Slashdot Mirror

Oh, you meant prioritize by politics, not geography.

No. You can try reading the summary, asshole. Here, I'll repost it here in case you were too lazy to read it above:

"While I live in S.Korea and have virtually unlimited bandwidth in and out of the country, not all my Asian friends are so lucky. Many of the SE Asian and African countries have small international pipes. Even when a user has a high-speed local connection, downloads from abroad will trickle in.
Bittorrent clients apparently don't prioritize other users on the same ISP or at least in the same country. Why is that? Is it difficult to manage? If I were to write a plug-in for, say, Deluge, what hurdles would I be likely to come across? If this functionality is available in other clients or through plug-ins, please chime in."

You fail to make any sense.

but IPv6 isn't a better solution than NAT. It's annoyingly long.

Well, I'd think ::1 is shorter than 127.0.0.1 . And my IPv6 address is 2002:d594:e6a3::1, which is only slightly longer than 213.148.230.163.

How's this - since we've got 65000 ports per IP why can't we just give each machine a few ports and advertise stuff that's available using DNS.

Because DNS only uses one of those 65000 - by definition? It sound like you're describing Zeroconf networking, with the additional complication of UPnP port-forwarding. Have you even thought about security concerns?

Sure there's things to work out with that, but it's not difficult to do.

Especially when you don't have to specify all the details of your solution.

IPv4 didn't have to push so hard to be accepted - it took over from NCP pretty much as soon as it was completed. Sure there were less hosts, but it was still a big job.

I don't have specific numbers, but I'd guess the Internet was well below a million hosts in 1983, and mostly (completely?) located in the US. We're now at over 300 million connected devices (not counted NAT'ed devices, 2007 figure), spread out over near 13,000 providers in over 200 countries (2003 figure).

What if an automated script breaks both my DNS servers and I need to ssh into them to fix them? Oh too fucking bad, you forgot your ffas:3qrr:r2f223:dada:fdsda cunty number. It really feels like everyone's trying to sell me a lemon with this IPv6 bullshit.

So, you're self-reliant enough to manage your own DNS servers, but you can't (manually) setup static IPv4 addresses for your servers? No one is telling you to use IPv6 explicitly on your internal network.

Final question: how are you going to ssh into your DNS servers if you're outside of your NAT'ed network, like on a boat? Do you have VPN access for situations like that?

You fail to make any sense.

but IPv6 isn't a better solution than NAT. It's annoyingly long.

Well, I'd think ::1 is shorter than 127.0.0.1 . And my IPv6 address is 2002:d594:e6a3::1, which is only slightly longer than 213.148.230.163.

How's this - since we've got 65000 ports per IP why can't we just give each machine a few ports and advertise stuff that's available using DNS.

Because DNS only uses one of those 65000 - by definition? It sound like you're describing Zeroconf networking, with the additional complication of UPnP port-forwarding. Have you even thought about security concerns?

Sure there's things to work out with that, but it's not difficult to do.

Especially when you don't have to specify all the details of your solution.

IPv4 didn't have to push so hard to be accepted - it took over from NCP pretty much as soon as it was completed. Sure there were less hosts, but it was still a big job.

I don't have specific numbers, but I'd guess the Internet was well below a million hosts in 1983, and mostly (completely?) located in the US. We're now at over 300 million connected devices (not counted NAT'ed devices, 2007 figure), spread out over near 13,000 providers in over 200 countries (2003 figure).

What if an automated script breaks both my DNS servers and I need to ssh into them to fix them? Oh too fucking bad, you forgot your ffas:3qrr:r2f223:dada:fdsda cunty number. It really feels like everyone's trying to sell me a lemon with this IPv6 bullshit.

So, you're self-reliant enough to manage your own DNS servers, but you can't (manually) setup static IPv4 addresses for your servers? No one is telling you to use IPv6 explicitly on your internal network.

Final question: how are you going to ssh into your DNS servers if you're outside of your NAT'ed network, like on a boat? Do you have VPN access for situations like that?

Greenpeace lost its way a long time ago. Even one of its founders couldn't stomach its new direction.

There is no "Great Bear Rain-Forest". I live where it is supposed to be and they just made that up for publicity. There is a rain forest, and it has bears, but no one outside of Greenpeace calls it that.

They used to do good. Now they are just fear mongers.

Machines don't think. Machines don't get PTSD and decide to go on a killing rampage. Machines don't "go rogue".

All of these are useful signs that the stress you are putting humans under is unacceptable - if they're suffering from severe PTSD or going on killing rampages, we should be asking ourselves why, and what sort of war *we're* asking them to fight. Perhaps being unable to distinguish civilians from combatants and seeing every day how fucked up the country and situation is are stressful beyond belief. Perhaps that's an indication that the entire strategy and foundation for certain wars is flawed.

Machines would have no problem with the brutal subjugation of a people for some machiavellian 'higher purpose', and their controllers are distanced enough not to care. Introducing machines into warfare (which will happen, they're more efficient) will lead to the largest death tolls for humans we have ever seen - war inevitably becomes total war, civilians get involved, and with machines on the sharp end, there will be no mercy. The most efficient (and inhumane) solution to beating a rival group into submission is genocide after all, and if you don't have to witness it that makes it all the easier.

Simply the threat that we can deploy them keeps us out of wars.

Doesn't seem to have worked recently, and really this is an unprovable statement, which makes it pointless.

On a smaller level, societies where people own guns are usually more peaceful ones.

Really? Care to cite some statistics which actually back this up? Here's a starting point (note the high position of the US on that table):

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

I'd say the statistics on murder rates don't bear out your fantasy of a gun-owning yet peaceful land. At the top of the table, gun ownership is prevalent, and at the bottom, it is most often banned or extremely limited. Of course that's not the only factor in murder rates, but the correlation points to exactly the reverse of the conclusion you have come to.

uh switzerland? every male has a freaking machine gun in their house!

for one, yes they have more murders with guns per capita than UK:

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

for two, they have alot less murders overall per capita than UK:

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

put that in your idiot pipe and smoke it.

uh switzerland? every male has a freaking machine gun in their house!

for one, yes they have more murders with guns per capita than UK:

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

for two, they have alot less murders overall per capita than UK:

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

put that in your idiot pipe and smoke it.

"I thought Neanderthals actually had *bigger* brains than we do."

An Elephant has a much larger brain than a human. That doesn't make Elephants more intelligent than humans.
e.g. http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Elephant-intelligence

... unless that is, Elephants are so intelligent, that they can hide their intelligence from us! :)

The intervention of 1792:

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1999/3/1999_3_20.shtml

1797, Congress creates a bankruptcy law to get one of the victims out of debtors prison:

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Panic-of-1797

I'm stopping there, as it is apparent that we have different ideas about what intervention means.

It's 48 volts because 50 volts and above you need an electrician's license to work with it...

No, we're talking about DC where anything below 120V is considered to be ELV. The phone companies trained their own installers they didn't need to hire electrical contractors.
Besides 48V dates back to the days of telegraph long before the NEC was even thought of.

The use of -48V is based on a compromise between state of the art batteries at the time and the distance that the signals needed to travel.

Lasers, reflectors?

God damnit, now I want to go grab a few of my old friends and play a RIFTS® campaign. Never got around to playing a Glitter Boy.

That's a somewhat dated bit of statistics, the graph shows only burglaries, and they consider (England+Wales) and Scotland separately. How about we look at something that's a bit more comprehensive and current?

Burglaries:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita

Car thefts:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_car_the_percap-crime-car-thefts-per-capita

Robberies:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rob_percap-crime-robberies-per-capita

Assaults:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-capita

Rapes:

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

Murders:

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

And Europe is Europe.

And that means ... the continent? Comparing a country to a continent is comparing apples to oranges. Even the EU isn't a country, but the comparison is a little more valid.

If you're going to proclaim the superiority of Europe to the US then you shouldn't exclude those less-developed European countries to make your side look better.

If we're comparing continents, then it's Europe vs. North America. I'm sure that throwing, say, the statistics of Mexico into the mix might make things interesting.

That's a somewhat dated bit of statistics, the graph shows only burglaries, and they consider (England+Wales) and Scotland separately. How about we look at something that's a bit more comprehensive and current?

Burglaries:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita

Car thefts:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_car_the_percap-crime-car-thefts-per-capita

Robberies:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rob_percap-crime-robberies-per-capita

Assaults:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-capita

Rapes:

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

Murders:

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

And Europe is Europe.

And that means ... the continent? Comparing a country to a continent is comparing apples to oranges. Even the EU isn't a country, but the comparison is a little more valid.

If you're going to proclaim the superiority of Europe to the US then you shouldn't exclude those less-developed European countries to make your side look better.

If we're comparing continents, then it's Europe vs. North America. I'm sure that throwing, say, the statistics of Mexico into the mix might make things interesting.

That's a somewhat dated bit of statistics, the graph shows only burglaries, and they consider (England+Wales) and Scotland separately. How about we look at something that's a bit more comprehensive and current?

Burglaries:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita

Car thefts:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_car_the_percap-crime-car-thefts-per-capita

Robberies:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rob_percap-crime-robberies-per-capita

Assaults:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-capita

Rapes:

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

Murders:

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

And Europe is Europe.

And that means ... the continent? Comparing a country to a continent is comparing apples to oranges. Even the EU isn't a country, but the comparison is a little more valid.

If you're going to proclaim the superiority of Europe to the US then you shouldn't exclude those less-developed European countries to make your side look better.

If we're comparing continents, then it's Europe vs. North America. I'm sure that throwing, say, the statistics of Mexico into the mix might make things interesting.

That's a somewhat dated bit of statistics, the graph shows only burglaries, and they consider (England+Wales) and Scotland separately. How about we look at something that's a bit more comprehensive and current?

Burglaries:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita

Car thefts:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_car_the_percap-crime-car-thefts-per-capita

Robberies:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rob_percap-crime-robberies-per-capita

Assaults:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-capita

Rapes:

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

Murders:

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

And Europe is Europe.

And that means ... the continent? Comparing a country to a continent is comparing apples to oranges. Even the EU isn't a country, but the comparison is a little more valid.

If you're going to proclaim the superiority of Europe to the US then you shouldn't exclude those less-developed European countries to make your side look better.

If we're comparing continents, then it's Europe vs. North America. I'm sure that throwing, say, the statistics of Mexico into the mix might make things interesting.

That's a somewhat dated bit of statistics, the graph shows only burglaries, and they consider (England+Wales) and Scotland separately. How about we look at something that's a bit more comprehensive and current?

Burglaries:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita

Car thefts:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_car_the_percap-crime-car-thefts-per-capita

Robberies:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rob_percap-crime-robberies-per-capita

Assaults:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-capita

Rapes:

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

Murders:

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

And Europe is Europe.

And that means ... the continent? Comparing a country to a continent is comparing apples to oranges. Even the EU isn't a country, but the comparison is a little more valid.

If you're going to proclaim the superiority of Europe to the US then you shouldn't exclude those less-developed European countries to make your side look better.

If we're comparing continents, then it's Europe vs. North America. I'm sure that throwing, say, the statistics of Mexico into the mix might make things interesting.

That's a somewhat dated bit of statistics, the graph shows only burglaries, and they consider (England+Wales) and Scotland separately. How about we look at something that's a bit more comprehensive and current?

Burglaries:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita

Car thefts:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_car_the_percap-crime-car-thefts-per-capita

Robberies:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rob_percap-crime-robberies-per-capita

Assaults:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-capita

Rapes:

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

Murders:

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

And Europe is Europe.

And that means ... the continent? Comparing a country to a continent is comparing apples to oranges. Even the EU isn't a country, but the comparison is a little more valid.

If you're going to proclaim the superiority of Europe to the US then you shouldn't exclude those less-developed European countries to make your side look better.

If we're comparing continents, then it's Europe vs. North America. I'm sure that throwing, say, the statistics of Mexico into the mix might make things interesting.

And what's most amazing of all is that the US spends *more government money per capita* on healthcare than most other nations, ahead of Canada, Germany, and many others. Citation.

Because you need to look at countries that are at least somewhat in the same ball park as far as per capita GDP goes. Duh.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_ppp_percap-economy-gdp-ppp-per-capita

And it is not efficient. For example, despite the oft-cited expenses of conducting two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) and the defense spending has still not exceeded Medicate expenses alone, not including Medicaid...

And that absolute sum relates to an "efficiency" figure how? I'm not following your argument here.

My own preference -- having experienced both of the two other alternatives

If you think that there are only four approaches to chose from, you haven't really looked hard.

Why is a new lunar rover going to take 11 years to go into production when technology is so much more advanced now and innovation is at a faster pace than ever?

Well for one we're not going to land on the moon for at least another 11 years. I think it will probably be more like 15. The lunar rover isn't the slow part. The slow part is the lack of funding. Right now they have to fund both the shuttle program and development of Constellation. In 1965 the GDP was $712 Billion with a NASA budget of a little more than $5 billion or about 0.7% In 2007 the GDP was about $13.8 Trillion with the NASA budget at about $17 billion, or about 0.12%. It's not the scientists and engineers, it's the politicians.

Can you back up you opinion with facts and logic? Or is it a purely emotional reaction to the concept of "guns", rather than a well though out consideration of the actual effects of prohibition?

There's a million other demographic, cultural and other differences that could be the cause, but I look at what we have here in europe compared to what you have in the states and I wouldn't trade it for the world. The problem with almost all US studies I've seen is that they try to introduce gun control in one little corner of the US and/or for a short while, then conclude it doesn't work since that's a minimalist experiment with all other things the same. Well DOH. To see the positive effect, you have to make a concentrated effort to remove guns entirely from the equation rather than only criminals having guns. In a gun-rich country as the US, I'd say that takes at least 5-10 years and better be nationwide unless you want much tighter state border controls. They're being set up to fail and produce exactly the bullshit results the NRA wants. All I can say is that regular criminals here don't usually carry guns, and heavy criminals are usually better handled with a silent alarm and armed police. If you want stats to discuss away, here's murder per capita:

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

USA is #24, we're #54 with less than 25% the number of deaths. And most of those are family tragedys that are equally easily made with knife as by gun, the ratio of murders that happen during robberies or such out on the street, in stores or other random killings is actually much better in favor Norway. That makes me feel safer on the streets, safer when I go out partying, safer all around. Of course you can argue there's a million other reasons. But one of them is that guns are tightly controlled, guns are regularly confiscated and guns automatically raises the seriousness of a crime and the effort put on the case. Starting a shootout is just to point and press the trigger. It's easy to hit bystanders with a gun - much harder with a knife. You can't stab someone from a distance which means you have to actively attack, it's possible to run away and there's a decent chance to defend yourself anyway. That leads to more standoffs and less killings, if anyone remembers what's said about the chicken and the pig I'd say that knives are involved but guns are committed.

making up statistics again?

How many knife accidents are there? How many people die from peanut allergies? How many falling coconuts kill people each year?

Over 670,000 die each year from car accidents, that's enough for me to argue it outweighs the benifits.

I did some poking around and found the data the parent poster is referring to:

Aid donated per capita

Aid per $ of GDP

And here's how aid is defined in this context:

DEFINITION: The net official development assistance (ODA) from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations to developing countries and multilateral organizations. ODA is defined as financial assistance that is concessional in character, has the main objective to promote economic development and welfare of the less developed countries (LDCs), and contains a grant element of at least 25%. The entry does not cover other official flows (OOF) or private flows.

Take all that for what you will; the parent still makes a great point. Politicians and pundits on both sides of the U.S. political divide often say we're the "most generous" nation in the world. But defining "generosity" as "total aid" certainly seems like an inept measure here--unless, of course, you're a talking head with a book to sell or politician with an election to win.

I did some poking around and found the data the parent poster is referring to:

Aid donated per capita

Aid per $ of GDP

And here's how aid is defined in this context:

DEFINITION: The net official development assistance (ODA) from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations to developing countries and multilateral organizations. ODA is defined as financial assistance that is concessional in character, has the main objective to promote economic development and welfare of the less developed countries (LDCs), and contains a grant element of at least 25%. The entry does not cover other official flows (OOF) or private flows.

Take all that for what you will; the parent still makes a great point. Politicians and pundits on both sides of the U.S. political divide often say we're the "most generous" nation in the world. But defining "generosity" as "total aid" certainly seems like an inept measure here--unless, of course, you're a talking head with a book to sell or politician with an election to win.

Russia could be a bad example. You should use Eritrea for a much stronger emphasis.

...but at an average of 6 hours of viewing a day...

Apparently you are off by about 50%. But Four hours a day is still a lot.

In the US only old people watch TV anyway.;-)

What is the networked computers per Capita in these nations?

Hmmm this might be indicative:

Computer Expenditures Per Capita

Only Switzerland spends more, per capita than the US -- and their population is so small in comparison that it is noise. Russia is way down on the list, and China isn't on the list -- unless you count Hong Kong.

What does this mean? It means that per capita, Russia and China have more hackers than the US -- and if you believe most of the bot-nets originate from those places -- they probably account for a percentage of the US number too.

The world's average is 30%

Inaccurate.

According to this site the average unemployment rate world-wide is 13.5%. The site cites the CIA World Factbook as its source.

Perhaps the 30% you were referring to is the statistic of combined unemployment and underemployment rate of many non-industrialized nations (found here) ?

In that case: apples and oranges, friend.

burglaries per capita:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita

The US has a higher rate than France, Ireland and Greence. Why don't all those handguns prevent people stealing from houses?

Perhaps because if you're a burglar, and you think there might be a good chance of the home owner also being a gun owner, you might plan your burglary when the home owner isn't there? In the UK, where guns are banned, the burglary rate is very nearly double. It looks to me like "all those handguns" are quite posibly preventing people from stealing from houses.

GP poster is obviously a moron, but to properly compare you should use the overall homicide rate. Obviously the UK will have fewer firearm homicides, they have a few levels of magnitude fewer firearms. Overall rates, while still lower, are not as dramatic.

burglaries per capita:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita

The US has a higher rate than France, Ireland and Greence. Why don't all those handguns prevent people stealing from houses?

so tell me, how is easy access to handguns going in the US?

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

gun homicides per 100,000 pop

#1 South Africa: 125.965
#9 Zimbabwe: 11.9841
#14 United States: 9.1
#28 Chile: 1.7237
#29 Germany: 1.635

the UK doesn't even make the list.

Because he's talking bollocks, that's why. There is more gun crime in New York, than there is crime in England. Our gun control works, and shootings are a rare event, when they happen it still makes the news. The reason guns aren't involved in crime within the UK: the police aren't armed, and the citizens aren't armed. If the police or citizens have guns, then the criminals know they need guns, a whole lot more people die. And it's rarely the criminals.

The knife ban was a response to inflating knife crime, not the cause of it. And US politics has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. He was simply going through a list of subjects that he knew could spark a flame war. The definition, if you will, of flamebait.

There actually was a knife ban? I missed that. My mistake.

However, you're making the same mistake that a great many people do. There is no such thing as 'gun crime' or 'knife crime' anymore than there is 'car crime' or 'swimming pool crime'. These terms are all designed to redirect the discussion away from the real issue, crime, and towards the object used to commit the crime. I will agree that some of the GP's statements were a bit over the top. The core argument, however poorly made or not, is still sound. Prohibitions on weapons do not work to reduce crime. They merely, at best, shift the tools of choice to something else. The crime doesn't go down, the law abiding population just become defenseless.

Furthermore, comparing New York (I presume you meant just the city) with England is neither wise nor fair. The NYC Metro population is a third of the population of all of England packed into an area much smaller. You have a much higher density of poorer people, which tends to lead to more crime in general. The UK also had 1,201 murders in 2002. Whereas NYC had less than 500. Perhaps the comparison wasn't so bad after all. ;)

I submit that gun control can only be said to work if you use the faulty methods I mentioned above of segregating so-called 'gun crime' from regular crime. If the goal is simply to reduce crime committed by people using guns, then you might be able to succeed. However, if the goal is the far more useful object of reducing crime in general, gun control will fail every single time. There's just no evidence on hand, unless you can provide such, that proves that banning a given type/class of weapon reduces crime in general.

Actually gnick has read Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress and then merged it w/ Hardwired http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Hardwired-(novel)

"You've already got the largest home default rate in the first world"

First [citation needed], second, we've got the largest hoe ownership rate in the fist world, so the largest default rate would kind of go hand in hand. Last, so what? what is that a measure of besides the easy availability of credit for home ownership?

"one of the highest tax rates on low income earners "

The lowest earners pay nothing in taxes. Zero. How, exaclty would you suggest we make them pay less than zero (and no, that is not a small amount of people either, it was about 1/3rd of the population in 2006 http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html)

"shitty government spending on education and health care per capita even when compared to many third world nations"

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_pri_sch_stu-spending-per-primary-school-student

Which of Denmark, Switzerland and Austria are third world countries? Those are the only ones that are above the US in primary school spending per student.

So what about secondary school?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_sec_sch_stu-spending-per-secondary-school-student

It appears now it's only Switzerland and Austria. I'm sure they'll be surprised to know they're third world...

So what about healthcare spending then? Ar eyou really going to try and make the case that the US, well know for spending more on healthcare than anyone by far, is behind a third world country?

Well, you'd be wrong.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_spe_per_per-health-spending-per-person

#1. What else is there to say?

I don't like taxation any more than you do, but nothing you said there was true to the facts.

"You've already got the largest home default rate in the first world"

First [citation needed], second, we've got the largest hoe ownership rate in the fist world, so the largest default rate would kind of go hand in hand. Last, so what? what is that a measure of besides the easy availability of credit for home ownership?

"one of the highest tax rates on low income earners "

The lowest earners pay nothing in taxes. Zero. How, exaclty would you suggest we make them pay less than zero (and no, that is not a small amount of people either, it was about 1/3rd of the population in 2006 http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html)

"shitty government spending on education and health care per capita even when compared to many third world nations"

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_pri_sch_stu-spending-per-primary-school-student

Which of Denmark, Switzerland and Austria are third world countries? Those are the only ones that are above the US in primary school spending per student.

So what about secondary school?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_sec_sch_stu-spending-per-secondary-school-student

It appears now it's only Switzerland and Austria. I'm sure they'll be surprised to know they're third world...

So what about healthcare spending then? Ar eyou really going to try and make the case that the US, well know for spending more on healthcare than anyone by far, is behind a third world country?

Well, you'd be wrong.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_spe_per_per-health-spending-per-person

#1. What else is there to say?

I don't like taxation any more than you do, but nothing you said there was true to the facts.

"You've already got the largest home default rate in the first world"

First [citation needed], second, we've got the largest hoe ownership rate in the fist world, so the largest default rate would kind of go hand in hand. Last, so what? what is that a measure of besides the easy availability of credit for home ownership?

"one of the highest tax rates on low income earners "

The lowest earners pay nothing in taxes. Zero. How, exaclty would you suggest we make them pay less than zero (and no, that is not a small amount of people either, it was about 1/3rd of the population in 2006 http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html)

"shitty government spending on education and health care per capita even when compared to many third world nations"

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_pri_sch_stu-spending-per-primary-school-student

Which of Denmark, Switzerland and Austria are third world countries? Those are the only ones that are above the US in primary school spending per student.

So what about secondary school?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_sec_sch_stu-spending-per-secondary-school-student

It appears now it's only Switzerland and Austria. I'm sure they'll be surprised to know they're third world...

So what about healthcare spending then? Ar eyou really going to try and make the case that the US, well know for spending more on healthcare than anyone by far, is behind a third world country?

Well, you'd be wrong.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_spe_per_per-health-spending-per-person

#1. What else is there to say?

I don't like taxation any more than you do, but nothing you said there was true to the facts.

Yes indeed. Public/socialised health care is far from free. Countries with such a system (like my own, Australia) just make up for it with higher income tax.

No, you don't. Australia spends less per capita on public funding of healthcare than the US does (link). You may have a higher income tax (I'll take your word for it) but that's not where it's being spent.

It's Swedish you insensitive clod! http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Gustavus-Adolphus

Jump starting the universe at any point has a name: Last Thursdayism. It's not even worth thinking about, since there's nothing you can do about it ;)

They play a Quebecois sitcom on France's TV5 network.
They play it with subtitles in French.

Reality disagrees with your socialist handwaving.

http://www.nationmaster.com/plot/eco_inc_dis_ric_20/cri_tot_cri_vic/flag

Kidnapping culture certainly isn't far away (it already happens in Arizona and Texas, carried out by the same groups), but it's because the government won't guard the damn border.

Nationmaster is a dangerous petard, here's the hoist for you. You'll not that the US with the greatest imbalance has less crime than Sweden with the greatest balance. By statistical standards there is very little correlation between crime and wealth distribution. Kidnapping doesn't seem to be well tracked by various sources I've looked at, so it's hard to say about that specifically.

Mexico has among the highest income inequality in the world. I'd argue that income inequality is pretty tightly correlated with class inequality (large factor).
Combine that with corruption and the US's `economic' policies toward Mexico and I think there's a good argument for class inequality being a big part of the issue.

I am not contesting that there are differences into how different agencies calculate their crime statistics and that some countries probably manipulate their statistics, but:

(1) You would expect governments to underreport crime, not overreport. There's also the problems that most governments record *reported* crime, which is always lower than the actual crime figure.
(2) That doesn't mean al governments are deliberately lying. They sometimes just use different metrics to determine what is a crime and what isn't. There's also the problem that in most cases governments record *reported* crime, which is always lower than the actual crime figure.
(3) An error margin doesn't make statistics useless. Example: the UN reports the number of assaults per 1000 people to be 7.56923 in the US and 1.07987 in Hong Kong. Even if both the US government had been creative with their figures and the UN did not take that into account in any way, you wouldn't expected them to report 7 times the actual rate.

It's true. I've never been in the US, so I can only guess how things are there by looking at figures, reports and what my friends told me. I was just trying to illustrate something.

American scientists, trained in American graduate schools produce more Nobel Prizes, more scientific citations, more of just about anything you care to measure than any other country in the world

They produce more in terms of total output, but the USA is a big country so you have to take its size into account when assessing the quality of its scientists. Measured in terms of Nobel prizes per capita, the USA is nothing exceptional by the standards of developed nations - a little better than France, a little worse than Germany, and way behind Nordic counties and Switzerland.

Clearly this doesn't tell the whole story (and I'd be interested to see the figures in terms of output per unit expenditure, and output per scientist), but perhaps part of the problem is that no-one in the USA challenges the idea that the USA is the top-performing scientific nation.

Fail.
That graph shows usage for only one year. The price of oil has been rising because demand has been rising while supply has not. You need a graph that compares China's usage over a series of years before it can be relevant.
Second, you're assuming that all the oil goes into making gasoline. It doesn't, so that graph is misleading at best anyway.

Look at this graph from 2007:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption
If you go by total usage, the USA ranks #1.
If you go by per capita, we're #15.
Everything changes depending on how you arrange the numbers.

That graph you posted is nothing more than a perfect example of how easy it is to fool people by providing only one set of numbers arranged in one specific way. That's called "propaganda."

America simply announcing there will be plenty of oil by its commitment to drill will drop prices over night.

America has nowhere near the amount of oil reserves you think it does. Saudi Arabia has over ten times what we do, Canada roughly nine times more. If we extracted every drop of our proven reserves today (roughly 21 billion barrels, maybe another 5-10 we are unsure of), we still consume about 21 million per *day*. About three years worth of oil, then we're done. And it would still cost money to extract it all.

America announcing there will be plenty of oil by increased domestic drilling would cause OPEC countries to laugh themselves to death overnight, nothing more.

I do understand your desire to be able to say "We're #1! Woohoo! U-S-A! U-S-A!" at every possible opportunity, but seriously, you're just making a fool out of yourself.

Yes, censored net access is still net access. And given that China has more than *four times* the population of the USA, I'd say it's inevitable for them to pass you sooner or later with regard to the absolute number of people with Internet access, don't you think?

If you do want to console yourself, though, feel free to keep in mind that for precisely the same reason, the actual ABSOLUTE number of Internet users is meaningless, and if you look at the relative percentage, the USA are still #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9.

On the other hand, this also means you'll lose the ability to use absolute figures when comparing greenhouse gas emissions etc... tough luck.

The facts don't back that up: Murder per capita:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
US: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
UK: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people

Google is your friend. Use it before posting ill-informed crap.