks against direct U.S. interests have been against troops deployed in a combat zone. That is not a disaster.

Why would Al Qaeda need to stage another spectacular attack on US soil? They had already drawn the US into two intractable wars costing us thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars. Bush gave them exactly what they wanted.

That said aside from the unsolved anthrax mailings there have been plenty of attacks on US interests. And from that chart they actually increased in frequency after 9/11, completely contrary to your assertion.

Isn't it time to retire the "Bush kept us safe" talking point? Seriously, Bush is probably near the bottom of the list for recent presidents by that metric. It's downright Orwellian that he based his campaign on that fiction and it's an even bigger disgrace that the country fell for it.

Actually, American workers have been doing worse, not better, since free trade came in. Real wages have gone down

Citation needed.

Second, there is no free trade, but for now just say there is. Before free trade how many people could afford a computer? TV? A car? Fact is discounting the recession we're in American workers are doing better not worse. For instance through 2007 homeownership had increased. In 1996 65.4% of Americans owned a home but in 2007 68.1% did. So instead of renting and paying someone else's mortgage people could build capital, something of value.

This basically means that your average person has it tougher than her parents did.

We have it much better than our parents did. At least many of the people I know IRL. Take my family. My dad was enlisted in and retired from the US Air Force and my mom worked her way through a 2 year tech school while raising three children to become a lab tech in a hospital. My older sister went to college after going in the Army where she majored in nursing and she now works as one. My younger sister worked through college to get her Masters. Now she runs her own accounting business and owns some rental property, she has others pay her mortgages. Me, I'm on disability, and receive disability payments. But before the accident that caused my disability I was in college majoring in Computer Engineering. We were the first generation in my family to go to college. My sisters moved from low income to middle income and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the sister who owns her own business becomes wealthy.

With free trade, workers in the US have to compete with workers everywhere else in the world

And those workers are all buyers as well. It's not a zero sum game. As people's income increases they are able to buy more which creates more jobs and invest more which those who create jobs can borrow. Everybody benefits. Now I'm not saying the system isn't flawed, it is, but people's lives have improved.

Falcon

Yes, we are, but not because of book stores. We are because people watch TV more and more, and read books less and less.

Interestingly, while the proportion of people reading fiction books in America is declining, the total number is remaining roughly constant. This suggests that there is little danger of reaching a point where almost nobody reads books, ala 451.

A vote is never "against" anyone, and all statements to that effect are lies

I disagree. I don't think the 3rd party (or 4th) ever made a difference. Both the R's and D's have too much in common to "allow" a 3rd to actually win anything important. They (the R and D) control the right issues so any 3rd party candidate either cannot fall on the majority side of voters (and actually WIN an electoral vote) or NOT fall into either R or D. In either case, the 3rd party candidate won't generate enough votes to win anything (and didn't get more than 1% in 2008, or 1% in 2004), or they can't fall into R or D, because those are chosen via primaries where the Indy or 3rd party is effectively eliminated.

stated to keep the 2-party system that's destroying the country.

While I agree with you 100% the 2 party system is a travesty, and is absolutely destroying the faith, honor, and trust of those actually paying attention ... the 2 party system is a perpetual motion machine.

Furthering the mess is that the Indy or 3rd parties don't have a primary in which they choose the strongest platform/candidate so they cancel each other out by splitting up the few thousand votes they each get as a candidate or write-in.

Its a win-win for the 2 party system. It's a lose-lose for a 3rd party. Here is a list of all the 3rd party candidates and here is nice table of the election results from 1789-2008 including vote counts for 3rd party candidates (link) for those interested in seeing them.

Now don't go thinking that all of that could be said about a non-white for the first 220 years. there have been non-white candidates before. The difference is the we all knew he was real moonbat and the media wasn't ready to sell it, like they did in 2008 with a relatively unknown candidate whom they could spinspinspin.

Between this and the Heritage foundation links, it is easy to see why your comments are so laughable.

Um... did you find anything that counters the numbers from the Herritage Foundation graph? No? So you'll ignore facts because you don't like the messenger? You'll only believe what you WANT to be true. Fine, here's a New York Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/business/13deficit.html?pagewanted=print
others:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104655.html
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1411.html

Oh, and the true source from The Heritage Foundation page is actually Rates from Joint Committee on Taxation publication #JCX-6-01; Receipts from FY 2009 Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, Table 2.3.

The Heritage Foundation just put in a pretty graph form. As long as you have all the numbers and they are not "adjusted", Numbers don't lie, no matter what the source is.

Stop taking into account skin color when you judge someone and perhaps if enough people stop giving a damn what melanin content their fellows have we can move beyond this bigotry.

As a Chicano skin color is not important to me, I have family members that range from light-skinned to dark-skinned. It does seem to matter a lot to White people, especially from the US South. I spent two years in Georgia while in the Army and boy was I glad to get out of that unenlightened hellhole. Even though that was over 20 years ago not much has changed in the South since then.

While its important to not forget the past there is no need to bring it into the present.

The only way not to bring the past into the present is to forget it. Why is it that Whites in the South can keep bringing up their past by pointing to their Confederate ancestors but when I try to bring up the past I am accused of being racist?
 
If anyone is racist it is those from the South, while the descendants of the Confederates keep talking about "states rights" that is only code for "keep the Blacks enslaved". The Confederates were fighting in part for states to have the right to keep certain people as property; however, the descendants of the Confederates are too intellectually dishonest to admit that their ancestors were fighting to keep Blacks enslaved.

Cut the racial crap, we live in a messed up but still wonderful country and the people who founded it were not perfect ... The American dream of working hard and succeeding is alive and well and its color blind.

Do have proof of this dubious assertion? If so bring out your facts. Here are the facts according to the US Census Bureau:

Median income (2006)
---------------------
Whites - $50,673
Blacks - $31,969
Hispanics - $37,781

Income $100,000 and over (2006)
-----------------
Whites - 20.2%
Blacks - 9.1%
Hispanics - 10.5%

Reference: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104552.html

If the US was truly color blind then these numbers would even. An before you blame education for the lack of equality in these statistics remember that Blacks and Hispanics tend to have crappier schools than Whites.
 
Speaking of color blindness, blindness is considered a handicap in most cases, why not in this case? Why is it that Whites can celebrate their culture and proudly point to being descended from Scottish or Irish or German or French people? Why is it when Blacks and Hispanics say they are proud of their heritage they are accused of being racist? That is a big double standard there.
 
Besides if you are color blind then you are ignoring a large part of who I am and where I came from. You are also consciously denying any contributions that Mexico and Spain had in the past in building the US.
 
The answer is not to ignore race but to not make negative judgments based on race and that has to start with the Whites. For example, the KKK has been around since the 1800's and yet they still exist. If Whites truly valued color-blindness then you would think that he first place to start changing things would be with their White brothers and sisters.
 
To me "color blindness" is code for me to become White. Dress like Whites do, speak like Whites do, believe like Whites do. Now if I do that because I want to do so that is one thing but when success in the US is predicated on that concept then you are forcing me to become White to succeed in this country. There is another word for that, tyranny...

Confidence can be gained in other ways too. Having an unemployment insurance program and maybe a rental or mortgage assistance program can create confidence.

Take Japan for instance, they recently went through an economic crisis. The first wave, Japan hired every unemployed person capable and willing to work to do nothing but dig ditches and fill them back in. The economy rebounded and as soon as half of those people went back to regular jobs, the economy collapsed again, this time much worse. Japan changed their tactics and instead of digging ditches, they invested in infrastructure, development, and research. While this didn't give anyone jobs immediately, it provided a sound base for the economy to rebound which it did.

Roosevelt's jobs programs, some were needed, some was wasted spending, but most had little to no effect other then keeping people occupied so they wouldn't resort to rebellion or crime. What cleaned up the economy was actually world war two. Many European countries were buying supplied from the US which created meaningful jobs before we even though of sending troops to fight. This also had the benefit of helping the US when it joined the war because the ancillary enterprise necessary for a war was pretty much already in place at a time where we didn't keep a large standing army or invest in it's development. The war had the biggest effects on the economy when it took hundred of thousands of the most productive people and shipped them off to die.

We sent or employed in the military service something on the order of 16 million people to war or to protect our borders. With a population of 130.8 million (1939), that's roughly 12 percent of the people removed from the workforce. There was around 17.5% unemployment at the time and the defense effort needed to employ most of those people to support the wars. In 1934, the height of the depression, the unemployment rate was 21.7% on average reaching 25% at one point in the year. In 1938, it was 19%, in 1940, it was down to 14.6%. You can see the drop with the defense spending bill passed in 1939, but now here is a real reduction in numbers, 1942, the unemployment rate dropped to 4.7%, in 1944, it was down to 1.2%. I stayed below 5% until 1954 where it peaked at 5.5% for another 2 years before jumping to 6.8%.

Here is the list of biannual rates I was using. It's clear that the war pulled us out of the depression and it seems to have been used to attempt to control unemployment and economic prosperity a couple of times since then.

It matters what these jobs are. They have to provide a value in the process or at least train people to create a value. Otherwise, it all falls back on their faces as soon as that government dependency is removed.

The 2004 and 2008 elections, primarily. Or did you not notice 50+% of Americans voting for the guy who wanted to continue said war?

Only 57% of eligible Americans voted in the 2008 election. Of those 57%, 48% voted for McCain. So just over 27% supported continuing the war by that metric.

This is quite in line with the poll I posted. Do you have any other sources?

They must be doing something right in Europe though because every country I've checked on the CIA's factbook has a higher life expectancy for both men and women and a lower rate of infant mortality than the US.

Yeah, but you have no idea what it is. InMyHumbleOpinion, that has very little to do with quality of available health care. If it were possible to bet on such a think, I'ld put my money on lifestyle:

I'm pretty laid back, but I know a couple of my friends who are going to have shorter lives because of stress. If you'll notice, the average US worker takes less than 2 weeks of vacation, while France/Germany/Italy are all almost triple that!

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922052.html

Add to that: American's are overweight, which stresses out the body (heart), which reduces life expectancy.

Here's a quick synopsis of casualties in major U.S wars.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. We've had 3/4 as many deaths in the war on Terror as we had in the Revolutionary War. That I found pretty interesting.

If what you mean is the number of casualties in the war, compare US to European losses in either war and the US numbers look trivial. Does that mean the US was any less endangered by the war, or that it was any easier for the servicemen?

I must agree with the war is war standpoint, as long as it's happening somewhere. The USA hasn't had very many years without bloodying its hands somewhere.

All states of War are not equal.

Tell that to the guys in the cemetary, their widows, their children.

Believe me, all states of war are equal when you're on the wrong end of an enemy weapon.

Well, any state of war is bad (I think that's your point), but I offer you 416,000 examples of why "all states of war are equal" is a mistake to think. Compare that to the current war's 5,000ish figure and you can better visualize the point of the GGP.. BTW, figures are fatal U.S. military casualties only

Fishbowl's opinion remains true in my eyes - WWII does not compare to anything since and there is indeed a 'spectrum' in regard to the 'state of war'. War is war, but it is not the same every time -- Some wars are more heinous than others.

Here's a quick synopsis of casualties in major U.S wars.

I'll take Federal Election Commission data over liberal bullshit drivel from the politico any day, http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html.

That is an overwhelming victory?

No, it's not. The 58.8% to 40.6% victory of Reagan over Mondale in 1984 was an overwhelming victory, with Reagan winning 49 of the 50 states (525 to 13 electoral votes). Perhaps if the liberal media blowhards didn't favor Obama 3 to 1, the margin would have been significantly less than 7%.

DURHAM, N.C. -- Voter excitement, always up before a presidential election, is pushing registration through the roof so far this year - with more than 3.5 million people rushing to join in the historic balloting, according to an Associated Press survey that offers the first national snapshot.Figures are up for blacks, women and young people. Rural and city. South and North.

From Fox News.

Nearly half of newly-registered voters in Ohio are aged 18-29.

From fivethirtyeight

And you said:

56.8% of the voting-age population voted in 2008, up from 55.3% in 2004, but below 1960, 64, and 68 at 63.1%, 61.9%, and 60.8% respectively.

So I'm to understand that for the three elections in the 60's, the voter turnout went down by 1.2 and then 1.1 points, and for the 2008 election voter turnout went up by 1.5 points. Notice the difference in turnout for 04-08 is the largest of the numbers you cite.

Voter turnout for the 1960, `64, and `68 election are the highest in recent memory. As long as we're picking elections arbitrarily why didn't you go with 1980, `84, and `88, when the turnout was 52.6%, 53.1%, and 50.1%? I suspect it's because doing so you would have torn your argument apart.

Here is a quick explanation.

http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/election-day-first-tuesday-november.html

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883617.html

Please shut up. You have no clue what you're talking about. It's almost like you need an education. While education is part of the doctrinal system, the reality is that you have more chance of success at whatever you're doing whether the degree gets you a foot in the door or if you meet other people in your field and develop relationships. Even without all that, you typically make more money with a higher education. These facts escape you because you are too lazy to learn before speaking.

Almost every single technological breakthrough has occurred where? In government or university research labs funded by the state. You would not be typing on a computer and sending a message through the internet without it. The Human Genome Project was a government research program. Every time you take a flight you're riding in a modified bomber, researched with government funds.

So with all due respect, shut the fuck up. Really. Your ignorance is the problem, not spending money on education.

.

The fine print.

This is an unscientific - self-selected - on-line survey. "Your chance to win."

Home use only.

The demographics reported bear only a coincidental relationship to what is known about the U.S. population as a whole. Population of the United States by Race and Hispanic/Latino Origin, Census 2000 and July 1, 2005

From May to November 2008, ClickStream Technologies recruited 2,400 U.S. internet users over the age of 18 to complete a survey and install ClickSight®, a patent-pending data collection tool which records click-level user behavior data across all browsers and applications.

Participants were recruited through a market research firm which awards cash and prizes in exchange for completing online surveys.

Sample is self-reported (in initial recruitment survey) as 65.5% female, 34.5% male; 48.4% married; 76.4% Caucasian, 5.5% African American, 1.58% Asian, 1.73% Hispanic.

[A note to the geek: "MS Office" has expanded far beyond Word and Excel, or even PowerPoint. You need to be clear about that before suggesting OpenOffice.org as a plug-in replacement.]

When somebody demands a citation from something that can be googled in 10 seconds, it is clear that they are engaging in rhetoric, not genuine discussion. But since you asked, here is "I'm feeling lucky" result of a Google search for "life expectancy infant mortality"

  http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html

Compare, for example the US and Great Britain. Or Canada. Or Sweden. So why didn't you look it up yourself? Didn't actually want to know the answer, perhaps?

Rrriight... Sure. Happens every day â" I have to step over these dying on the street schmucks every day on the way to work.

Yes, it happens every day, but you don't have to step over them every day on the way to work, because they don't survive long. Happened to a cousin of mine: "Laid off" by her employer as soon as they learned she had breast cancer, lost her insurance and was evicted from her apartment. Found a part time job, that paid barely enough for another apartment, but it didn't offer health insurance or pay enough to support private health insurance, and anyway it was now a pre-existing condition. Could only see a doctor by standing in line for hours at the emergency room (because while seriously ill, it was not actually an emergency). By the time she was able to get medical care, the cancer was far advanced. The "schmuck" died. She wasn't 91. She was 50.

But it is not â" if you are seriously sick, the government's care will not treat you properly. It is not cost-efficient â" why treat a sick old person, who, even if they recover, will not be productive again? Since the government bureaucrats don't owe you anything (unlike insurance companies), you will not be able to sue them.

There is not much legal recourse when you are seriously ill. When you are trying to hold onto a place to live, half out of your mind from pain, and get medical care, you aren't going to be spending time going to lawyers and court dates, and anyway the defendant will know they can just delay and wait you out.

If it was easy to cast a vote with a pencil and a paper and now it's not that easy, then *it is* machine fault.

You really, really, really underestimate some people's stupidity. This is NOT a technology problem. It's a stupid people problem:
1. Remember hanging chads? You know, the thing where some people couldn't figure out that you had to poke the entire piece of paper out.

"In Miami it was discovered after the election that the punch card machines in some areas had not be cleaned for eight years and the voters had difficulty dislodging the chads."

Note that the voting machine company themselves said the the machines had to be cleaned regularly, or the votes wouldn't be counted properly.

2. Remember where some people voted for multiple people on their paper ballot and were disqualified? Sure, maybe they were purposely trying to throw their vote away. More likely they couldn't figure out how to use a PENCIL properly.

You mean the famous Palm-beach butterfly ballot? The one where George Bush was the first name on the list, and to vote for him you punched the first hole, and Al Gore was the second name on the list, and to vote for him you had to punch the third hole? Yes, if you maybe call an election worker and ask-- I suppose an ordinary person might be able to figure this one out, that punching the second hole meant you're actually voting for a name on the next page of the ballot.

Are you suggesting that unemployment levels returned to 30% after the war ended, and if so, from what crack pipe have you recently been smoking? A quick check of the Bureau of Labor Statistics site (or the source for the data in the comment to which you replied) shows that unemployment from 1948-2008 didn't even go over 8% until 1975.

Another site with BLS data previous to 1948 handy supports this.

And communities that own guns have lower crime. Those that ban gans have higher crime. Been to DC recently?

Ah, the capital of excuses to keep guns legal. Guns were outlawed in DC in 1977. Yes, gun violence did get out of hand in the late-80's and early 90's, but the crime wave did not start until about 1985. If the gun law was the direct cause, why did criminals take 8 years to take advantage of it?

Also, the number of homicides has dropped back to levels more on par with 1977, all without changing the law until very recently, which still leaves DC as one of the most restrictive cities on guns in the US. In fact DC had already had fewer homicides per capita than neighboring Baltimore or Richmond in 2005, both of which do not have as severe restrictions.

So to answer your question, no I haven't been to DC recently, but I wouldn't mind a visit.

The U.S. decisively does NOT have a national language.

Perhaps not a de jure national language, but most definitely a de facto national language -- English. All of our laws are written in English. Our Constitution is written in English. All of our road signage is in English.

When my grandfather came here from Greece, he was expected to learn English to the level of being functionally conversant and literate. When he started a family here, he did not speak Greek in the household, he spoke English. Back then, acculturation / cultural assimilation was considered normal and proper.

These days, I see mothers in grocery stores admonishing their children not to speak English -- I now live in Phoenix, very close to downtown. The cultural assimilation is happening anyway with the children of these immigrants, many of whom are illegal, but some of the parents are actively opposing it.

And, oh yeah, "Mexican" is not a racial group, it's an ethnic group. And I would question your demographic data, since what I could find shows that hispanics/latinos only make up 32.4% of the population of California, with Mexicans being 25%, while non-hispanic white people make up 46.7% of the population. All of this was derived from the 2000 census.

Actually, elephants are only slightly slower than humans when they want to move. And in many cases, you'll find they can be deceptively fast for their size.

Linky: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004737.html

They got divided by the British empire over the ambiguous decision of calling the zone with mostly Muslims "Pakistan".

ORLY ?

What is now Pakistan was in prehistoric times the Indus Valley civilization (c. 2500 - 1700 B.C.). A series of invaders - Aryans, Persians, Greeks, Arabs, Turks, and others - controlled the region for the next several thousand years. Islam, the principal religion, was introduced in 711. In 1526, the land became part of the Mogul Empire, which ruled most of the Indian subcontinent from the 16th to the mid-18th century. By 1857, the British became the dominant power in the region. With Hindus holding most of the economic, social, and political advantages, the Muslim minority's dissatisfaction grew, leading to the formation of the nationalist Muslim League in 1906 by Mohammed Ali Jinnah (1876 - 1949). The league supported Britain in the Second World War while the Hindu nationalist leaders, Nehru and Gandhi, refused. In return for the league's support of Britain, Jinnah expected British backing for Muslim autonomy. Britain agreed to the formation of Pakistan as a separate dominion within the Commonwealth in Aug. 1947, a bitter disappointment to India's dream of a unified subcontinent. Jinnah became governor-general. The partition of Pakistan and India along religious lines resulted in the largest migration in human history, with 17 million people fleeing across the borders in both directions to escape the accompanying sectarian violence.

My bold.
That reads to me like certain powerful Muslims asked for the partition. But then how would you know, you're only half Afghani.

Here's the list and a brief explanation of how succession works.

Gerald Ford, President of the United States from 1974 to 1977, never won a national election. He was appointed to be Vice President when Spiro Agnew resigned, and then became President himself when Richard Nixon resigned. He lost the next election to Jimmy Carter.

In the TV show The West Wing, which I highly recommend watching in its entirety (starting with the pilot), there's an incident that prompts President Bartlett to temporarily turn over the Presidency to the next in line. Normally this would be the Vice President, but the VP had just resigned, so it fell to the Speaker of the House. The awkward thing was 1) the President is a Democrat while the Speaker of the House is a Republican, and 2) the Speaker of the House must resign from Congress before he can be sworn in as President (only the Vice President can serve in two branches of government at the same time), and when President Bartlett decides he's ready to resume his duties as President, the former Speaker of the House cannot simply return to the House; he's out of a job until the next election (House elections are every 2 years). Interesting stuff.

Actually, I doubt the U.S. is the most corrupt country in the world, according to some sources The U.S. is still (barely) in the top 20 least corrupt countries in the world.

So while the U.S. is 20th, Bangladesh and Chad appear to be tied for last place at 158th.

It should be noted that most Dictators prefer to appear legitimate, so even Dictators tend to be lying politicians. They just tend to kill anyone who points out that they aren't wearing any pants.

Well.... http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html

Since 1900:
William J. Bryan (D)
Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
Thomas E. Dewey (R)
Adlai E. Stevenson (D)
Richard M. Nixon (R)
Walter F. Mondale (D)
Robert J. Dole (R)

That's just at first glance, I'm sure there's more.

presidential elections are bolded

National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960-2006
Turnout of voting-age population (percent)
2006 43.6%
2004 55.3
2002 37.0
2000 51.3
1998 36.4
1996 49.1
1994 38.8
1992 55.1
1990 36.5
1988 50.1
1986 36.4
1984 53.1
1982 39.8
1980 52.6
1978 37.2
1976 53.6
1974 38.2
1972 55.2
1970 46.6
1968 60.8
1966 48.4
1964 61.9
1962 47.3
1960 63.1

Had no problem dropping nukes on civilians 6 Aug, 1945.

However newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst had already done a good job of demonizing Asians with his yellow peril campaign.

All that is necessary is for the targets to be dehumanised in some way - calling them 'terrorists' should work.

And how do you make out Soccer Mom to be a terrorist? You'd have to control all of the media to successfully dehumanize a lot of people, and there's no way the government could do that in the US. There's no way the government could for instance control the internet without shutting it down. And there'd be major riots in the street if they tried. Not even with the Great Firewall of China can the Chinese block all the traffic they want to stop. The internet was built to, and people will finds way to, route traffic around bad nodes.

Falcon

I also have been using these electric toothbrushes for a very long time. The toothbrush use electromagnetic induction, correct?

I thought that most household AC Power Transformers also use induction. There are two unconnected wire windings-- primary winding creates electomagnetic induction on the secondary winding.

In a standard power supply, the two windings are unconnected, but are also contained within the same housing-- the "power brick".

With the electric toothbrushes, one winding is sealed inside the base, and connects to wall power. The second is sealed inside the toothbrush, so the toothbrush remains waterproof. Other then that, the toothbrushes function the same as a common, household power supply. The toothbrush probably uses an AC-to-DC transformer,

And correct me if I'm wrong. I'm re-learning these things, and my Forrest Mims books are under a pile on the workbench.

Efficiency is more productive. I don't know how much simpler I can make it.

We consume too much oil, per capita. The U.S. is already the third largest producer of crude oil. The additional oil production is utterly insignificant.

Opening up the OCS and ANWR just removes an inconvenience for drillers.

Don't you remember 2006? When the largest upheaval in Congressional history

Are you sure it was the largest upheavel? Do you mean the largest shift in composition by party? I didn't scan all the way through the chart, but the 1994 election was a much bigger shift (though in the opposite direction).

Average Prices of Selected Fuels and Electricity, 1980-2006
(In dollars per unit, except electricity, in cents per kWh. Represents price to end-users, except as noted)
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908464.html
5.36 in 1980
10.40 in 2006

http://www.energymarketexchange.com/emex/index_zip
put in a texas zip and see 13.27 to 15.44 in 2008 (today)

Now, some of those companies offering 13c/kwh are going bankrupt and customers are stuck at 24c/kwh for 3 to 4 months before being allowed back in a company that offers 14 ish c/kwh.

Inflation is very sneaky.

Has a Supreme Court justice ever been impeached or even threatened with it?

Now, you're probably thinking, "That sounds like a paper ballot system? Why would we pay all this money for these fancy machines when we have to basically fall back on a paper ballot system to make sure they're reliable?"

And that is the real question.

To be a devil's advocate:

1) To avoid the "hanging chad" problem, that is, ballots that look Okto the voter, but clog or are rejected by the voting machines/people that do the counting.
2) To avoid the "butterfly ballot/I didn't mean to vote for Pat Robertson!" problem of confusingly-printed ballots. Relevant example: http://www.infoplease.com/images/cig/supreme-court/1592571492_img_371.png The computer systems can show the candidate you voted for prominently before submitting the vote, thus helping accuracy.
3) The computer UI can easily be translated into many more languages than paper ballots, and if you translate into a language that turns out to not be used, you don't waste a ton of paper.
4) The computer UI is more accessible by 'partially disabled' voters, and thus requires less assistance rendered by voting officials, and thus reduces the chance of a assisting voting official influencing the vote. (Obviously, they aren't 100% accessible, but they're a lot better than a big lever.)

I'm sure there's other reasons; possibly cost as well. Fix voting computers if you want, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater; there are a lot of good reasons to use computers.

45 is a bit of an exaggeration, but here's a link with some decent numbers:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922052.html

I know Spain gets some 25+ and about 200 holidays so it seems. (My daughter is on break from school every couple weeks for at least 1 day due to some holiday or another)

Well, look at it this way: US median income for *family households* is 60K/yr. For married couples, $69k http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104688.html Can you imagine raising and maintaining a **family** on 70K? From that perspective, 100K/yr *is* rich. It means you don't have to choose between a CD and a meal.

A trust-fund baby will spend more unearned wealth during their lifetime than a welfare mother could ever dream of.

Sorry but this is nonsense Brazilians are NOT dishonest nor indolent IF we were this would be a Camboja not you guys holyday destination. And what abt impoverished idiots??? WTF?

You wanna know why all Brazilians are HAPPY ?
That's cuz the males have enourmous dongs and women are ALL beautifull, we are not a bunch of fat ppl like you guys that barely speak to each other, here we all have as much sex as one wishes

we don't need to ride a benz to get chicks like you guys there need, in here there's no "Loser" concept simply cuz we doon't need it...

Now you'll have to go based on average. Things are more expensive in NYC, Seattle, San Francisco, London, etc. than in smaller places like Dallas, Kansas City, Omaha, etc.

Certainly: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923085.html
Reading the (clearly-marked) chart, the top 1% earn about 17% of income, yet pay better than 24% of taxes. In other words, more than a third of our taxes fall upon the finances of the top 1%. More than half ("the bulk") fall upon the top 5%, who earn only 31%. This pattern continues.

Really, this is nothing new, or controversial, or even remotely disputed.

(Incidentally, the claim that the "poor people end up in the armed forces" has also been debunked, but I'll leave proof of that as an exercise to the reader.)

...according to the usual stats. Here's a table with live-birth statistics based on gender/race: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005083.html

I don't care how charged of an issue rape is. It's absurd to treat half the world's population like potential criminals because a tiny percentage of them are sexual predators. People who are so terrified of life and human interaction because they might encounter someone in that teeny, tiny minority should probably never leave their homes, or stop hanging out in high-risk areas. Judge people based on BEHAVIOR, not on superficial traits. Enough of this victim of fear culture.

Finally, some further stats that anyone who wants to talk about rape or child molestation should look into, in order to take educated precautions rather than just cower in ignorant fear. I know the gist of them, but not the specific numbers, so I won't just make them up. :)

--The overwhelming majority of sexual assaults and rapes are perpetrated by acquaintances and friends of the victim. Strangers are certainly on the radar, but these sorts of crimes mostly involve dysfunctions in existing relationships, rather than strangers preying on archetypes involved in their disturbed psyches.

--The overwhelming majority of child molestation and abduction incidents are perpetrated by friends, acquaintances, or family members as well, for many of the same reasons.

--Most rapes go unreported. I'd hazard a guess that the least-reported types of rape are the most common ones too-- those that would cause embarrassment and legal problems within a family, which makes sexual assault by strangers appear to be a larger part of the problem than it actually is by proportion.

All in all, in a city of around 100,000, there seem to be incidents roughly every 5 or so years where shadowy strangers accost women who are walking alone at night or break into their homes and assault them. I think people get struck by lightning here more often. It's just silly to jump to conclusions based on someone's outward traits (i.e., gender, age, ethnicity) without taking into account personality, demeanor, and behavior. And a little good, old-fashioned vigilance is good too. Yeah, I'd keep a closer eye if some guy was trolling around in a library and approaching kids who I knew didn't accompany him into the building. I might even wander into the boy's restroom for a check if I saw a guy go in there and take longer than seemed reasonable, just to make sure he wasn't staking it out. But walking through a library without stopping to browse as if looking for someone? I'd probably assume he was looking for someone. Judging the behavior is a better method of profiling a potential ne'er-do-well than acting like a bigot out of fear.

If I felt someone was profiling me based on my gender alone, I wouldn't hesitate to call them on it. I would not be sympathetic to their unfounded fears, and would try to combat the ignorance component of their perceptions. I've done it before. And I AM very conscious of suspicious behavior, since I work around kids. I know how to stay out of questionable situations, and I pay attention to what's going on around me and occasionally intercept unfamiliar adults who I'm not sure should be here with a friendly, "Are you looking for someone?" just to judge their reactions and reasons for being here.

Norway and the other Nordic countries, however, are consistenly rated as having the lowest corruption in the world. Here is one example of such a ranking.

> With the U.S. population having soared to 350 million
Close, only 270 million

You give consent to be governed by the government by not leaving the country. It is the political process and how it works

No I don't, I specifically refuse to be governed by a government I do not like by supporting those candidates that share my political views. And that is how it's supposed to be.

If your guy didn't win, you might have been able to do more to ensure his victory, but by participating and staying in the country, you have given consent.

No you don't if you leave you've given up. I'd rather fight than roll over and die. I don't know about you but I served in the military when I thought I would be sent to fight. I did because I support liberty.

This isn't a looser opt out system. You actually have to move or cause someone else to be elected change your consent.

Moving is opting out, which is litle better than rolling over.

People have attempted to claim the mujahadeem included Al Qaeda and the taliban but it didn't.

,/i> You're dead wrong. The mujahedeen was made up of different groups with different objectives. Check the Wiki article. After the Soviets left Afghan the mujahedeen split broke down into the various groups it was to begin with. As for al Qaeda, they were in Afghan to support the mujahedeen. Afghan is where the al Qaeda started, in support of the fighting against the Soviets.

The taliban wasn't even an organization until 1994 or so, well after the soviets bailed out and we stop our support of the mujahadeem.

Perhaps you should let the wiki editor know this as they date the Taliban from the early '80s: there is "some basis for military support of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Interservices Intelligence Agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets."

Are you sure your not thinking of John Kelly arguing before congress in 1990 and not during Reagan's administration?

Yes, I saved articles from the NYT and The Washington Post dated 1989, unfortunately I didn't have a backup and the disk was reformated and I haven't gotten around to recovering the data that was on it. Back then they both also supported Saddam. Check out "Rumsfeld's Handshake Deal With Saddam" and "The Washington Post's Gas Attack Today's outrage was yesterday's no big deal".

As you can see, Bush Senior supported sanctions on Iraq.

According to NYT support for sanctions were "an abrupt shift from the policy of the Reagan Administration, the Bush Administration said today that it would accept legislation to impose economic sanctions on countries that use chemical weapons and on companies that assist in the production of such weapons."

You also have to understand, Kuwait was still paying Iraq for protection and we where still "bent" over their coup in the 50's.

A coup the CIA helped with, just as they did in Iran which overthrew a democratic government and replaced it with Shah. Unfortunately the US has a history of supporting coups which overthrow democratic governments, a US president and Secretary of State even supported the invasion of a democratic nation by a dictator.

Finally, did you read the link you posted? We gave the taliban 43 million dollars because they stopped opium production and were supposed to address their support for terrorist, civil rights violations, and a couple of other things like free and open elections and a final resolve to

That's a pretty serious accusation. Do you have any details on that? I googled this speech, which includes the following (...)

IN 1980, H0WEVER, the Supreme Court dealt voting rights enforcement a significant setback. In City of Mobile v. Bolden, the Court narrowly interpreted the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, as well as the Voting Rights Act, holding that the government must prove that any change in voting practices that harm minorities was actually motivated by discriminatory intent in order to establish a violation.

WHEN IT RENEWED the Voting Rights Act in 1982, Congress overturned the Bolden ruling despite the objections of the Reagan administration.

perhaps you really should exit this conversation before you look like even more of an idiot.

And now it's too late for you to not look like an idiot, but I trust I've made my point.

And here. You'll notice that except for Luxumberg (Which it is populated almost entirely by rich transients and the 'health care' there is half facelifts.), the next most expensive places, Norway and Switzerland are at 2/3 our per capita cost, and there's Austria at slightly above half, and then all the others are at or below half.

Considering that this is one of the most repeated facts when discussing health care in this country, you are either a) a troll pretending not to know it, or b) a fucking moron who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a discussion of health care.

If you're in the United States, there are only nine cities with a population greater than 1 M.