Slashdot Mirror

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

I think you need to apologize to the GP. There are plenty of links to back up these statistics as well, so prepare for a feast.

Free markets are largely fictitious. They can only be maintained through heavy government intervention *cough* anti trust laws *cough* and require strong public infrastructure and an educated population. In short, there is not and never has been a "free market" except that which has been fostered and tended by a government relatively free of corruption. Without this government oversight, a "free market" quickly gets taken over by privately held monopolies that are then leveraged against other markets. The market then degrades into a highly capitalized form of fascism, as is happening now in the USA.

For example, even the USA at its height had much of its "private enterprise" industrial strength funded by public entities. here is an excellent example, makes for a fascinating read.

'Vaccinating children,' explains the Shoo the Flu initiative's website, 'will not only improve children's health, it will also dramatically reduce the risk of the flu spreading to adults.'

I am NOT an anti-vaxxer. But the flu shot does not "dramatically reduce" anything. You need to vaccinate 26 kids (healthy kids over age six) to prevent one case of the flu. In kids under two, the inactivated virus vaccines isn't significantly better than a placebo.

For most people the flu shot is a waste of time and money, and a risk of nasty side effects, for little or no benefit.

This is *NOT* a statement about vaccines in general, only about the seasonal flu shot. The flu is different because 1) most cases of what people call "the flu" are not actually influenza, but other viruses; 2) in the general population, influenza is not that serious a disease; and 3) the influenza virus mutates every year.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/05/gil-scott-herons-poem-whitey-on-the-moon/239622/

Burial of Radioactive Waste under the Seabed; January 1998; Scientific American Magazine; by Hollister, Nadis; 6 Page(s)

On the floor of the deep oceans, poised in the middle of the larger tectonic plates, lie vast mudflats that might appear, at first glance, to constitute some of the least valuable real estate on the planet. The rocky crust underlying these "abyssal plains" is blanketed by a sedimentary layer, hundreds of meters thick, composed of clays that resemble dark chocolate and have the consistency of peanut butter. Bereft of plant life and sparsely populated with fauna, these regions are relatively unproductive from a biological standpoint and largely devoid of mineral wealth.

Yet they may prove to be of tremendous worth, offering a solution to two problems that have bedeviled humankind since the dawn of the nuclear age: these neglected suboceanic formations might provide a permanent resting place for high-level radioactive wastes and a burial ground for the radioactive materials removed from nuclear bombs. Although the disposal of radioactive wastes and the sequestering of material from nuclear weapons pose different challenges and exigencies, the two tasks could have a common solution: burial below the seabed.

Also:
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/96oct/seabed/seabed.htm

It's not altruistic, and it's not just Apple. The Atlantic had an article recently about how a lot of companies (e.g. GM) are doing the same thing, for two reasons: (a) Chinese wages have been rising at about 18% per year since 2000, (b) oil is very pricey now, meaning shipping stuff over from China is more expensive. So, yeah, Apple aren't doing this because they've suddenly discovered patriotism. This is based on a cold cost calculation, just like the original decision to move their manufacturing to China. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the spin they're trying to put on this is more than a little disingenuous.

This sounds like another case of The Insourcing Boom. Companies are finally seeing at the total cost of outsourcing. Cook mentioned that Apple already has to make some parts in the US and pay to ship them out to the manufacturing plants overseas, and that's only one of the common costs.

The interview doesn't go into a lot of details on Apple's move to US manufacturing, but a big part of the outsourcing cost is what you lose when you separate your product development from the manufacturing process. This comment from Tim Cook speaks to that:

In addition, we have hundreds of people that reside in China in the plants on a full-time basis that are helping with manufacturing and working on manufacturing process and so forth. The truth is we couldn’t innovate at the speed we do if we viewed manufacturing as this disconnected thing. It’s integrated. So it’s a part of our process.

I'm guessing this move to insource is not philanthropic, it's a smart business decision in the long run, just like General Electric's.

This month the lead is Comeback: Why the future of industry is in America

We saw this some years ago when NASDAQ started insourcing, after realizing they'd overshot when doing outsourcing. Now it's visible in companies like Emerson and Apple.

--dave

This month the lead is Comeback: Why the future of industry is in America

We saw this some years ago when NASDAQ started insourcing, after realizing they'd overshot when doing outsourcing. Now it's visible in companies like Emerson and Apple.

--dave

Usually the thrown-away food statistics include food which never even reaches the consumer. For example, your shop stocks too much of a certain food, and it doesn't get sold, and the shop throws it away after it got too old.

The largest percentages do seem to get lost at the consumer end though. All of the producers and shippers have clear economic incentives to decrease losses, while few households track their wastage well enough to realize how big it is.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/08/how-40-of-our-food-goes-to-waste/261498/

The fact that USA food consumption makes up for less than 10% of household income (5.5 percent at home and 3.9 percent eating out) means that as a fraction of total expenses, the wastage might not be that important to people.

http://www.treehugger.com/health/americans-eat-the-cheapest-food-in-the-world-but-what-is-it-really-costing-us.html

THIS! How is it even possible that 40% is thrown away in America?

Partial explanation: People feel guilty about not "eating healthy". Then they buy a bunch of fruit and veggies, which sit in the produce drawers of their fridges until they rot.

I'd still like to see the data/math behind the 40% though.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/08/how-40-of-our-food-goes-to-waste/261498/

"What are we doing with all that if we aren't eating it? About two-thirds of consumer food waste is due to spoilage, according to a recent survey of British citizens. Cooking too much food was largely responsible for the remaining third. In the United States, households toss out roughly a quarter of all the food they buy.

The proportions are mostly flipped when it comes to dining out. Restaurants have an economic interest in minimizing spoilage, so they've evolved very sophisticated ways of predicting how much they'll need to buy. But they can't speak to how much an individual diner is liable to eat at a meal, which is why on average, 17 percent of meals are left on the table. Inexplicably, more than half of these "potential leftovers" aren't boxed up; they're just thrown out."

I think you are mistaken unless you are not speaking about the US which would be odd. The marginal tax rate has been relatively stable and dramatically decreased on the highest earners over the time period you to which you refer (see this article).

That's why you don't look at the highest earners (who actually enjoy some of the lowest rates, ever, right now). Back in 1928, people making less than $52k/year (in adjusted dollars) were actually in the lowest bracket, paying 1.5%. By 1935, those making less than $65k/yr paid 4%.

This lasted until the start of WW-II, when tax rates went up and the thresholds for the brackets went down... to the point where someone making $60k/yr was in a 30% bracket. But, someone who had appreciable income earned before WW-II would have enjoyed some ridiculously-low tax rates averaged into their lifetime average.

I think you are mistaken unless you are not speaking about the US which would be odd. The marginal tax rate has been relatively stable and dramatically decreased on the highest earners over the time period you to which you refer (see this article). This is in fact generally true of the average tax rate and most other specific taxes (excluding SS which has remained stable) as can be seen in the data here. So why do you believe that we are being taxed currently at historically high rates?

is google too hard for you, moron? http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/05/yes-america-we-have-executed-an-innocent-man/257106/

Here's a chronology.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/11/who-started-the-israel-gaza-conflict/265374/
Who Started the Israel-Gaza Conflict?
By Robert Wright
Nov 16 2012,
A summary of events in the renewal of Israeli-Palestinian hostilities, Nov 8 - Nov 15
By Emily Hauser

There's a constant back and forth, and on both sides, there's always something or someone to avenge.

According to Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as of November 13, Palestinian militants had fired 797 rockets into Israel in the course of 2012 , and according to the Israeli human rights organization Btselem, between January 2009 (the conclusion of the last all-out Gaza war) and September of this year, 25 Israelis were killed by Palestinians, and 314 Palestinians were killed by Israeli security forces, with six more being killed by Israeli civilians.

Wednesday November 14

Reports emerged that Israel has targeted Ahmed Jabari, head of Hamas's military wing; Israel confirmed the assassination, citing his "decade-long terrorist activity," and said that killing was the part of an operation in which the military struck 20 different targets across Gaza. HaAretz [Note: Later reports indicate that Jabari was considering a permanent truce agreement at the time of his assassination]

Looks like the blog is gone.

I guess tumblr was afraid of the slashdotting they were about to get.

Here's a map someone made a week ago:

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/where-americas-racist-tweets-come-from/265006/

For those who aren't aware, Nokia sources its mapping data from FedEx and a number of other couriers. As a result, the maps that they're using are not only more up-to-date, since the couriers need to keep them updated in order to stay in business, but they're also more able to work in data such as traffic patterns and the like, since the couriers put in FAR more time and miles on the road than the technology companies.

To put it in perspective, UPS drives 3.3 billion miles each year. In contrast, Google's cars have driven "only" 5 million miles in total. So, roughly a thousand times more in a fraction of the time. Google's mapping data isn't insignificant, but it's dwarfed by the amount being produced by UPS, FedEx, and the like, and Nokia has access to all of that.

Stopping the USA? How do you think the USA has been steadily and heavily increasing its manufacturing output while shedding jobs?

I'll just leave this here: Making It In America.

The guy who overthrew the Libyan government under force of arms with four American fatalities, and didn't do the same in Syria because he thought it was too risky

Too risky to his re-election bid, maybe.

Oh, and he's on the right side on the . . .basic-human-freedom issues that used to be considered part of the conservative promise.

The basic-human-freedom issues like drone strikes on civilians?

No. They are offended when everyone else is eating cupcakes, they say "OMG! These are great! Have one!!!" and I go like "I want one... I really REALLY do... please stop tempting me... "

People want to share. I try to refuse. That refusal is... well? You get the idea.

You have my sympathy. I'm an alcoholic who hasn't had a drink in over 20 years, but I still get people who just don't get that my polite refusal is covering some really significant issues. I don't like to take it out on other people, but being pressured to have a drink, especially by those who are attempting to use the offer to justify their own over-indulgence... well, it's a challenge, to say the least.

Likewise with high-pressure proselytising of any faith. I'm an atheist in a devoutly Christian nation (to the extent that Christianity is enshrined in the Constitution). I have all the respect in the world for the good works that some of the churches do, and for the comfort that many people take in their faith. I sympathise to such an extent that I sometimes find myself wishing that my view of the world offered me the same kind of solace.

BUT... and this is a big issue, I generally feel intimidated and uncomfortable when people try to engage with me about their beliefs because I know that if I were completely honest with them, it would be extremely hard for us to remain close to one another. I have Muslim and Hindu friends who feel the same way.

And this is precisely why pushing hard at your One True Belief is bad. You place some others in a position where they have no alternative (aside from dishonesty) but to place themselves in opposition to the very things that define your identity. Not very conducive to a happy workplace.

I think Einstein himself put things pretty well in a letter that described the Bible as 'pretty childish': In spite of his fundamental disagreement with his interlocutor, wrote, '"I think that we would understand each other quite well if we were to talk about concrete things."

See Dr. Joel Fuhrman: http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/cold-flu-flu-and-nutrition-dr-fuhrman-responds-to-comments.html
"The idea that a person eating a nutrient-rich diet is just as likely to develop and suffer the dangerous consequences from an influenza virus as a cheese burgers and soda eating American is simply wrong. More importantly such opinions are dangerous as they may lead to tragic outcomes for those mistaking authority for knowledge. Let's review just a few articles from the scientific literature that further support this concept that nutritional.excellence can offer protection from viral attacks. I will show the reference and post some explanatory comments below each reference. ..."

Numerous citations there.

Also, on vitamin D:
And: http://www.naturalnews.com/029760_vitamin_D_influenza.html

Counter-evidence on vitamin D though:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/02/health/vitamin-d-colds/index.html

But elsewhere it's been said by Dr. John Cannell that vitamin D has only helped with some influenza strains and also by compairson that the amount in the previous study may still have been too low:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/news-archive/2009/h1n1-flu-and-vitamin-d/

Can you provide any substantial evidence to back up your claims to the contrary? Can you even cite any good evidence the flu vaccine to date has accomplished anything significant except put more aluminum in people's bodies? By contrast:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/11/does-the-vaccine-matter/307723/
"But what if everything we think we know about fighting influenza is wrong? What if flu vaccines do not protect people from dying -- particularly the elderly, who account for 90 percent of deaths from seasonal flu? And what if the expensive antiviral drugs that the government has stockpiled over the past few years also have little, if any, power to reduce the number of people who die or are hospitalized? The U.S. government -- with the support of leaders in the public-health and medical communities -- has put its faith in the power of vaccines and antiviral drugs to limit the spread and lethality of swine flu. Other plans to contain the pandemic seem anemic by comparison. Yet some top flu researchers are deeply skeptical of both flu vaccines and antivirals. Like the engineers who warned for years about the levees of New Orleans, these experts caution that our defenses may be flawed, and quite possibly useless against a truly lethal flu. And that unless we are willing to ask fundamental questions about the science behind flu vaccines and antiviral drugs, we could find ourselves, in a bad epidemic, as helpless as the citizens of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. ...
Jackson's findings showed that outside of flu season, the baseline risk of death among people who did not get vaccinated was approximately 60 percent higher than among those who did, lending support to the hypothesis that on average, healthy people chose to get the vaccine, while the "frail elderly" didn't or couldn't. In fact, the healthy-user effect explained the entire benefit that other researchers were attributing to flu vaccine, suggesting that the vaccine itself might not reduce mortality at all. Jackson's papers "are beautiful," says Lone Simonsen, who is a professor of global health at George Washington University, in Washington, D.C., and an internationally recognized expert in influenza and vaccine epidemiology. "They are classic studies in epidemiology, they are so carefully done."
The results were

That's because Nokia licenses its mapping data from FedEx and other commercial carriers, who have utterly MASSIVE data sets. To put it in perspective, Google's Street View cars have driven roughly 5 million miles. UPS' fleet of ground vehicles drives over 3.3 billion miles per year. And you know their data has to be up to date, since they rely on it for their business every single day. While Nokia doesn't get their data from UPS, you have to figure that FedEx has a comparable data set to pull from.

Source: The Forgotten Mapmaker: Nokia Has Better Maps Than Apple and Maybe Even Google

The Atlantic is running an short article on some old newsreels from previous NE Hurricanes (1935, 1955 and 1969).

Most interesting....

As I understand it what makes the meteorologists so worried about Sandy is that the area of intense high winds is huge. Here's a page with several graphics:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/why-sandy-has-meteorologists-scared-in-4-images/264198/

Notice that above the 3rd graphic there's a statement where a guy says he's never seen so much purple on this graphic. The purple indicates 100% chance of sustained storm force winds.

It's not super-intense, but it's intense enough, it really huge and is heading for lots of people.

It's a complex package, I'm not familiar with the specifics, but I know it does more than "simply takes the current system and mandates that everyone participate in it."

Well, to pick one of my many pet peeves with the legislation, they imposed excise taxes on medical devices, which covers everything from pacemakers to hearing aids to contact lenses. How exactly are new taxes on medical products going to bring down costs? Why should a pacemaker be taxed at all? It's not exactly a luxury item.

And the mandate could lower healthcare costs as well. People skipping out on their bill, not getting preventative care, or having to deal with collections agencies, these are things which could be reduced or eliminated with the mandate.

Except they won't be. For starters, the legislation specifically denies the IRS any enforcement power whatsoever. You can simply refuse to pay the penalty and the most they can do is send you a strongly worded letter. They can't put liens on your property, haul you into court, audit you, or use any of the other enforcement mechanisms at their disposal. More to the point, it's cheaper to pay the penalty than it is to carry health insurance. With guaranteed issue why bother having insurance at all, until you need it? An analogy here would be if you had the ability to buy flood insurance as the upstream levee failed, or the ability to purchase homeowners insurance after the house caught on fire.

Notwithstanding all of the above, the costs imposed on the medical system by deadbeats are vastly overstated, and even at that the mandate won't do much to address them. Deadbeats play a small part in the inflation of healthcare costs, bigger issues not addressed by the ACA include the ever increasing cost of malpractice insurance, an overly burdensome regulatory system, a broken patent system, a shortage of primary care providers, and the incomprehensible nightmare that is medical billing. The latter is something that nobody outside of the industry ever talks about, as a overly simple analogy, imagine the PITA it would be to go through your car insurance carrier to pay for oil changes and wiper blades.

This is one of the best articles I've ever read about our healthcare system. It does not push a left or right wing agenda. It outlines issues with the system that both the Republicans and Democrats refuse to talk about. Give it a read, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about it.

Here's one explanation

or just google "carried interest"

It's all perfectly legal, rich-get-richer, business as usual.

The issue for China is there isn't enough high quality fly ash around to make the cement needed to build its railway network in a sustainable manner. Without the proper ash, rail tracks have a lifespan of a dozen years vs the usual century, and thus need to be constantly maintained and rebuilt. The whole adventure reeks of money wastage...

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/01/is-china-overreaching-on-high-speed-rail/69490/

Sorry to reply to myself, but I should have included this:
It's Official: Western Europeans Have More Cars Per Person Than Americans

Bloomberg has cited a study as evidence that the ban is needed. Too bad that the scientists who did the study say that he totally missed the point.

Canada has a Strategic Maple Syrup Reserve.

Monkeys are smarter than us in some cases:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/08/video-income-inequality-enrages-monkey/261374/

PETA's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad History of Killing Animals

In 2011, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) behaved in a regrettably consistent manner: it euthanized the overwhelming majority (PDF) of dogs and cats that it accepted into its shelters. Out of 760 dogs impounded, they killed 713, arranged for 19 to be adopted, and farmed out 36 to other shelters (not necessarily "no kill" ones). As for cats, they impounded 1,211, euthanized 1,198, transferred eight, and found homes for a grand total of five. PETA also took in 58 other companion animals -- including rabbits. It killed 54 of them.

NB that in Virginia, stats only need to be kept for animals taken in with the intent of putting them up for adoption.

Think that's a fluke?

Get this:

PETA's "Thank You" for Killing Shelter Pets

When the No Kill shelter in Shelby County, Kentucky, recently announced that they had run out of space -- and were hence going to have to start killing healthy dogs and cats -- officials received a nice basket of gourmet cookies, with a note signed by PETA: "Thank you for doing the right thing for animals."

Surely I'm joking here. This must be a weak stab at satire. Many people have written about Ingrid Newkirk's vicious pet-killing program -- her organization has personally liquidated over 27,000 animals -- but PETA has always responded with hurt and outrage (and lawyers). People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals don't celebrate killing, goes the lie -- they see it as a regrettable necessity.

Surely Newkirk wouldn't be so foolish as to express her ghoulish agenda in this way, as a naked statement accompanied by a gift. No group of self-styled vegans would publicly wed their name to the Pro-Kill Equation: butchery = the right thing.

Well, Nathan Winograd (who developed the somewhat different No Kill Equation) reported on this in detail, and I suggest you examine his photographic evidence. A lovely basket of "Allison's Gourmet Cookies" -- shipped fresh from California -- with a handwritten note signed: "The PETA Staff." If you'd like further evidence, and to read the reverse side of this charming note, Shelby County No Kill Mission has produced an affecting video about the episode.

To understand just how grotesque this is, you have to know a little bit about Shelby. This is not simply one of America's fifty-one No Kill communities. It has a special significance: Last year's save rate sent Shelby County to the top -- it is now one of the most successful examples of No Kill in the nation.

The last animal killed for lack of space in Shelby County was on May 27, 2008. Since then, they've enjoyed a save rate that is almost precisely the inverse of PETA's kill rate. Whereas PETA slaughters 97% of the pets delivered to their hellish "Shelter of Last Resort," in 2011 Shelby saved 98.52% of the cats and 94.46% of the dogs in their care.

Shelby County runs an open admission shelter: They do not turn animals away. They have an impeccable history -- despite PETA's dire predictions, their No Kill community has never been associated with hoarding or animal abuse of any kind. (In fact, none of the legitimate No Kill organizations has been guilty of these crimes, but that's another story.) The Shelby program has a tiny budget: $147,000. Compare that to PETA's annual plunder: over $32.3 million from unsuspecting donors.

I don't get it's popularity or why it was associated with this guy in the West. That whole genre has been around for at least a decade and began with the Japanese well before that.

The K-pop genre, yes. The Gangnam district as a local phenomenon known to Koreans, yes. The use of K-pop to deliver a social message, very recent.

I'm from Africa, but I can make a clickable link ;)

Thanks for the article, btw. It answers the question quite nicely.

Wrll see here's the thing, "Do not track" according to the advertisers doesn't actually mean "Do not track" but instead means "Don't send me targeted ads". In other words, regardless as to your choice of opting in or not, you're still going to get tracked anyway - regardless of browser.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/the-advertising-industrys-definition-of-do-not-track-doesnt-make-sense/255285/

The advertising group, however, defines it as forbidding the serving of targeted ads to individuals but not prohibiting the collection of data.

If you ask me, that's the real bullshit move here, not Microsoft's.

What gave it away; was it the dudes hanging out with each other out in the desert, wearing nothing but flowing robes?

I don't follow about what's wrong with men wearing flowing robes. After Adam and Eve sinned for the first time and became aware of their nakedness, God made clothes for them. Genesis 3:21 identifies these as tunics, or shirts long enough to cover at least the kneecaps. (Some English translations use imprecise terms in this verse, such as "coats" or "garments", but the Hebrew word is kethoneth which means a tunic.) Centuries later, man would invent trousers, but only for riding horses. But even given Deuteronomy 22:5, there's nothing wrong with men wearing masculine styles of flowing robes.

He also wrote a good piece back in July:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/07/why-there-are-too-many-patents-in-america/259725/ ...where he repeats most of the arguments that people use to ask for abolishing software patents, but he stops short and instead muses on a few reforms (that probably wouldn't have much of an effect).

Here's my views on his July piece:

http://news.swpat.org/2012/07/posners-problem/

And there're a few more links about his positions here:

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Richard_Posner_on_software_patents

Abolition seems like the logical conclusion of his musings. I can't see why he doesn't discuss it.

First of all, the State of California buys an awful lot of those expensive textbooks, and would reap the savings almost immediately.

This would apply more to K-12 than to college, since college students pay for their own books. Schwarzenegger had a K-12 free textbook initiative similar to this, but it seems to have failed.

Secondly, if it makes education less expensive, it will likely lead to more educated people. People who can afford to pay taxes and your social security.

This may or may not be true. I don't think it's at all self-evident. There is a new book out, Someone Has to Fail: The Zero-Sum Game of Public Schooling, by David F. Labaree. I haven't read the book, but there is a review in The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/09/cover-to-cover/309071/ . According to the review, Labaree argues that you can't use the public education system to promote equality, because the families that consume education are motivated by the desire to get ahead of other families. This suggests that educating more people will not lead to a greater number of affluent people who pay taxes, but will instead simply lead to more highly educated people doing the same jobs that used to be done by less educated people. I certainly see this at the community college where I teach. Nurses need bachelor's degrees now to be marketable, whereas they used to be fine with an AA degree. Physical therapists need graduate degrees (a DPT) for jobs that are shockingly low-paying.

Although the cost of textbooks is scandalously high, and extremely exploitative, I don't believe that their high costs reduces the number of people getting college educations. At the California community college where I teach, the bottleneck is that due to state budget cuts, not enough classes are being offered in order to satisfy demand. At four-year schools, even state schools, tuition is so much more money than books that I really don't believe there are people making a decision not to go to college based on the cost of books. At the time when they're making that decision, they don't even have information about how much their books will cost.

You made references as if I was in Europe. I'm not. Read the first two letters of my name, or my sig for a better hint of where I am.

Heh, talk about coincidence- I'm in Fairbanks. In any case, I didn't want to make any allegations. As far as I knew you had an unhealthy obsession with Harry Potter, or 'AK' were your initials. I normally pay no real attention to sigs.

After that, let me let you in on a little secret. I'd bet there are more PV panels per capita in Alaska than Nevada.

I know of 2 installs here in Fairbanks. I'm willing to bet there's a lot more down in Nevada, even per capita, though the remoteness and low population density which makes our electricity bloody expensive makes PV attractive here, at least in the summer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_consumption The EU has more population and lower oil consumption. Thus savings measures will have a greater effect in the USA than Europe. Thus, EVs *should* be adopted in the US before Europe.

You live in Alaska and you don't know that there are more uses for oil than simply burning it in automobiles? I use approximately equal measures in my truck and house! If I had a family and the house was occupied more I'd be seriously looking at wood.

In any case:
Fewer cars? False. Though if you include 'all' 4+ wheel vehicles, we take the lead again(though it's still around 75% as many vehicles per capita).
Fewer miles? 14k km(9k miles), vs ~15k miles, though latest DOT is closer to 13k. So about 50% more. Your earlier assumption of 8k km was therefore only slightly above HALF of what the statistics actually say about average driving over in Europe, and is still less than if you misstated and meant miles. Plus Americans are driving less as well.
Better Economy: True, but I never disagreed with you there. On average, US vehicles use 32% more fuel. Still, Europe averaged €1.59/liter vs USA's $3.85. A US gallon is 3.79L, And 1 Euro =$1.28. Making European gas $7.71/gallon. Adjusting for the average superior mileage of European vehicles, they're still falling behind at $5.84/gallon equivalent. Raise prices that much and Americans drive less.

Again: My statement was merely trying to state that EV adoption should be quicker over in Europe.

1, The battery is the single thing that drives the cost of an EV higher than a traditional gasoline vehicle.
2. An EV driven less doesn't need as large of a battery.
3. A denser average population also means that potential charge points are also more common.
4. The cost of fuel is far higher in Europe

Conclusion: Small EVs should be quite popular over there(if they were 'almost' economical in the USA), but they're not, so they're not really that close yet.

Most of the land in Alaska has no access to any utilities at all.

True; though if you want water it's more 'dig a well' or 'drive into town once a week/month to fill up a big tank in the back of your truck' and most of our population IS collected around population centers where utilities(at least electricity) is available.

Still, just to fact check:
Alaska: .1 MWp. 723k people, .00014 MWp/person. Only 10 registered installs?.

Actually, that isn't quite true. This article states that Norway is also relatively homogenous like Finland, but their scores are still mediocre and this may be in part due to their American style education policy. America simply does not strive for equality in their education like Finland does. Furthermore, an increase in the immigrant population in Finland did not bring down their scores.

This series of unfortunate remarks makes Linus look silly for several reasons.

1. Mittens was obviously joking.
2. Attack candidates on substantive issues. Do you want us dredging up Obama's non-joking verbal gaffe in which he identified the United States as having 57 states?
3. Intolerance. I thought attacks on religion were considered bigoted. Mormonism deserves the same respect we give the exotic religions like Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Shintoism, Ba'hai, FSM, etc.

People with liberal arts degrees see geeks as having a one-dimensional understanding of reality. Where the liberal arts teaches hierarchy, geeks tend to see a flat hierarchy in which every possibility is an "option" independent of all other concerns. When it comes to analysis of politics, philosophy or literature, this approach just looks dumb, because it is a dumbing-down of a complex problem into an attitude that suspiciously resembles the search for technological solutions.

I've been a Toyota and Honda owner for 20 years and never thought I would buy a GM car. Bought the Volt and absolutely love it. I have to agree with DCFusor that the Volt is a game-changing vehicle. Of course everyone's driving patterns are different but we commute, haul kids around to soccer, go to the airport, etc and unless we're taking a longer trip, the daily 40 miles per charge has been more than enough. So much of the PR spin has to be coming from the oil companies who are threatened by this disruptive technology. When more and more people start to drive most of their daily miles with no gas, the oil demand picture starts to change very quickly. This technology has the ability to liberate us from foreign oil imports (doesn't matter if it's Canada, Mexico or the middle east the dollars are still flowing out) and the dependency associated with keeping world oil markets open. If anyone bothers to count the US military presence in the middle east as a subsidy to oil, we could practically give away Volts and still save money overall. This is not an environmental purist car, it's a car about independence from oil, American technology leadership and American jobs. Great article about the history of the Volt http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/electro-shock-therapy/306871/ I think we should be celebrating the accomplishments GM has made with this car, it's definitely a game-changer.

Can you give examples, and some interesting articles to go along with them?
Not diamonds, please. I've read that one already.

Some skimming around the internet on this subject is fairly interesting. Australia was the first country to implement the secret ballot in 1850, largely to curtail intimidation and other election day shennanigans that were used to influence elections. All elections in the US were secret ballot by the 1892 presidential election. However, this article in the Atlantic argues that the surest way to increase turnout is by making voting a matter of public record. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/abolish-the-secret-ballot/309038/

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/09/how-google-builds-its-maps-and-what-it-means-for-the-future-of-everything/261913/

No they don't. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/304575/

Short version: If you try to *sell* diamonds, you quickly discover they're now worth a fraction of what they where "worth" when you where the buyer. This is true to some degree with everything ofcourse, but to a much larger degree with diamonds than with other valuables such as precious metals.

Here is an informative article, a must-read if you're interested in diamonds. It's old (written in 1982) but everything still applies. In fact it's amazing that the public still hasn't gotten wise to the diamond racket in the 30 years since the article.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/304575/1/?google_editors_picks=true

I was referring to the comments made to Obama by Steve Jobs,

If you refer to this Chart You'll see Apple is in last place, Google a close second in terms of their capital spending in the US.
That's pretty damn poor considering how much they make off of the American consumer. While I'm no socialist, it seems awfully strange that Apple continually looks at ways to avoid also paying taxes in this country as well

SO, they get an F- in terms of what I would consider being a good corporate citizen. I actually give Samsung higher marks because they, like the Japanese and Korean Auto makers realized that they need to do some of their manufacturing here otherwise who are they going to sell their product too? Apple just considers the US another Market, just like the Chinese.

What's also hilarious are the reports that the IPhone 5 will boost GDP by .5%, by what? destroying the old IPhone 4s? Please, what a ridiculous bunch of speculation and after all, it is a phone and if people are so damned wrapped up in waiting for the last drop of sweat off of Steve Jobs' balls, then we're all in serious shit.

Uh no, only the Apple Fanboys who can't live without the latest from Apple stick with it. I've had friends who actually prefer Android, as do I. I'm sorry, the business model, their public attitude towards American Workers, the lock in and two of the carriers, AT&T and Verizon, is why I'll stay the hell away from Apple for a long damn time. Not to start a flame war, but it's pretty bad when I see Samsung investing double what Apple does in the US just to make the chips that drive the latest fanboy gadgets.

Apple may be creative but they certainly don't have my vote as a good corporate citizen in the US and all that speed from the new iPhone 5 is built by Samsung in Texas.

in order to rationalize the desertification of the intellectual commons.

Hey! Deserts are important ecosystems too, without the sahara there would be no amazon.
Kind of like how Apple must kill Android so that the Amazon Kindle can thrive, or something like that...