Slashdot Mirror

As for Microsoft, it was a litany of patent claims, apparently...

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Anascape

I thought Sony's was Immersion's patent on Rumble? (everyone else settled over the rumble but Sony, which is why Sixaxis was born before Dualshock 3.)

As for the suit, what of the analog sticks of say, the Dreamcast? Or perhaps the analog sticks of 3rd party manufacturers like Logitech and Madcatz?

Just wondering....

Anascape Ltd. is a Texas-based computer firm specializing in analog-related technology.[1] According to the Dun & Bradstreet database, it is located at "15487 Joseph Rd Tyler, TX."[2] All of Anascape's patents, however, are registed to "Brad Armstrong" of Carson City, Nevada. [3] The companies slogan is "Anascape - The Analog Landscape of the Future!!!"[1]

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Anascape

But due to differing definitions of "unemployed" in different countries, perhaps a better measure of overall employment is per capita work force (basically, number of employed workers divided by total population).

Uhh... Why? That kind of way shows long retirement as a bad thing, it shows a lot of children as bad thing, etc...

While it could be argued that those are bad for economy, that is different question alltogether. When looking at how many unemployed are there, I don't see any reason to count small babies in! Then again, it shows child labor in positive light so perhaps that evens it out?

The only way to look at unemployment ratings is looking at how many of those capable to work are working. This is why many countries use the "From 16 to 64 years" range.

Not that it makes a difference in the overall argument (that none of the EU nations are anywhere close to 35% unemployment). But due to differing definitions of "unemployed" in different countries, perhaps a better measure of overall employment is per capita work force (basically, number of employed workers divided by total population). France and especially Italy do markedly worse by this measure than their unemployment figures would indicate (approx 8% and 11% lower than the U.S.). But it's still nowhere near supporting the initial 35% claim.

To be fair, while China consumes 1,310,000,000 billion short tons of coal (and is the top coal consumer, 28.7% in these numbers); the US, with a fraction of the population, is right behind it at #2 with 1,060,000,000 B short tons (23.3%)

China is 16th worldwide in coal-per-capita; US is 5th, behind South Africa, N. Korea, Greece, and at #1 coal-per-capita, Australia, oddly enough.

More fun stats via http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_coa_con-energy-coal-consumption

100 square miles = 258,998,811 square meters.
At the equator at noon at 100% efficiency a square meter = 1KW.
The average hourly electric consumption of the United States is 447,558,561 KW Source You will need enough panels to provide for peak load, not average load.

So, no. Far far far more than 100 square miles of solar panels will be needed.

True, however a significant difference is that far more of US debt (especially government debt) is held overseas. It's even still increasing, which finances the trade deficit. If/when more countries move away from a pure dollar peg that will hurt the US economy significantly.

If you're worried about debt owed to foreigners (again, in proportion to GDP), the U.S. is doing much better than pretty much all of Europe. The U.S. would need less than a year's worth of GDP to pay off all its foreign debt. Most of Europe would need 1.5 to 4 years.

I would argue it's kind of a meaningless statistic since it makes a xenophobic country with no foreign contact at all look peachy, while a country with lots of rich and beneficial foreign trade looks bad (prolly the reason why EU nations have so much "foreign" debt). But for some reason people keep pointing to it as Yet Another Reason the U.S. is supposedly going down the toilet. If you look at the amount of foreign trade each country does (normalized to the size of their economy), the U.S. is way down near the bottom. In other words, the U.S. economy is one of the least dependent on foreign trade in the world. That its trade deficit reaches dollar figures which would bankrupt most nations despite this is a testament to how big the U.S. economy is, not how weak it is.

True, however a significant difference is that far more of US debt (especially government debt) is held overseas. It's even still increasing, which finances the trade deficit. If/when more countries move away from a pure dollar peg that will hurt the US economy significantly.

If you're worried about debt owed to foreigners (again, in proportion to GDP), the U.S. is doing much better than pretty much all of Europe. The U.S. would need less than a year's worth of GDP to pay off all its foreign debt. Most of Europe would need 1.5 to 4 years.

I would argue it's kind of a meaningless statistic since it makes a xenophobic country with no foreign contact at all look peachy, while a country with lots of rich and beneficial foreign trade looks bad (prolly the reason why EU nations have so much "foreign" debt). But for some reason people keep pointing to it as Yet Another Reason the U.S. is supposedly going down the toilet. If you look at the amount of foreign trade each country does (normalized to the size of their economy), the U.S. is way down near the bottom. In other words, the U.S. economy is one of the least dependent on foreign trade in the world. That its trade deficit reaches dollar figures which would bankrupt most nations despite this is a testament to how big the U.S. economy is, not how weak it is.

As a percentage of GDP, the U.S. debt situation is about the same as Germany, France, and Canada, and is considerably better than Japan and Italy's. It's a common misconception that the U.S. is badly in debt.

I've heard this argument many times and I think there are some serious problems with it. You are basically saying, it's OK for debt to grow as long as the GDP is growing faster.

But you have to ask yourself, now much of that GDP growth is due to real long term sustainable industries and how much of it is just because of the regular cash injections from borrowing more money.

It's like someone who's not worried about credit card debt because he knows he can get a new card to pay off the previous one next month. This works great until no-one wants to lend you more money.

There are also longer term problems that are slowly sneaking up and for which there are no contingency plans - like the trillions of dollars the social security fund is going to be short by in ten year's time.

The political parties don't want to touch it because every possible solution will be unpopular which is bad if you want to get re-elected

There are some that would argue that the US is already broke. The creditors just hadn't started calling yet. But they are now.

As a percentage of GDP, the U.S. debt situation is about the same as Germany, France, and Canada, and is considerably better than Japan and Italy's. It's a common misconception that the U.S. is badly in debt. For some reason people keep looking at the raw dollar values. In raw dollars, the U.S. has huge economic figures because its population is significantly larger than all the other G8 nations, and its per worker productivity is the highest in the world. Once you account for this (by dividing by GDP), its debt load is pretty much in the middle of the other G8 nations.

The concern about US dept is not the total current debt, but the rate of increase as a portion of GDP. It has been rising swiftly for a time now, and if it keeps doing so it will become a significant problem.

Debt is only a concern when there is no clear plan in place to handle it. Right now, the US has no plan, so the debt is a concern.

There are some that would argue that the US is already broke. The creditors just hadn't started calling yet. But they are now.

As a percentage of GDP, the U.S. debt situation is about the same as Germany, France, and Canada, and is considerably better than Japan and Italy's. It's a common misconception that the U.S. is badly in debt. For some reason people keep looking at the raw dollar values. In raw dollars, the U.S. has huge economic figures because its population is significantly larger than all the other G8 nations, and its per worker productivity is the highest in the world. Once you account for this (by dividing by GDP), its debt load is pretty much in the middle of the other G8 nations.

Take a look at the S&P 500 over the past couple months, then zoom out and compare it to 2001. Yes, friend, right here is the abyss. Not later - right now.

While you're doing that, you might want to look at the FTSE 100 (UK), the DAX (Germany), and the CAC 40 (France). They all do pretty much the same thing as the S&P 500.

My standards on "wasted" energy are simple: Could you accomplish the same work with less energy? If so, the extra energy used is called "waste". The ratio of energy required to energy used is called "efficiency".

Most new European refrigerators use 150-300 KWh per year. Most new Energy Star-certified American refrigerators use 400-1000 KWh.

Most new European dishwashers use ~1KWh per load. Most new Energy Star-certified American dishwashers use ~1.5KWh per load.

Washing machines can't be directly compared, as European models heat their own water as needed, while American models offload their energy use to an inefficient tank-based water heater. European washing machines, however, are almost exclusively front-loading models. American washing machines are still primarily the much less efficient top-loading design.

On a related note, Europeans are rapidly replacing their hot water cylinders with more efficient instantaneous water heaters. These tankless water heaters are still almost unheard of in the USA.

European electronic appliances have had mandatory PFC and efficiency requirements for some time now. In the USA, efficiency is voluntary and PFC is rare. Because of this, devices sold in the USA often put two or three times as much strain on power generators as devices sold in Europe. On the other hand, many USA computer manufacturers have "voluntarily" adopted European standards in order to have their products certified for use in the EU.

Americans also adopted air conditioning earlier and to a greater degree than Europeans, and American cars are of course some of the least efficient in the developed world.

===

American energy apologists claim that the country is naturally disadvantaged; that European nations have greater population density, milder climates, and less industry than the USA. This is a fallacious argument, as many countries are precisely the reverse: The USA has ten times the population density of Canada. In theory, this should reduce energy consumption, particularly in the case of oil. The USA has a much milder climate. In theory, this should also reduce energy consumption. The USA has a massive trade deficit, importing far more than they export. The USA outsources much of their manufacturing and heavy industry, which should also reduce their energy consumption. Canada, quite the opposite, has a trade surplus, engaging in excess industrial production to export to other nations. The USA draws its power primarly from non-renewable, highly polluting coal and oil, which should, if the government and EPA had real power, increase prices and reduce energy consumption. Canada produces the bulk of their power from cheap, renewable hydroelectric sources. Canada also ranks higher than the US in the UN-sponsored Human Development Index.

But Americans use just as much energy as Canadians. Norway, Sweden, and Finland, while having equally cold climates, very low population density, trade surpluses, cheap, renewable energy, and high standards of living, actually use as little as 75% as much energy per capita as the USA. Most other highly industrialized countries — ranging from South Korea and Japan to New Zealand to France, the UK, and Germany — use rougly half as much energy per capita as the US.

If the rest of the industrialized world has superior trade balance, has equal or superior culture and leisure, overall health, and

Oil deposits in US federal reserves forbidden for drilling could supply the entire world demand for close to 500 years.

Alright, you probably should give us a cite if you're going to make an unbelievable claim like that.

A barrel of oil holds 42 gallons, or 5.61 cubic feet. The daily worldwide usage of oil is 82,234,918 bbl/day.

Therefore the world uses about 461,337,889 cubic feet of oil per day, or 168,388,329,842 per year. A 500 year supply of this, assuming no increase in demand, would be 84,194,164,921,350 cubic feet, or 571 cubic miles of pure oil existing only in those lands where drilling is prohibited. Even going by overoptimistic projections there is not anywhere near that much oil in US federal lands.

If it did, our oil men invested heavily in the dictators of the middle east would lose their shirts. We are protecting really nice men like the king of Saudi Arabia and the other Pirates along the Arabian Coast who finance Al Quada to murder us. These are the real issues.

The same oilmen who prop up the middle eastern dictators are the same men who would profit from increased domestic production.

Much as I like the prospects of biofuels I am afraid to say that using Brazil as an example is not particularly relevant. The fuel consumption of Brazil does not compare to that consumed by the US or Europe. You have enough resources for food and fuel now, you may do so for the rest of eternity, that doesn't mean that it is a viable proposition anywhere else. I can't remember where I read it, but the fuel consumption per capita in Brazil is about 11% of that in the US. source: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con_percap-energy-oil-consumption-per-capita So essentially if you have 10x as much food as you need then maybe you are onto something, otherwise the problem still stands.

You shouldn't compare data from different agencies, it's apples to oranges. That said, according to NationMater, the figures for total crimes per capita is 85 for the UK vs 80 for the US, per 1000 people.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read here. They're valid, as they track the same statistic in their respective countries. If what you said is true, you shouldn't believe your data either, as it does the same thing you just eschewed.

However, wouldn't it be more relevant to look at gun violence, seeing as that's the policy in question? Most of the crime rate in either country has little to do with policy and everything to do with easy modern crimes like identity theft or criminal copyright violations. In Murders with firearms per capita, the US rate is about 30x the UK rate, and I was not even able to find the UK on Homicide rate, where the listing ended at about 9x below the US rate.

No, because the point of gun ownership is to reduce all crime. Criminals are less likely to commit crimes when they have to back up their actions with their lives.

You shouldn't compare data from different agencies, it's apples to oranges. That said, according to NationMater, the figures for total crimes per capita is 85 for the UK vs 80 for the US, per 1000 people.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read here. They're valid, as they track the same statistic in their respective countries. If what you said is true, you shouldn't believe your data either, as it does the same thing you just eschewed.

However, wouldn't it be more relevant to look at gun violence, seeing as that's the policy in question? Most of the crime rate in either country has little to do with policy and everything to do with easy modern crimes like identity theft or criminal copyright violations. In Murders with firearms per capita, the US rate is about 30x the UK rate, and I was not even able to find the UK on Homicide rate, where the listing ended at about 9x below the US rate.

No, because the point of gun ownership is to reduce all crime. Criminals are less likely to commit crimes when they have to back up their actions with their lives.

You shouldn't compare data from different agencies, it's apples to oranges. That said, according to NationMater, the figures for total crimes per capita is 85 for the UK vs 80 for the US, per 1000 people.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read here. They're valid, as they track the same statistic in their respective countries. If what you said is true, you shouldn't believe your data either, as it does the same thing you just eschewed.

However, wouldn't it be more relevant to look at gun violence, seeing as that's the policy in question? Most of the crime rate in either country has little to do with policy and everything to do with easy modern crimes like identity theft or criminal copyright violations. In Murders with firearms per capita, the US rate is about 30x the UK rate, and I was not even able to find the UK on Homicide rate, where the listing ended at about 9x below the US rate.

No, because the point of gun ownership is to reduce all crime. Criminals are less likely to commit crimes when they have to back up their actions with their lives.

You shouldn't compare data from different agencies, it's apples to oranges. That said, according to NationMater, the figures for total crimes per capita is 85 for the UK vs 80 for the US, per 1000 people.

However, wouldn't it be more relevant to look at gun violence, seeing as that's the policy in question? Most of the crime rate in either country has little to do with policy and everything to do with easy modern crimes like identity theft or criminal copyright violations. In Murders with firearms per capita, the US rate is about 30x the UK rate, and I was not even able to find the UK on Homicide rate, where the listing ended at about 9x below the US rate.

You shouldn't compare data from different agencies, it's apples to oranges. That said, according to NationMater, the figures for total crimes per capita is 85 for the UK vs 80 for the US, per 1000 people.

However, wouldn't it be more relevant to look at gun violence, seeing as that's the policy in question? Most of the crime rate in either country has little to do with policy and everything to do with easy modern crimes like identity theft or criminal copyright violations. In Murders with firearms per capita, the US rate is about 30x the UK rate, and I was not even able to find the UK on Homicide rate, where the listing ended at about 9x below the US rate.

You shouldn't compare data from different agencies, it's apples to oranges. That said, according to NationMater, the figures for total crimes per capita is 85 for the UK vs 80 for the US, per 1000 people.

However, wouldn't it be more relevant to look at gun violence, seeing as that's the policy in question? Most of the crime rate in either country has little to do with policy and everything to do with easy modern crimes like identity theft or criminal copyright violations. In Murders with firearms per capita, the US rate is about 30x the UK rate, and I was not even able to find the UK on Homicide rate, where the listing ended at about 9x below the US rate.

I'm not to sure that I would trust the numbers on this site. Take a look at life expectancy of Canada and Russia for example (the years are actually the relative position)

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ca-canada/hea-health
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/rs-russia/hea-health

I'm not to sure that I would trust the numbers on this site. Take a look at life expectancy of Canada and Russia for example (the years are actually the relative position)

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ca-canada/hea-health
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/rs-russia/hea-health

Western Europe is about the best in the world.

You're shifting the goalposts. First "Europe" was the best in the world. Your own chart shows that Eastern Europe is much worse than the US. According to this, "[a] study published in The Lancet in 2000 concluded that air pollution in France, Austria, and Switzerland is responsible for more than 40,000 deaths annually in those three countries. In the United States, traffic fatalities total just over 40,000 per year, while air pollution claims 70,000 lives annually." Considering the United States has more than ten times

Secondly, the chart you show is for deaths as a result of air pollution, not air pollution itself. While obviously more polluted air is more likely to cause deaths, there is a close connection between such things as temperature and sunlight, and ground-level ozone is a serious killer that's going to be less common in darker climes.

Water: #30th worst United States: 1.14 tons/cubic km

Better than Western Europe I see.

A word of advice, this is exactly why Europe has been sliding into irrelevancy. Why bother facing global problems when you can just blame the United States and all those lazy, stereotypical Americans. Your own map shows the worst level of air pollutions is in poorer regions of the world; are you going to blame their SUVs and McMansions too? Ever been to an American city? Ever seen a New York apartment? You think everyone over here lives in the suburbs and has an SUV?

that in 2008 only 50% of the planet will have a telephone.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/med_tel_sub-media-telephone-subscribers

perhaps this one will be more relevant: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita
UK ranks the lowest rate.

Although this isn't exactly a refutation of the prevalence of violence in America, you can point out the rate of robberies in Spain is ~8.8 times higher than in America (Source). It is a really interesting statistic.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

just choose a (per capita) crime from the drop down list, and you'll see the US outranks the UK in rape and assault - there isn't one for domestic violence, but there is one for firearm homicides, and what do you know - the US is 8th on the list and the UK is nowhere to be seen. Oh and it says the US has more than 3 times as many murders as the UK per capita too.

I'd love to know, has this changed your mind? Are you now for gun control? Or have you suddenly decided that crime rates are irrelevant, now that the figure don't back up your position? I wonder...

Searched for "homicide rates per capita per country"

got

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

Of note, U.S. is listed at four times the number of homicides per capita than Australia. The U.K is even lower. Brazil isn't listed, which I assume to mean it wasn't included in the study. And this is homicides, by knife, gun or otherwise. There is a whole separate graph for 'killed by guns'.

Note the source of the study as well. 1998 to 2000. The same time period you seem to claim you got your data from.

Feel free to link to your own study, be sure it lists definitions and sources for the data it uses.

Oh really?

Funny that you mention Japan later on, after spouting the above line of nonsense. Contrary to that the gun nuts would have you believe, guns are NOT actually illegal in Japan. They are simply well regulated. Hmmmm... "well regulated". That sounds strangely familiar; like maybe I've heard or read it somewhere, specifically relating to bearing arms, before.

Sure, every now and again, someone simply flips their lid and kills a bunch of people. But that happens pretty much EVERYWHERE. Meanwhile, on average, Japan has a MUCH lower crime rate than many, if not most other countries (At least the ones on which we bother keeping the stats.) Also note, that those graphs show crime rates in absolute numbers. Click the "per capita" tab (Japan has about half the population of the US.), and their place in those lists drops down to about the level of your floor.

cya,
john

Oh really?

Funny that you mention Japan later on, after spouting the above line of nonsense. Contrary to that the gun nuts would have you believe, guns are NOT actually illegal in Japan. They are simply well regulated. Hmmmm... "well regulated". That sounds strangely familiar; like maybe I've heard or read it somewhere, specifically relating to bearing arms, before.

Sure, every now and again, someone simply flips their lid and kills a bunch of people. But that happens pretty much EVERYWHERE. Meanwhile, on average, Japan has a MUCH lower crime rate than many, if not most other countries (At least the ones on which we bother keeping the stats.) Also note, that those graphs show crime rates in absolute numbers. Click the "per capita" tab (Japan has about half the population of the US.), and their place in those lists drops down to about the level of your floor.

cya,
john

Oh really?

Funny that you mention Japan later on, after spouting the above line of nonsense. Contrary to that the gun nuts would have you believe, guns are NOT actually illegal in Japan. They are simply well regulated. Hmmmm... "well regulated". That sounds strangely familiar; like maybe I've heard or read it somewhere, specifically relating to bearing arms, before.

Sure, every now and again, someone simply flips their lid and kills a bunch of people. But that happens pretty much EVERYWHERE. Meanwhile, on average, Japan has a MUCH lower crime rate than many, if not most other countries (At least the ones on which we bother keeping the stats.) Also note, that those graphs show crime rates in absolute numbers. Click the "per capita" tab (Japan has about half the population of the US.), and their place in those lists drops down to about the level of your floor.

cya,
john

Well, his statistics do agree with my anecdotal evidence:

1) You're twice as likely to be murdered in the US than in the European Union:

(European stats source) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-07-015/EN/KS-SF-07-015-EN.PDF

(US & individual European countries stats source) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

2) Germany has WAY lower crime rates than the US, as shown by the g-grandparent post itself, and I was comparing Austria (which probably has even lower rates) to the US, not having lived anywhere else in the EU (my brother did live in Barcelona, and while it wasn't comparatively as safe as Vienna, I do think it was much safer than your average US city).

And really, the gun culture is REALLY a US (and Canadian) thing. Not that I'm seeing things through rose-colored glasses, every country has its bad things.

Absolutely not, instead we should distribute measures taken with respect to how many people are negatively affected by something.
Hunger and lethal diseases kill an extreme amount of people, so a relatively large amount of money and should be spent on research and immediate aid just like some "liberties" should be enjoyed with care (waste less food, safer sex against aids etc). The same goes for traffic safety. There's fewer, though still a lot, of fatalities, so an accordingly smaller amount of money and time should be spent on developing safer cars as well as educating the public about dangers associated with driving. And again, some liberties may have to be given up (e.g. require ABS or airbags on all cars, require a permit to drive, speed limits). Terrorism ought to be dealt with in the same fashion. With a death toll of less than a tenth of road fatalities [1][2], less than ten percent of the amount of time and research ought to be spent on countermeasures and TWAT (The War Against Terrorism). Equally, less than ten percent of the liberties given up because of traffic safety should be given up because of Terrorism. The U.S.' $500bn spent on Iraq, the billions spent on Afghanistan should be countered by $5tn (+Afghanistan) in traffic safety measures - about a third of the U.S.' GDP. There ought to be ten Guantanamo Bays for DUIs and getting into one's car should require a DHS examination, a background check, several patdowns and standing in line for a week.

[1] http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ter_ter_act_200_fat-terrorist-acts-2000-2006-fatalities
[2] http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

Citation please ?

Here's mine:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ind_car_pro-industry-car-production

And I don't think all those cars build themselves while people sit behind computer screens.

Citation please. Oh, here's mine:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi-environment-co2-emissions

Also interesting:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_kg_per_2000_ppp_of_gdp-kg-per-2000-ppp-gdp

So, yeah. The US is somewhat more efficient than, um, China when it comes to CO2 output per unit of GDP. It's nice that you can compare the great USA to some second world country and feel good that you barely manage to beat them.

Citation please. Oh, here's mine:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi-environment-co2-emissions

Also interesting:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_kg_per_2000_ppp_of_gdp-kg-per-2000-ppp-gdp

So, yeah. The US is somewhat more efficient than, um, China when it comes to CO2 output per unit of GDP. It's nice that you can compare the great USA to some second world country and feel good that you barely manage to beat them.

I was pleasantly surprised to read your apology, which I gladly accept. Perhaps such a thing is too uncommon on slashdot.

You are correct about the murder rates. I suppose the question then becomes, is this due to gun ownership or is there something that make different societies more or less violent? While saying that the U.S. murder rate is 5 times that of the U.K. certainly grabs one's attention, I wonder if there are not other factors. For example, the murder rates in several other countries far exceed that of the U.S. I suspect that factors such as income distribution and age distribution play a role. If I had the time I would do some regression analysis on this.

I was about to submit this, but saw something kind of interesting. If you believe Wikipedia, the U.K. murder rate is now 2.03 per 100,000 people and the U.S. murder rate is 5.7. So now the ratio is less than 3, not that a murder rate os 5.7 is something to be proud of. (Reference.)

I'm reluctant to, because what follows is usually a whole list of whines about how statistics are useless, this and that statistic isn't a useful indictator, that the site is biased and whatnot. That's why I will usually give people the freedom to chose their own source of information and see what they come up with. There's plents of sources available, pick the one you consider most trustworthy.

But, here's one:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_mat_mor-health-maternal-mortality

Look at the bottom of the list (lower mortality is better, at least as far as I'm concerned). Among the 30 countries, I count 20 that I know have public healthcare. The other 10 I have no real information about.

It redirects to a link on nimp.org which is the last measure - a load of shock sites and a loud samples. If you have flash or javascript enabled it will crash the browser with essentially a forkbomb. I opened it in Opera with flash and javascript off and it looks like it's trying a Java exploit too.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Last-Measure

Would it be "VERY expensive"? If only we had the money to pay for it... I mean, it didn't cost NEARLY as much for a smaller country like Sweden to run fiber everywhere.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp-economy-gdp-nominal

Then again, we could dip out of Iraq, have the government pay for fiber to every home with the savings in 6 months, and actually keep all that money in our own economy instead of shipping it around the world. Then they could lease access to providers, thus breaking the barrier to entry, and creating some real competition... NAAAAA, that would NEVER work. Instead, lets just continue letting the mega-corporations of America bleed our economy dry.

Go to http://www.nationmaster.com/ . I use it often to convince people about the problems we have in the UK =p

Actually, their murder rate is a quarter of the U.S.'s rate.

people in jail needs to be a per capita number

OK, per capita then:

#1 is United States with 715 per 100,000 people.

Then follows Russia, Belarus, Dominica, Iran, etc. until finally we come to the first Central European country, albeit until recently under soviet rule,

#35 Poland: 210 per 100,000 people

Then we have Uzbekistan, Israel, Bahrain, and others, until we come to the first Western European country. That is, a country which, similar to the US, has no war at its border and lives in prosperity. Just that they were a fascist state until 1975:

#61 Spain: 144 per 100,000 people

Then follows China, Bahrain, etc. USA's comparable neighbor incarcerates a sixth of the USA's number:

#75 Canada: 116 per 100,000 people

Now we enter a bracket that includes many Western European countries, and Saudi Arabia, until:

#93 Germany: 96 per 100,000 people
#108 Sweden: 75 per 100,000 people
#119 Norway: 64 per 100,000 people

And so on. Don't make me unfriend you again :)

I'm pretty sure it hasn't been 37 years.
Reagan introduced it.

Wrong: Richard Nixon, 1969. Its been that long ...

BY the way, people in jail needs to be a per capita number, and it still doesn't indiactre oppression.

Look at the figures and weep. The US, on a per capita basis, beats everyone else.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita

The neighbours to the north and south manage to be MUCH lower ... feeling oppressed yet?

Well, the numbers may be inaccurate, but this is what I came up with from searching the net:
US corn production (2003/2004): 259.273m metric tons here
US sugarcane production (forecast FY 08): 3.388m metric tons here
US sugar beet production (forecast FY 08): 4.549m metric tons here
I don't profess to know anything about economics and how supply and demand affect how much of each crop is produced/available for use in fuel, so draw your own conclusions, or provide an explanation if you are so inclined.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/gov_cor-government-corruption

A notch behind most of Europe & Oceania, but slightly ahead of France and Spain.

Nationmaster is fairly accurate as far as I know.

I'm not sure it is as accurate as you think. Err let me restate that, I'm not sure the stat being reported are saying what you think they are. I looked at a few other stats about things like Co2 emisions I know to be true and they were off on them for some reason too. It also only appears to be accurate until 2003 which forgets the last 4-5 years.

The per-capita statistic is fairly interesting, too:

Well, despite that both graphs only count IUCN recognized preserves and the numbers are only accurate to 2003, you also have to look at the wetland watershed projects where they have placed numerous private lands into a state of preserve. The Federal government alone spend 3 billion on this since 2001 and has spent/committed another 87 billion helping others countries resist deforestation. I mentioned committed because it is still being spent. And this doesn't take into consideration the private non government coordinated preserves like the 100,000 acre preserve created by the tejon ranch near los angeles CA that won't be counted or the 1150 acres Illinois obtained and set aside in 2005 also. I mean why should we exclude Chicago's 350 acre commitment in addition to all the others they have made. And this is all just off the top of my head.

Um ... carbon dioxide ? That's fairly toxic. Concentrations above 7% in the inhaled air will kill in a matter of minutes. That's very easy to verify and even less disputed than it being a greenhouse gas.

Well, it is a good thing that you and I both know that we aren't talking about level of 7%. Hell we aren't even talking about 1%. We are talking about .0383% (three hundred and eighty three millionths of one percent). But I can see how you would bring the 7% up. I mean after all, I mentioned it was a by product of staying alive and a humans breath is about 4.5% Co2 on exhale. But once that is diluted into the atmosphere, we are talking fractions of fraction of a percent. It is so minor that to claim it is a pollution seems ridiculous.

For example ... ?

An example would be Czechoslvakia in the 90's after the Russian military pulled out. I suppose the aid for Chernobyl won't count because I said Europe. But this isn't just limited to former soviet countries being ignored by Europe when they came back. There are other example too.

Here, for example:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_une-labor-unemployment [nationmaster.com]

That these numbers aren't pulled out of someone's ass can be cross-checked:

Cross checked yes, accurate maybe not.

The number I was going from came directly from the Germany's Federal Employment Office. This is the department in Germany that counts and reports the unemployment rates. While most of it is in German that I don't read, here is an article in english that I found from a search on their site proclaiming the drop in unemployment listing it as 9% down 1.8% from the previous year. I should note that it's date is Jan 4 2008. I Really don't know what cooked up numbers your site is using or how they claim accuracy. Maybe it is part of the reason you are in such a strong disagreement.

I would contest that. The people who die aren't in the unemployment statistics anymore. In fact, the number of people who do have a job has increased:

I severely don't think your seeing the point I made. It wasn't that dead people where in the system, it was that a higher percentage of the population is working because more people