Slashdot Mirror

I'm not sure why you think that their birth rates mean that their society is going to die. Typically nations that accumulate a good amount of prosperity end up with lower birth rates. America is also following along this trend. What this means is that elderly care will become an issue until the population starts rising again. You do know that just because it is lowering now, doesn't mean it will continue to, right?

Your little bit of hyperbole about roving barbarian gangs are amusing. A riot in Paris does not extrapolate to roving bands of barbarians across all of Europe. Or at least, if they do have such problems, then I'm certainly worried about living in America, which ranks pretty poorly compared to many European nations.

Your little xenophobic rant is also a little bit of right-wing hyperbole. Care to provide any evidence that this is actually a serious problem? Because every time I've been to Europe or talked to Europeans they don't seem to think this is a problem. Well, other than a minority of people trying to fan the flames of bigotry by taking things grossly out of context to win weak-minded fools over to their side.

And this is in addition to the fact that Europe has equal or better relative economic mobility (that means that a poor guy is more likely to upgrade his social status in Europe... so much for the American dream), better life expectancy, better overall education, and arguably better, more efficient, and cheaper health care. About the only part of your rant grounded in fact is the tax rate, which is a between 10%-20% more. But I know a lot of Europeans who are happy with that tax rate, given all of the benefits that they get from it above.

Your rant is thoroughly amusing since its so far detached from actual reality. Having lived in Europe, and working with people who live, and lived, in Europe, I can safely say you've cranked the hyperbole up to 11. Its actually a very nice and safe place to live. You really need to stop getting your info from whatever echo chamber you get it from and find some sources that are at least a bit closer to reality.

On the plus side, you've pretty much proven my point. You're close-minded. You reject anything that doesn't match your reality. This isn't doing your side any favors.

I'm not sure why you think that their birth rates mean that their society is going to die. Typically nations that accumulate a good amount of prosperity end up with lower birth rates. America is also following along this trend. What this means is that elderly care will become an issue until the population starts rising again. You do know that just because it is lowering now, doesn't mean it will continue to, right?

Your little bit of hyperbole about roving barbarian gangs are amusing. A riot in Paris does not extrapolate to roving bands of barbarians across all of Europe. Or at least, if they do have such problems, then I'm certainly worried about living in America, which ranks pretty poorly compared to many European nations.

Your little xenophobic rant is also a little bit of right-wing hyperbole. Care to provide any evidence that this is actually a serious problem? Because every time I've been to Europe or talked to Europeans they don't seem to think this is a problem. Well, other than a minority of people trying to fan the flames of bigotry by taking things grossly out of context to win weak-minded fools over to their side.

And this is in addition to the fact that Europe has equal or better relative economic mobility (that means that a poor guy is more likely to upgrade his social status in Europe... so much for the American dream), better life expectancy, better overall education, and arguably better, more efficient, and cheaper health care. About the only part of your rant grounded in fact is the tax rate, which is a between 10%-20% more. But I know a lot of Europeans who are happy with that tax rate, given all of the benefits that they get from it above.

Your rant is thoroughly amusing since its so far detached from actual reality. Having lived in Europe, and working with people who live, and lived, in Europe, I can safely say you've cranked the hyperbole up to 11. Its actually a very nice and safe place to live. You really need to stop getting your info from whatever echo chamber you get it from and find some sources that are at least a bit closer to reality.

On the plus side, you've pretty much proven my point. You're close-minded. You reject anything that doesn't match your reality. This isn't doing your side any favors.

"Because they are all so drunk they can't pick the right buttons to press. And believe me, I know"

Only because you in the UK are all on Ketamine or crack. Which is why no one ever buys drinks in clubs, which is why they turn the taps off in the club bathrooms at night, a whole room of people out of their collective trees, and none of them buying a drink.

According to this, Luxemberg and France come out ahead of Ireland, but you don't ever get comments like yours maligning their national character.

A bigger insurer (ie. Uncle Sam) won't fix it.

Most modern countries with universal health care get better outcomes (healthier, lower infant mortality, longer expected lifespan) for less cost per capita and a smaller percentage of their GDP. In their case, it appears that a bigger insurer worked pretty well, plus they don't have anyone going bankrupt from medical bills. If it works for Canada, England, France, Germany, Japan, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, Israel, Iceland, New Zealand, Italy, Spain, Norway, Greece, Austria, Netherlands, Belgium, Finland, and South Korea, it can probably work for us, too.

(source: http://www.nationmaster.com/ who gets their data from the UN, OECD, CIA Fact Book, WHO, and similar reliable sources).

Oh, and as an aside, here are some other interesting statistics regarding healthcare coverage and performance:

Physicians > per 1,000 people (most recent) by country
Nurses (most recent) by country
Hospital beds (most recent) by country
Acute care beds (most recent) by country

Note that the US is behind most nations with socialized systems. Go figure.

Oh, and as an aside, here are some other interesting statistics regarding healthcare coverage and performance:

Physicians > per 1,000 people (most recent) by country
Nurses (most recent) by country
Hospital beds (most recent) by country
Acute care beds (most recent) by country

Note that the US is behind most nations with socialized systems. Go figure.

Oh, and as an aside, here are some other interesting statistics regarding healthcare coverage and performance:

Physicians > per 1,000 people (most recent) by country
Nurses (most recent) by country
Hospital beds (most recent) by country
Acute care beds (most recent) by country

Note that the US is behind most nations with socialized systems. Go figure.

Oh, and as an aside, here are some other interesting statistics regarding healthcare coverage and performance:

Physicians > per 1,000 people (most recent) by country
Nurses (most recent) by country
Hospital beds (most recent) by country
Acute care beds (most recent) by country

Note that the US is behind most nations with socialized systems. Go figure.

Citation please. This statistic could be distorted by the fact that we have the latest, most advanced healthcare technology available. Highly advanced technology usually comes at a higher cost.

Health care funding > Total per capita (most recent) by country
Total expenditure as % of GDP (most recent) by country
Health care funding > Public per capita (most recent) by country
Health care funding > Private per capita (most recent) by country

My favorite statistic in that list is #2. The US is *third* on the list in terms of public funding, per capita, for health care, and yet has piss poor coverage by comparison. Talk about inefficient!

Of course, you can explain away some of that cost to fancy new technology. Maybe. All of it? I don't think so. Of course, believing that certainly feeds into the myth that the US is the most advanced, fantastic nation on the face of the planet, so I can see why you'd choose the explanation.

If I want to mortgage my house to have the latest and greatest cancer treatment, at least that's my decision to make.

Buh? Latest and greatest? Try regular ol' chemotherapy. You don't need fancy treatment to go bankrupt in the US.

So your choice is life, or to be financially destitute. Yeah, that's just great.

Citation please. This statistic could be distorted by the fact that we have the latest, most advanced healthcare technology available. Highly advanced technology usually comes at a higher cost.

Health care funding > Total per capita (most recent) by country
Total expenditure as % of GDP (most recent) by country
Health care funding > Public per capita (most recent) by country
Health care funding > Private per capita (most recent) by country

My favorite statistic in that list is #2. The US is *third* on the list in terms of public funding, per capita, for health care, and yet has piss poor coverage by comparison. Talk about inefficient!

Of course, you can explain away some of that cost to fancy new technology. Maybe. All of it? I don't think so. Of course, believing that certainly feeds into the myth that the US is the most advanced, fantastic nation on the face of the planet, so I can see why you'd choose the explanation.

If I want to mortgage my house to have the latest and greatest cancer treatment, at least that's my decision to make.

Buh? Latest and greatest? Try regular ol' chemotherapy. You don't need fancy treatment to go bankrupt in the US.

So your choice is life, or to be financially destitute. Yeah, that's just great.

Citation please. This statistic could be distorted by the fact that we have the latest, most advanced healthcare technology available. Highly advanced technology usually comes at a higher cost.

Health care funding > Total per capita (most recent) by country
Total expenditure as % of GDP (most recent) by country
Health care funding > Public per capita (most recent) by country
Health care funding > Private per capita (most recent) by country

My favorite statistic in that list is #2. The US is *third* on the list in terms of public funding, per capita, for health care, and yet has piss poor coverage by comparison. Talk about inefficient!

Of course, you can explain away some of that cost to fancy new technology. Maybe. All of it? I don't think so. Of course, believing that certainly feeds into the myth that the US is the most advanced, fantastic nation on the face of the planet, so I can see why you'd choose the explanation.

If I want to mortgage my house to have the latest and greatest cancer treatment, at least that's my decision to make.

Buh? Latest and greatest? Try regular ol' chemotherapy. You don't need fancy treatment to go bankrupt in the US.

So your choice is life, or to be financially destitute. Yeah, that's just great.

Citation please. This statistic could be distorted by the fact that we have the latest, most advanced healthcare technology available. Highly advanced technology usually comes at a higher cost.

Health care funding > Total per capita (most recent) by country
Total expenditure as % of GDP (most recent) by country
Health care funding > Public per capita (most recent) by country
Health care funding > Private per capita (most recent) by country

My favorite statistic in that list is #2. The US is *third* on the list in terms of public funding, per capita, for health care, and yet has piss poor coverage by comparison. Talk about inefficient!

Of course, you can explain away some of that cost to fancy new technology. Maybe. All of it? I don't think so. Of course, believing that certainly feeds into the myth that the US is the most advanced, fantastic nation on the face of the planet, so I can see why you'd choose the explanation.

If I want to mortgage my house to have the latest and greatest cancer treatment, at least that's my decision to make.

Buh? Latest and greatest? Try regular ol' chemotherapy. You don't need fancy treatment to go bankrupt in the US.

So your choice is life, or to be financially destitute. Yeah, that's just great.

Given that the average American consumes 13,500KWh per year, getting a couple of Watt-hours into your phone from wasted heat instead of the grid isn't going to make a damn bit of difference.

I love Gandhi, but BS, the US is one of the richest countries in the world, but at the same time for sure the biggest pollute

Depends on how you define it. First off, if you accept that CO2 is a pollutant, then as far as total CO2 output goes, the US is first. However, on a per-capita basis, the US comes in 5th. If we exclude CO2 and look at real waste, the situation is even better - on a per-capita basis the US comes in 4th amongst 16 first-world nations, which puts it ahead of such wonderfully progressive nations like the Netherlands, and the UK. And if we look at freshwater pollution, the US comes in 30th in a list of only 68.

So, all in all, I think it's safe to conclude that you're completely wrong.

The real fear for the environment is that India and China are coming out of poverty.

Yes - which is why they should never have been excluded from the Kyoto protocol. Indira Gandhi was wrong; there is a bigger polluter than poverty, and that is the step out of poverty. Why? Because the sources of pollution which exist in an impoverished state don't immediately disappear as soon as you start industrializing, and, worse yet, emergent economies are unlikely to implement the environmental protection measures which 1st world nations now use as a matter of course. You can expect pollution output of India and China to dwarf the rest of the planet combined for at least a few decades before they're able (or willing) to implement the kind of measures which we take for granted.

If the Kyoto members really wanted to make a difference, they would have figured out a way to encourage these nations to reign in their pollution during the industrialization process. Or, better yet, they could have created an international organization for research into sustainable energy. If each of the Kyoto signatories contributed just $100 million a year for 10 years, you'd have a budget of 183 billion dollars. Obviously you'd have to screw with the numbers and adjust them by GDP, but even if you end up with only half of that number it will still buy you a hell of a lot of research. The total cost of the LHC is something like 9 billion. The ITER fusion-research effort will cost about the same.

I love Gandhi, but BS, the US is one of the richest countries in the world, but at the same time for sure the biggest pollute

Depends on how you define it. First off, if you accept that CO2 is a pollutant, then as far as total CO2 output goes, the US is first. However, on a per-capita basis, the US comes in 5th. If we exclude CO2 and look at real waste, the situation is even better - on a per-capita basis the US comes in 4th amongst 16 first-world nations, which puts it ahead of such wonderfully progressive nations like the Netherlands, and the UK. And if we look at freshwater pollution, the US comes in 30th in a list of only 68.

So, all in all, I think it's safe to conclude that you're completely wrong.

The real fear for the environment is that India and China are coming out of poverty.

Yes - which is why they should never have been excluded from the Kyoto protocol. Indira Gandhi was wrong; there is a bigger polluter than poverty, and that is the step out of poverty. Why? Because the sources of pollution which exist in an impoverished state don't immediately disappear as soon as you start industrializing, and, worse yet, emergent economies are unlikely to implement the environmental protection measures which 1st world nations now use as a matter of course. You can expect pollution output of India and China to dwarf the rest of the planet combined for at least a few decades before they're able (or willing) to implement the kind of measures which we take for granted.

If the Kyoto members really wanted to make a difference, they would have figured out a way to encourage these nations to reign in their pollution during the industrialization process. Or, better yet, they could have created an international organization for research into sustainable energy. If each of the Kyoto signatories contributed just $100 million a year for 10 years, you'd have a budget of 183 billion dollars. Obviously you'd have to screw with the numbers and adjust them by GDP, but even if you end up with only half of that number it will still buy you a hell of a lot of research. The total cost of the LHC is something like 9 billion. The ITER fusion-research effort will cost about the same.

hows that working in the US?

Gun crime homicides per 100,000 pop:

#9 Zimbabwe: 11.98
#13 Ukraine: 9.27
#14 United States: 9.1

UK : Not listed.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_ove_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop

There's no punishment here. As I stated before, a child that manages to obtain an 80th percentile score when he went to a school that didn't even have a book for him to study has proven far more work ethic, persistence, and dedication to academia than his counterpart with the same score that wen to a school for which the only cause of poor performance is his own lack and shortcomings.

There you go again, making assumptions that the kid from the better school should have to do better in order to prove himself. You just can't bring yourself to admit that you are giving an artificial advantage to one person at the expense of another, can you? Frankly I'm not even sure that it's Constitutional, given the equal protection requirements of the 14th amendment.

Grades alone have never been the sole determining factor of a student's admittance . A student with a 3.8 but a long list of extracurricular activities, community service, and sports is often chosen over the 4.0 student with nothing else to show. Why is it so absurd to recognize the diverse achievements of low income students as well?

It's absurd because you are giving an artificial advantage to someone based on criteria that nobody has any control over. The student who took part in all of those extracurricular activities earned extra consideration. The student who didn't take part in those activities made a choice not to do so.

Education is already centralized to some extent.

And therein lies the problem, as far as I'm concerned.

And yes, it is absolutely intentional. The high income neighborhoods with a more direct access to the law makers push very hard to maintain the status quo. And these laws have the same end effect on that population's participation in education as jim crow did on their participation in government.

I'm sorry but I can't take you seriously if you are going to play the 'Jim Crow' card. Lower income neighborhoods have the same representation that higher income neighborhoods do. In many cases I've seen representatives from inner city neighbors that are more responsive to their constituents than those from the suburbs. Your main complaint would seem to be that the higher income neighborhoods fight for the "status quo" against your alternative of increased wealth redistribution and a more centralized education system.

Has it occurred to you that we already throw ridiculous amounts of money at our educational system and yet we never seem to manage to improve it? We spend more per student than almost every other nation in the World, yet in test scores we rank behind nations that spend considerably less than we do. What does that tell you?

From what I've seen in my time in the human services field, bureaucracy and special interests do at least as much damage (if not more so) to the educational prospects of disadvantaged youth as any lack of funding. Families get lost trying to navigate a system that was ostensibly created to help them but in the end winds up serving it's own agenda. Schools aren't allowed to punish unruly students that disrupt the classroom, preventing those who want to learn from actually being able to do so. Teachers unions are so entrenched that they refuse to consider any meaningful reform of the educational system that calls for increased accountability. Special needs students wind up with more resources devoted to them than gifted ones. Schools wind up teaching to standardized tests instead of subject matter.

None of these problems have anything to do with money. They have everything to do with a bloated bureaucracy that will only be made worse by more centralized control.

You are not comparing like for like statistics. You're comparing risk of crime to reported. A crime can affect more than one person which makes the risk higher.

The violent crime rate in the UK is between 60% to 100% higher than the US depending on the year and the measure. However the murder rate in the US 300% that of the UK and women are twice more likely to be raped in the US than UK.

http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/cri-crime

Dear 997083,

what you say is probably FUD, including the "per capita" reference that you provide where a 1st grader could point out that 3.1bln units produced by 1.5bln people in China is much less than the 2.8bln units produced by 350mln people in the USA.

Citations wanted ? here...

- Comment 5 on this page (not the main article)
- This answer
- waste too

Oops, the nationmaster link is to GDP PPP and the statemaster link is to GDP. Here's the links that point to the same economic measure (GDP). Sweden is between Illinois and Californa there. http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_percap-product-current-dollars-per-capita http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_percap-economy-gdp-per-capita

And I guess the fact that Iceland was thinly populated ( I guess we could achieve this government-less utopia if we started by getting the worlds population density down to the level of Iceland in 1250. Roughly estimated, that would mean a reduction by a factor of 1/20. Any idea on how to achieve that in a reasonable time frame which doesn't involve violence, disease or famine?

If they left the European Union and joined the United States, they would be the poorest of our 51 states.

Oh yes. A truly unbiased source, with truly recent data. Stop drinking that KoolAid for a second and look at something that's a bit more up to date. Sweden would be roughly on par with Georgia. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_pur_pow_par_percap-purchasing-power-parity-per-capita http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_percap-product-current-dollars-per-capita

The US murder rate is about 5.9 per 100,000. It hasn't been at 9 per 100,000 in a number of years. The UK's is about 1.4 per 100,000. Japan's is about 0.5 per 100,000.

Just so that people can "confirm" these facts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#International_comparison or http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita&ob=ws are your friends. The parents stats are more or less right, although according to these sources the US rate is a little high, it should be 5.4-4.3 per 100,000.

Some gangs will have guns, but if guns were illegal on a national level, they'd have fewer guns, and overall deaths would go down.

Guns are illegal in Mexico. They have two-to-three times as many murders per capita as the United States.

As someone who has had to use a gun to defend himself, I'd just like to point out that you are full of shit.

More Americans go to college than in any other country

No. They don't. The US is #5, behind Greece, Belgium, France and Spain.

the number of years of schooling is highest here

No. It's not. That honor goes to Germany.

"School is not cool" is a silly notion a small number of people believe in

And yet high school drop out rates are at their highest ever, approaching 50% in some major cities.

In most countries they seem to think that medical care should "just be free"

Please point to a single country that thinks that medical care should be free. Most countries think that it is better for the good of their society, and more cheap/efficient to aggregate medical services, and pay for it as a function of their taxes rather than anything else.

Americans take fewer vacations and holiday time than any other country in the world (even Japan).

No. they don't. They actually rank #4 in the world for days taken off work. Both Australians and Japanese work longer hours than Americans. On the other hand, the US is notable amongst developed nations for not mandating that employers allow employees a single day of vacation.

You were, however, correct about this:

Of course people are going to make inane, factually inaccurate hot air comments on the net all the time.

More Americans go to college than in any other country

No. They don't. The US is #5, behind Greece, Belgium, France and Spain.

the number of years of schooling is highest here

No. It's not. That honor goes to Germany.

"School is not cool" is a silly notion a small number of people believe in

And yet high school drop out rates are at their highest ever, approaching 50% in some major cities.

In most countries they seem to think that medical care should "just be free"

Please point to a single country that thinks that medical care should be free. Most countries think that it is better for the good of their society, and more cheap/efficient to aggregate medical services, and pay for it as a function of their taxes rather than anything else.

Americans take fewer vacations and holiday time than any other country in the world (even Japan).

No. they don't. They actually rank #4 in the world for days taken off work. Both Australians and Japanese work longer hours than Americans. On the other hand, the US is notable amongst developed nations for not mandating that employers allow employees a single day of vacation.

You were, however, correct about this:

Of course people are going to make inane, factually inaccurate hot air comments on the net all the time.

More Americans go to college than in any other country

No. They don't. The US is #5, behind Greece, Belgium, France and Spain.

the number of years of schooling is highest here

No. It's not. That honor goes to Germany.

"School is not cool" is a silly notion a small number of people believe in

And yet high school drop out rates are at their highest ever, approaching 50% in some major cities.

In most countries they seem to think that medical care should "just be free"

Please point to a single country that thinks that medical care should be free. Most countries think that it is better for the good of their society, and more cheap/efficient to aggregate medical services, and pay for it as a function of their taxes rather than anything else.

Americans take fewer vacations and holiday time than any other country in the world (even Japan).

No. they don't. They actually rank #4 in the world for days taken off work. Both Australians and Japanese work longer hours than Americans. On the other hand, the US is notable amongst developed nations for not mandating that employers allow employees a single day of vacation.

You were, however, correct about this:

Of course people are going to make inane, factually inaccurate hot air comments on the net all the time.

More Americans go to college than in any other country

No. They don't. The US is #5, behind Greece, Belgium, France and Spain.

the number of years of schooling is highest here

No. It's not. That honor goes to Germany.

"School is not cool" is a silly notion a small number of people believe in

And yet high school drop out rates are at their highest ever, approaching 50% in some major cities.

In most countries they seem to think that medical care should "just be free"

Please point to a single country that thinks that medical care should be free. Most countries think that it is better for the good of their society, and more cheap/efficient to aggregate medical services, and pay for it as a function of their taxes rather than anything else.

Americans take fewer vacations and holiday time than any other country in the world (even Japan).

No. they don't. They actually rank #4 in the world for days taken off work. Both Australians and Japanese work longer hours than Americans. On the other hand, the US is notable amongst developed nations for not mandating that employers allow employees a single day of vacation.

You were, however, correct about this:

Of course people are going to make inane, factually inaccurate hot air comments on the net all the time.

More Americans go to college than in any other country

No. They don't. The US is #5, behind Greece, Belgium, France and Spain.

the number of years of schooling is highest here

No. It's not. That honor goes to Germany.

"School is not cool" is a silly notion a small number of people believe in

And yet high school drop out rates are at their highest ever, approaching 50% in some major cities.

In most countries they seem to think that medical care should "just be free"

Please point to a single country that thinks that medical care should be free. Most countries think that it is better for the good of their society, and more cheap/efficient to aggregate medical services, and pay for it as a function of their taxes rather than anything else.

Americans take fewer vacations and holiday time than any other country in the world (even Japan).

No. they don't. They actually rank #4 in the world for days taken off work. Both Australians and Japanese work longer hours than Americans. On the other hand, the US is notable amongst developed nations for not mandating that employers allow employees a single day of vacation.

You were, however, correct about this:

Of course people are going to make inane, factually inaccurate hot air comments on the net all the time.

More Americans go to college than in any other country

No. They don't. The US is #5, behind Greece, Belgium, France and Spain.

the number of years of schooling is highest here

No. It's not. That honor goes to Germany.

"School is not cool" is a silly notion a small number of people believe in

And yet high school drop out rates are at their highest ever, approaching 50% in some major cities.

In most countries they seem to think that medical care should "just be free"

Please point to a single country that thinks that medical care should be free. Most countries think that it is better for the good of their society, and more cheap/efficient to aggregate medical services, and pay for it as a function of their taxes rather than anything else.

Americans take fewer vacations and holiday time than any other country in the world (even Japan).

No. they don't. They actually rank #4 in the world for days taken off work. Both Australians and Japanese work longer hours than Americans. On the other hand, the US is notable amongst developed nations for not mandating that employers allow employees a single day of vacation.

You were, however, correct about this:

Of course people are going to make inane, factually inaccurate hot air comments on the net all the time.

Iran has a population around that of the United Kingdom so I have no doubt that numerous beneficial scientific discoveries are made there.

How is scientific discovery and population related?

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/List-of-famous-Hungarians#Math_and_Sciences

Thus the highest crime and death by firearm rate in the world, by far.

And space has the highest rate of death by vacuum.

We don't have the highest murder rate (by far), and while it's up there, firearms are clearly not the underlying cause, otherwise we should rank first in both categories. That guns may be used to commit a majority of murders in the US means only that they were the most convenient/effective method available, not that the murders would not have taken place in the absence of firearms. Personally, I blame the "gangsta" culture, pussies who can't deal with the fact that a girl doesn't like them, and spoiled bitches who don't realize how good their lives actually are compared to everyone else in the world. Actually, the first 2 are just a subset of the 3rd.

But.. But.. We ARE the leaders in per capita waste production and incarceration!

USA USA USA!

Source?

National Birth Rates

You'll probably recognize the relative wealth of those nations by name, but if not you can find plenty of lists of per capita GDP online. You'll see an amazing correlation between poor nations and birth rate. This is a very well established observation.

Cheers.

Please understand what a word means before using it.

A sociopath is someone who meets the DSM 4 TR definition of a sociopath. A quick Google search finds that the DSM gives the following criteria:

1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest

2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure

3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead

4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults

5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others

6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations

7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

-- NationMaster

A sociopath experiences no guilt over what they've done. (Freudian Psychology explains sociopaths as lacking a superego)

Developing a dark sense of humor is a perfectly healthy way to cope with being in a stressful situation. When people are forced to kill (or put in any stressful situation they will use coping mechanisms (see also ego defense mechanisms). Consider: a person who feels guilty about killing will try to make it less real for themselves by joking about it. This is frequently seen in soldiers.

Yeah, but that murder rate is skewed by urban areas with gun control. Further, murders not committed with a gun ought to be filtered out.

Even so, doing a cursory google search,

According to the FBI, the US murder rate is under 6 per 100,000.

According to nationmaster, the US rate is high (though their number is lower than the FBI number), but you can find European nations with both higher and lower numbers, and the UK and France are more than half the US rate.

Where did you get your 10x number from?

About a third of murders don't involve firearms. Areas with widespread legal firearms ownership tend to have less crime than areas with severe gun restrictions. Finally, if someone is that nuts, operating an axe, shovel, hatchet or any number of other hand tools is no great obstacle.

Lizzie Borden was just a chick, but did a "hatchet job" quite smartly (and beat the rap too).

errr...

...there will be more trips to developing countries. Countries that do not have the runway, airport, and infrastructure that the Western world has. Sure, other arrangements can be made, but there would be nothing like having Air Force One fly into their country.

Suitable runways actually aren't that hard to come by. Lightly loaded, the 747-8 and the A380 can both take off from a one-mile (1600 meter) runway. Fully-tricked out and at its maximum takeoff weight, the longest runway the 747-8 could require is a bit less than two miles (about 3000 meters).

Any nation that has now (or had in the last couple of decades) the ability to build a few miles of good highway could build a suitable runway. That includes virtually every country on earth, and nearly all of them did.

All of the colored-in countries on this map have at least one paved runway longer than 2400 meters; all could safely land and launch a new 747-8-based Air Force One. (Altogether, 119 countries are on that list, and the data are incomplete - for some reason several countries, including Sweden, South Africa, Spain, and the United States, have been omitted.)

The obstacles associated with Air Force One visits to developing countries are political and security-related, not primarily a technical inability to land.

You mean like this?

From one study ( http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/808206.html )

The principal findings and conclusions from the statistical analyses of accident data are the following:

        * ABS significantly reduced the involvements of passenger cars in multivehicle crashes on wet roads. ABS reduced police-reported crash involvements by an estimated 14 percent, and fatal involvements by 24 percent. The finding is consistent with the outstanding performance of ABS in stopping tests on wet roads.

        * Certain types of collision involvements on wet roads, such as striking another vehicle in the rear, or striking a stopped vehicle, were reduced by 40 percent or more. This benefit, however, was partially offset by an increased likelihood of being struck in the rear by another vehicle. The better your own braking capabilities, the more likely that a following vehicle with average braking capabilities will hit you.

        * ABS had little effect on multivehicle crashes on dry roads. The contrast in the results for wet roads and dry roads is consistent with findings in stopping tests, where ABS improved stopping distances and directional control substantially on wet surfaces, but much less so on dry surfaces.

        * The risk of fatal collisions with pedestrians and bicyclists was reduced by a statistically significant 27 percent in passenger cars with ABS. Unlike the effects for multivehicle crashes, this reduction was about equally large on wet and dry roads.

        * All types of run-off-road crashes - rollovers, side impacts with fixed objects and frontal impacts with fixed objects - increased significantly with ABS. Nonfatal run-off-road crashes increased by an estimated 19 percent, and fatal crashes by 28 percent.

        * Rollovers and side impacts with fixed objects - crashes that typically follow a complete loss of directional control - had the highest increases with ABS. Nonfatal crashes increased by 28 percent, and fatal crashes by 40 percent.

        * Frontal impacts with fixed objects, where the driver is more likely to have retained at least some directional control prior to impact, increased by about 15-20 percent, both nonfatal and fatal.

        * The negative effects of ABS on run-off-road crashes were about the same under wet and dry road conditions.

# The reason for these negative effects is unknown. One possibility is that average drivers may at times steer improperly in panic situations. Because ABS preserves steering control under hard braking, cars may be swerving or heading off the road.

# The observed effects of ABS on snowy or icy roads, while not statistically significant, were all similar to the effects on wet roads - i.e., positive for multivehicle collisions, negative for run-off-road crashes.

# The overall, net effect of ABS on police-reported crashes (including multivehicle, pedestrian and run-off-road crashes) was close to zero.

# The overall, net effect of ABS on fatal crashes was close to zero.

So the type of accident changes and the fatality rate seems close to the same.
Also this page shows various studies where decreasing one type of risk raises another also resulting in close to zero change. http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Risk-homeostasis

great someone is thinking:

"start with a group/groups that everyone hate(s)" http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Image:Martin-Niemoeller.jpg pasted from that link They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Actually you do.

Yeah, because of the fifty busiest ports in the world, Canada has one on the list (Vancouver) and the United States has six and five of them move more cargo than Vancouver.

The only ports that freeze are in the great lakes, you know the ones that ship out the majority of the grain to the rest of the world.

This confuses me. Not the freezing ports part, but the grain shipping, because the US exports twelve times as much grain as Canada. With 22% going via California, and the next 16% going via Washington and New York.

It means that if you throw a hissy fit, we simply say 'our market is now europe' and they buy our goods, or japan, or anyone else.

Yeah, because Asia is going to totally want to import goods from a half way around the world where it's twice as expensive to produce the goods, than they will from multiple countries right next door where labor is cheaper. I mean why import goods from Malaysia into Japan when you can ship stuff from Canada.

And yeah, I agree, it's going to be totally trivial for Canada to find new markets for 80% of their total exports. Not.

While you're very good at consuming our goods, and tell me something do you even have the manufacturing base left to make anything?

I don't know. Maybe air planes, heavy equipment, trucks, microprocessors, DRAM & flash. Then of course we have things like tanks, airplanes & submarines, aircraft carriers, fighter planes & submarines. And there are vaccines and medicines.

But, hey, we import our socks, so yeah, I can totally see why you'd think the US isn't capable of producing anything.

The only reason the US imports manufactured goods is because it's cheaper. Barring protectionist policies, every industrialized country does the same.

The USA has the largest number of internet-connected people, but is #16 in per-capita.

See

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/int_bro_acc_percap-internet-broadband-access-per-capita

you mean this?
Mass Driver

Once upon a time the Dutch had a unique connection to the -then- internet, we were the first outside of the USofA.

This was at a time the USSR and China were still very People-minded and refused to even think of such connections.

Maybe the subject of today has something to do with the size of the population ?

Once upon a time the Dutch had a unique connection to the -then- internet, we were the first outside of the USofA.

This was at a time the USSR and China were still very People-minded and refused to even think of such connections.

Maybe the subject of today has something to do with the size of the population ?

Looking at crime statistics from nationmaster.com it appears the United States has slightly higher rates of most violent crimes and a significantly higher murder rate (4 times as high .4/1000 vs .1/1000), while the UK has slightly higher rates of most property crimes and significantly higher rates of burglary (about twice as high 14/1000 vs 7/1000). Since the US and the UK are different in many ways other than their gun laws (culturally, demographically etc. plus the methodologies behind the statistics are different) I'm not convinced that the differences in crime rates are entirely the result of having different gun laws. But, it does make a certain amount of sense. The increased likelihood that guns will be present during the commission of a crime seems like it would raise the stakes so murder become more likely, by the same token those increased stakes probably serve as a deterrent for lesser crimes, so robbery becomes a less appealing occupation since there's a small chance the victim may be armed and burglary becomes much less appealing since there's a good chance (in some places a near certainty) that the victim (if they're home) will be armed.

No, the problem is that
a) most bad guys don't get caught until they have done it a lot of times

I agree on this, but not on the other things. Everything else is irrelevant for the criminal as he assumes he will not get caught.

The second thing is opportunity. The easier it is to perform the crime, the more likely it is to happen.

The third one is motivation. People who don't have anything, and thus have nothing to lose, will be more likely to take the risks.

Most statistics show no relation between the severity of the punishments and crime rate. The USA has the most severe punishments in the western world and also the highest crime rate.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_adu_pro_percap-crime-adults-prosecuted-per-capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_fir_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita

You could say that the USA is the crime capital of the world, certainly the developed world. I think it's somewhat related to the high availability of firearms, but that can't be the entire story.

High punishment (including the death penalty!) doesn't seem to help.

I think to lower crime you have to work on three things:
- Chance to get caught.
- Opportunity.
- Motivation.

I think the opportunity doesn't differ much from country to country, the other two do (availability of firearms might have an influence). I think that in the USA especially the motivation is an important factor, because compared to most western countries, there is a large number of people who have nothing to lose.

No, the problem is that
a) most bad guys don't get caught until they have done it a lot of times

I agree on this, but not on the other things. Everything else is irrelevant for the criminal as he assumes he will not get caught.

The second thing is opportunity. The easier it is to perform the crime, the more likely it is to happen.

The third one is motivation. People who don't have anything, and thus have nothing to lose, will be more likely to take the risks.

Most statistics show no relation between the severity of the punishments and crime rate. The USA has the most severe punishments in the western world and also the highest crime rate.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_adu_pro_percap-crime-adults-prosecuted-per-capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_fir_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita

You could say that the USA is the crime capital of the world, certainly the developed world. I think it's somewhat related to the high availability of firearms, but that can't be the entire story.

High punishment (including the death penalty!) doesn't seem to help.

I think to lower crime you have to work on three things:
- Chance to get caught.
- Opportunity.
- Motivation.

I think the opportunity doesn't differ much from country to country, the other two do (availability of firearms might have an influence). I think that in the USA especially the motivation is an important factor, because compared to most western countries, there is a large number of people who have nothing to lose.

No, the problem is that
a) most bad guys don't get caught until they have done it a lot of times

I agree on this, but not on the other things. Everything else is irrelevant for the criminal as he assumes he will not get caught.

The second thing is opportunity. The easier it is to perform the crime, the more likely it is to happen.

The third one is motivation. People who don't have anything, and thus have nothing to lose, will be more likely to take the risks.

Most statistics show no relation between the severity of the punishments and crime rate. The USA has the most severe punishments in the western world and also the highest crime rate.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_adu_pro_percap-crime-adults-prosecuted-per-capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_fir_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita

You could say that the USA is the crime capital of the world, certainly the developed world. I think it's somewhat related to the high availability of firearms, but that can't be the entire story.

High punishment (including the death penalty!) doesn't seem to help.

I think to lower crime you have to work on three things:
- Chance to get caught.
- Opportunity.
- Motivation.

I think the opportunity doesn't differ much from country to country, the other two do (availability of firearms might have an influence). I think that in the USA especially the motivation is an important factor, because compared to most western countries, there is a large number of people who have nothing to lose.

here are the statistics for all crime murders:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita