Slashdot Mirror

ICT is an increasingly powerful tool for participating in global markets; promoting political accountability; improving the delivery of basic services; and enhancing local development opportunities. (emphasis mine)

ICT is an increasingly powerful tool for participating in global markets; promoting political accountability; improving the delivery of basic services; and enhancing local development opportunities. (emphasis mine)

You lost to the friggen Haitians! Were saved twice from Germany by in no small part the US (btw the second time we saved France we were also fighting a war against Japan). Yes we lost Vietnam (formerly know as French indo-china (with Kampuchea and Laos) who also booted out the French. You lost Quebec to the English, you won the 100 years war but burned alive the woman who led you to victory. Hmm Napoleon won a few but he was Corsican.

The US defeated England in our revolution (I will grant the French were there but we did most of the fighting) and the war of 1812, we defeated Mexico (another nation that kicked the crap out of France), Beat Spain in the late 1800's, helped save you in WW1, then again in WW2 (while fighting at the same time two very powerful nations), we fought to a stalemate soviet plans and Chinese troops in Korea, lost Vietnam because we did not play to win, then won a few minor wars with Panama, and Iraq (again France cant beat Haiti so it relevant), and most recently helped the NA removed the Taliban from Afghanistan (umm Karzai is still president of that nation and the taliban is shrinking more and more every day).

Now on to what you are not trying to hide from is France Socially superior to the US??

Literacy: both France and the US have over 90% literacy
Here . The french are a whopping 2% higher than the us here . When you take into account that nearly 4% of the US population are illegal immigrants (people who want to come to this land of misery as you call it)
here and documented imigrants are around 10% of our population
here we have a much harder task in front of us than the French. There are schools in our cities with kids who speak more than 30 languages doubt France has to deal with that.

Now onto "misery, insecurity and unhappiness are more present in the USA than in France." I would like to see how you quantified that? As it's not something you can measure but Ill give it a try.

Lets start with lenght of life
People in France live one year longer than Americansas a % that is 1.3% longer (that can probably be written off to a large immigrant population who may come from a nation with a poor health care system, but even if not that's statistically insignificant as the US and Germany are tied so they must be miserable too.

Now lets look at standard of living the US GDP per capita is nearly 30% higher in the US, same source as above and also here

The US has a higher quality of life according to UN data here .

We are also a Cleaner Nation here

Now while none of this prooves the US is a more happy, and secure place than the zoo between Germany and Spain it goes allot further than your post. If you care to get into a war of wits (again be careful about being French and in a war) at least come armed next time.

Finally about most of our genius coming from abroad if you speaking to our roots as a nation (being we are 70% of European decent) than I would put it to you that you have no point as they are educated and nurtured in America. If you are referring to the # of foreign students in our universities I would ask you why are they coming here rather than going to France? I would also put it to you that your culture was started when you lost a War to the Romans and had their culture put on you, Western Culture owes more to the Italians and Greeks than the French, English, and Americans put together. There is nothing to argue we are not perfect but we are better in most ways than the French.

Note: I consider an Immigrant who comes to this nation and becomes a citizen to be the most loyal and important kind of American one who made the choice

Really, if you don't like it, there are more socialist countries such as Canada who have a living standard almost as high as USA's that you can move to

Can I paraphrase this into: "If you don't like our capitalism then bugger of to countries who 1 at least try to keep businesses' interests and politics apart and 2 have a respective superior social system"

Have a look here:
http://www.undp.org/hdr2002/

A recently-scandalized -USA-TelCo-Company employee

The UN Human Development Report ranks Sweden second behind Norway in its Human Development Index. The U.S. is ranked sixth. The index looks at factors such as economic justice, peace, health, education, and the robustness of democratic instititutions.

The "news" story these others are talking about seems like spin.

The notion that your average Swede is worse off than your average U.S. Black would be laughable if it weren't so outrageous. Median houselhold income for Black Americans has dropped below $30 000 this year--but that's not a good basis for comparison to the Europeans. The number that really counts is "Real Disposible Personal Income," and that's far less. (I can't find BEA data that breaks it down by race, but overall rdpi per capita is roughly 3/5 of median household, so you can make an educated guess.)

You can get the census data from census.gov or via the Whitehouse's pretty nifty economic stats page

"And in case you hadn't heard, there are much better (as decided by the UN) places to live and work - primarily because of people with your mindset."

Got links?

Of course

Or would you prefer something from CNN?

Ottawa is trying to figure out how to fix the way that the Canadian standard of living is only about 75% of the US without actually getting too involved in the US market

Ahem, "Got Links?.

Considering that Candada has ranked higher than the US for as long as I can remeber (in the UN study, it's been #1 for the past six years straight,) I find this claim dubious.

who, exactly keeps watch to ensure that one party isn't being taken advantage of.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

You didn't answer my question, you just repeated it. Here, I'll post it again:

WHO keeps watch?

>A crime victim using a firearm in self-defense is over 2/3 less likely to be harmed than one using another weapon.

A december 1999 study by the justice policy institute shows that America's prisons are overflowing with criminals. There are now more criminals behind bars in the USA than there are in most of the EU (if not all). Out of every 4 people you pass on the street, one of them has been to prison. Out of every 3 black people you pass on the street, one will be in jail shortly.

You talk of a country that needs to defend itself with firearms. People outside of your country see a justice system that is out of control, and we know that arming your entire country will not solve the problem. If it hasn't curbed the problem yet, why should be believe you?

What you need is a justice system that works for you. If you feel vigilante justice by the barrel of a gun is perfect for your country, why not take a look at how well that is working for other countries. Ask a friend from a third world country who would have punished him for a a serious crime.

You'll notice it isn't the police, or the justice system.

Its the people.

Vigilante justice by the barrel of a gun is the system that works for third world countries. I can guarantee you that the USA will never join the top 5 best countries to live in as long as people believe that justice should be metered out on the spot with a firearm in the potential victims hands.

>because if I or someone I know commits suicide, it is because said person made a conscious, considered decision to do so, and I respect that decision

Bullshit. Have you ever talked to someone that was saved from their suicide death? Have you ever asked them if they were in a proper state of mind to make that decision?

I think the answer is a resounding no.

>and indeed, I've found people in Texas, one of the more heavily armed of the states, to be far more trusting of their neighbors than residents of California, which has among the strongest gun control

Are people more trusting, or are they infact worried that a show of distrust and, as follows, disrespect might be met with hot lead?

What you speak of is infact the opposite of what your founding fathers wanted for this country. They wanted a peaceful country, where guns were to be used as a defence against invasion by an unlawful government. People in your country have twisted their meaning from a defence against the King of England invading, to a defence against a robber on the street.

For shame that people in your own country haven't read the true meaning written into the very lifeblood of your own country.

Allow me to quote the constitutional right being twisted by the very members of your own country:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You, a single entity, are not a militia.

This is a militia (thanks, dictionary.com):

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

First off, the founding fathers of your country wanted you to keep guns available to you in the event an emergency happened. Clearly, a militia, which would be a citizens army, does not respond to individual crimes.

Second off, a militia is clearly not a single entity.

So why do you all have guns and want to use them to defend your individual selves? Do none of you read the foundations that made your country which everyone appears to hold so dearly?

>Those who would gain a little safety by giving up their rights -- and so depriving their children and grandchildren of those same rights -- I cannot forgive them, and much less can I become one.

As I have proved above, Benjamin Franklin didn't want it to be this way. Sorry, no dice. Benjamin Franklin was clearly speaking about 1st Amendment rights, and should be turning over in his grave like a roast on a spit right now.

>Further, allowing concealed handguns demonstrably reduces crime.

A lie which I have previously demonstrated to be a falsehood. And I provided links to my sources as well.

>Hence, using the US and Israel as data points

The US has no known nation actively attacking it. Show me where the American gaza strip is. If you think its in New York, tell me if its happened since.

Didn't think so.

Canada is the closest cousin to the US as far as law, attitude, wars, and culture goes, and it is the most valid comparison one can make. If you think the US is anything like Israel, why don't you go over there and announce you're a Palestinian?

At least in the US if you announce you are black or jewish (the people who seem to be on the most recently hated list for the US) you won't get killed (except by a handgun wielding maniac). And if you do, your government will do everything in its power to protect you, unlike Israel.

A Red Herring, if I do say to myself.

>Likewise, screaming and running away from a rapist is far more dangerous than using a firearm in defense.

Using a firearm in self defence is more likely to result in your death rather than your rape. The majority of American firearm owners are untrained and would more likely miss or graze the attacker than kill them. And if they aren't dead, guess who will be?

Oh, and last but not least, my numbers are coming from an unbiased source. A book with the title "Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda" sounds more like propaganda itself than an unbiased source. Did the writer of this book compile these numbers himself, or did he provide sources of government checked and verified information? Or at least sources of third party, uninvolved information?

Likely not.

The only first world country with such a lax set of gun control laws is also the country that you are most likely to end up in jail in. And it isn't even in the top 5 best countries to live in to boot. Yet your gun controlling cousins are. Explain to me the problem so serious that even your guns can't solve it.

The attitude that guns make America a safe, good place to live in isn't shared by the other 95% of the world, sorry. In fact, a now (sadly) outdated quote repeated on the Simpsons stating that a gun is more likely to kill a family member than a robber goes to show there's a lot of people living in your own country that disagree with you.

But, know what? I don't care all that much. I feel safe in my low crime country. I have walked in our largest cities without arms in the middle of the night, and the only people attacking me are people with their paper begging cups.

But, after a trip to Atlanta, the murder capital of the USA (at the time I was so informed by the news -- if it wasn't #1, I sure as hell wouldn't want to go where #1 is), I suppose I would feel like I have to carry a gun. And, as usual, control through violence sparks more violence, and so the cycle goes. Some cities on spin cycle, and some are on rinse.

I'll keep my city on rinse, thank you very much. And I'll keep my freedoms and essential liberties by being able to go where I want, and do what I want, and think what I want, as long as I don't kill anyone. And, if I really have a need to fire a handgun (and God only knows why) I'll be a police officer or a soldier. So, in effect, you lose no rights, except for the right to be a loose cannon. The majority of the world echoes back that this is a good thing, not a bad thing.

And if you're an American passerby reading this thread, I'm quite sorry for dragging your country through the mud. There's many, many, many great reasons to be an American, probably more than there are to be a Canadian, but a lack of crime through arming the populace simply isn't one of them.

>A crime victim using a firearm in self-defense is over 2/3 less likely to be harmed than one using another weapon.

A december 1999 study by the justice policy institute shows that America's prisons are overflowing with criminals. There are now more criminals behind bars in the USA than there are in most of the EU (if not all). Out of every 4 people you pass on the street, one of them has been to prison. Out of every 3 black people you pass on the street, one will be in jail shortly.

You talk of a country that needs to defend itself with firearms. People outside of your country see a justice system that is out of control, and we know that arming your entire country will not solve the problem. If it hasn't curbed the problem yet, why should be believe you?

What you need is a justice system that works for you. If you feel vigilante justice by the barrel of a gun is perfect for your country, why not take a look at how well that is working for other countries. Ask a friend from a third world country who would have punished him for a a serious crime.

You'll notice it isn't the police, or the justice system.

Its the people.

Vigilante justice by the barrel of a gun is the system that works for third world countries. I can guarantee you that the USA will never join the top 5 best countries to live in as long as people believe that justice should be metered out on the spot with a firearm in the potential victims hands.

>because if I or someone I know commits suicide, it is because said person made a conscious, considered decision to do so, and I respect that decision

Bullshit. Have you ever talked to someone that was saved from their suicide death? Have you ever asked them if they were in a proper state of mind to make that decision?

I think the answer is a resounding no.

>and indeed, I've found people in Texas, one of the more heavily armed of the states, to be far more trusting of their neighbors than residents of California, which has among the strongest gun control

Are people more trusting, or are they infact worried that a show of distrust and, as follows, disrespect might be met with hot lead?

What you speak of is infact the opposite of what your founding fathers wanted for this country. They wanted a peaceful country, where guns were to be used as a defence against invasion by an unlawful government. People in your country have twisted their meaning from a defence against the King of England invading, to a defence against a robber on the street.

For shame that people in your own country haven't read the true meaning written into the very lifeblood of your own country.

Allow me to quote the constitutional right being twisted by the very members of your own country:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You, a single entity, are not a militia.

This is a militia (thanks, dictionary.com):

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

First off, the founding fathers of your country wanted you to keep guns available to you in the event an emergency happened. Clearly, a militia, which would be a citizens army, does not respond to individual crimes.

Second off, a militia is clearly not a single entity.

So why do you all have guns and want to use them to defend your individual selves? Do none of you read the foundations that made your country which everyone appears to hold so dearly?

>Those who would gain a little safety by giving up their rights -- and so depriving their children and grandchildren of those same rights -- I cannot forgive them, and much less can I become one.

As I have proved above, Benjamin Franklin didn't want it to be this way. Sorry, no dice. Benjamin Franklin was clearly speaking about 1st Amendment rights, and should be turning over in his grave like a roast on a spit right now.

>Further, allowing concealed handguns demonstrably reduces crime.

A lie which I have previously demonstrated to be a falsehood. And I provided links to my sources as well.

>Hence, using the US and Israel as data points

The US has no known nation actively attacking it. Show me where the American gaza strip is. If you think its in New York, tell me if its happened since.

Didn't think so.

Canada is the closest cousin to the US as far as law, attitude, wars, and culture goes, and it is the most valid comparison one can make. If you think the US is anything like Israel, why don't you go over there and announce you're a Palestinian?

At least in the US if you announce you are black or jewish (the people who seem to be on the most recently hated list for the US) you won't get killed (except by a handgun wielding maniac). And if you do, your government will do everything in its power to protect you, unlike Israel.

A Red Herring, if I do say to myself.

>Likewise, screaming and running away from a rapist is far more dangerous than using a firearm in defense.

Using a firearm in self defence is more likely to result in your death rather than your rape. The majority of American firearm owners are untrained and would more likely miss or graze the attacker than kill them. And if they aren't dead, guess who will be?

Oh, and last but not least, my numbers are coming from an unbiased source. A book with the title "Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda" sounds more like propaganda itself than an unbiased source. Did the writer of this book compile these numbers himself, or did he provide sources of government checked and verified information? Or at least sources of third party, uninvolved information?

Likely not.

The only first world country with such a lax set of gun control laws is also the country that you are most likely to end up in jail in. And it isn't even in the top 5 best countries to live in to boot. Yet your gun controlling cousins are. Explain to me the problem so serious that even your guns can't solve it.

The attitude that guns make America a safe, good place to live in isn't shared by the other 95% of the world, sorry. In fact, a now (sadly) outdated quote repeated on the Simpsons stating that a gun is more likely to kill a family member than a robber goes to show there's a lot of people living in your own country that disagree with you.

But, know what? I don't care all that much. I feel safe in my low crime country. I have walked in our largest cities without arms in the middle of the night, and the only people attacking me are people with their paper begging cups.

But, after a trip to Atlanta, the murder capital of the USA (at the time I was so informed by the news -- if it wasn't #1, I sure as hell wouldn't want to go where #1 is), I suppose I would feel like I have to carry a gun. And, as usual, control through violence sparks more violence, and so the cycle goes. Some cities on spin cycle, and some are on rinse.

I'll keep my city on rinse, thank you very much. And I'll keep my freedoms and essential liberties by being able to go where I want, and do what I want, and think what I want, as long as I don't kill anyone. And, if I really have a need to fire a handgun (and God only knows why) I'll be a police officer or a soldier. So, in effect, you lose no rights, except for the right to be a loose cannon. The majority of the world echoes back that this is a good thing, not a bad thing.

And if you're an American passerby reading this thread, I'm quite sorry for dragging your country through the mud. There's many, many, many great reasons to be an American, probably more than there are to be a Canadian, but a lack of crime through arming the populace simply isn't one of them.

why do you suppose this is?

Perhaps due to the political and intellectual repression in the region.

How 'bout you post any reason to believe that these figures are not indicative of a lower standard of living?

Very very little of that document discussed actual quality of life metrics. Most of it was concentrated on median household income which has nothing to do with the standard of living. For instance, it ignores the fact that in the USA, most homes are dual-income.

OK. Here are some figures that actually speak to the standard of living rather than the standard salary.

First is the UN's Human development index. It provides a measure of the "standard of living" by combining metrics dealing with life expectancy, litteracy/education and adjusted real income. Here are the top 10 in 2001, starting with number 1: Norway, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Belgium, United States, Iceland, Netherlands, Japan and Finland.

Go here for the report. Some other interesting numbers (not as fresh but that's all I could dig up on short notice.):

Average Household Savings: Sweden 10,943 United States 4,201

Percent Poverty level: United States 17.1 Sweden 5.3

Percent Children under the poverty level: United States 22.4 Sweden 5.0

Life Expectancy (men/women): Sweden 74.2/80.4 United States 71.6/78.6

Infant Mortality Rate (per 1,000 live births): United States 10.4 Sweden 5.9

Premature Death (years of life lost before the age of 64 per 100 people): United States 5.8 years Sweden 3.8

percentage of families headed by single parents: United States 8.0% Sweden 3.2

People per police officer: Sweden 328 United States 459

Prisoners (per 1,000 people): United States 4.2 Sweden 0.6

Murder rate (per 100,000 people): United States 8.40 Sweden 1.73

Rape (per 100,000 people): United States 37.20 Sweden 15.70

Armed robbery (per 100,000 people): United States 221 Sweden 49

Percent Voter participation: Sweden 86 United States 49

http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/8Comparison.htm


> Sure. For one thing, the attack on Afghanistan >itself was against international law.

Care to back this claim up with a cite?

Sure. I'll quote the UN charter, which is binding to all UN member nations:
"All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN."

I'd say that's pretty clear.

Leaving aside the fact that the security council did, in fact, rule that US action in Afghanistan was justified,

Your turn to cite evidence that the security council approved of how the US chose to respond to 9-11. (Surely you don't mean security council resolutions 1368 and 1373.)

what makes you think that an organization whose Human Rights committee includes Syria, China, and the Sudan is any sort of sane judge of international law?

I see you can spew some FUD of your own. :) Can you provide me with a shred of evidence that the presence of Syria, China or Sudan has had an adverse effect on the judgement of the human rights committee? If not, then your argument is a straw-man and the statement is of no value.

Also, I feel the need to point out that your statement essentially reflects the US attitude to international law: To hell with it. We know better.

It states that if a nation follows the requirements of the convention, including only using uniformed combatants, having a clear hierarchy of ranks, and not attacking civilians, then their combatants are entitled to certain protections.

It also states that whether or not they have followed the requirements of the convention is a matter for a tribunal to decide, and that until such a decision has been made, they are to be considered POW's and treated as such.

under the Geneva convention their combatants can legally be summarily executed.


Please show me where it says this!

I have seen us leave open the option of a response to a nuclear, biological, or chemical attack by others.

You forgot the catch-all "Surprising military developments."

I would argue that International Law has a longstanding precedent of preemptive self defense.

Umm. No. What you call "preemptive self defense" is commonly called anticipatory self defense, and it is most definately NOT accepted by international laws and conventions. For reference, please see every instance where the UN has passed resolutions condemning such action.

But you don't need to go that far to see how self-defeating this doctrine of anticipatory self defense is. Under this doctrine, Iraq (anticipating a US attack) is entitled to pre-defend itself against this attack. And in turn the US, anticipating Iraq's anticipation, is entitled to pre-defending itself against Iraq's pre-defense. Then of course Iraq anticipates the US's anticipation of its anticipation... and so on and so on.. we descend into an Abbott and Costello routine.

How is Afghanistan being free, for a change,

Afghanistan is free? When did this happen?

having food aid get through instead of being seizeb by the Taliban

Food aid is STILL at the present time lower than it was prior to the US attack.

Likewise, where do you get this? This isn't why Mr. Bin Laden says he hates us -- he's complaining about `Jews and Crusaders' and speaking of the `tragedy of Andalusia',

Well, first, you are wrong. Every single statement he has made has started with complaints about the Palestinian injustice, the Iraq sanctions and the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia.

But no matter, because I clearly stated that I did not give a hoot about Bin Laden or what he thinks. So what you are doing is diverting the argument away from the fact that US foreign policy has resulted in many injustices, whether Osama Bin Laden talks about them or not.

So while Bin Laden may be a mad man who will hate America no matter what, many of those who make up his reservoir of support, like the parents, friends or children of those who were blown to bits in Afghanistan, have ample reason to be angry.

Anyway. I've devoted too much time to these posts already, and we are getting way sidetracked. You said no other country in the world enjoys the kind of freedom America does. I disagree. I've stated my reasons for disagreeing, and I think that I have made a very good case for the fact that although the US is indeed a "Free country" by accepted definitions, it is by no means alone.

It was an honor and a pleasure, sir.

Where would you suggest we should prefer to live? Keep in mind that we already live in the most free, most democratic, and most prosperous nation not only on earth now, but in earth's history?

Blissful thinking my friend.

Too bad the UN doesn't agree with you. (Warning, it's a PDF)

Get your head out of your asses and wake up.

BTW, I'm from Canada. I know all too well about the ignorance of my southern brothers.

Netaid, part of the UN Development Programme doesn't offer work abroad, but uses the Net so you can work locally to help those abroad. A lot of the assignments are more oreinted toward research/advocacy/education, but there are tech needs associated with those things too: sysadmins, DBAs, Web developers, etc. This is part of the UNDP's Information and Communications Technology division.

Global Technology Corps is run by the US Department of State and sends people abroad to build LANs and such.

Trust For The Americas sends folks abroad to teach tech, and also to setup the infrastructure -- building networks, etc.

Netaid, part of the UN Development Programme doesn't offer work abroad, but uses the Net so you can work locally to help those abroad. A lot of the assignments are more oreinted toward research/advocacy/education, but there are tech needs associated with those things too: sysadmins, DBAs, Web developers, etc. This is part of the UNDP's Information and Communications Technology division.

Global Technology Corps is run by the US Department of State and sends people abroad to build LANs and such.

Trust For The Americas sends folks abroad to teach tech, and also to setup the infrastructure -- building networks, etc.

• Human Development Report 2001 from the United Nations Development Programme.
• Universal Access and the Developing World by Jonathan Peizer
• surely there are many other sources of information (just ask Google)

In UN's Human development index (here) the US is #3 after Canada and Norway. But when you compare gender equality and conditions for the poorest part of the population the US drops down to #18th place, among the last of the industrialized world. All of scandinavia for example is a much more wellrounded society to live in - one that doesnt focus exclusivly on profit at any price.

-henrik

Sorry, but for the best place to live (according to the UN) you'll have to take a trip north to Canada. Canada has been #1 on this for many years.

But, as people say, those statistics aren't 100% true indicators of the best place to live. They just give a general idea of it, so please don't take this as a slam against the US (it isn't).

1) We over-throw democratically elected governments

2) We sponsor right-wing death squads in Latin America

3) We don't honor our international commitments

4) We support brutal dictatoships. (That's right -- guess who helped finance the Iraqi war against Iran, before Saddam Hussein conveniently turned into our enemy?)

The list could go on and on, of course, but I should wrap it up before my electricity goes out (damn brown-outs!)

Please don't argue this with me unless you are sure you know what you're talking about, I've researched extensively without listening to anyone's propoganda. Yeah, right.CNN is the Left's lapdog. What a brilliant observation! And here I thought that since CNN was part of the AOL-Time Warner media and entertainment monopoly, it was part of the conservative establishment. Ah, I was wrong. Apparently, it has really been heavily promoting radical politics, Leftist policies, and anti-corporate points of view all this time! Boy, where did you do your research? The Rush Limbaugh Institute of Arrogant Research into Rationalizations of Savage Inequalities? I'm pretty impressed!

Well, obviously you're full of shit. You don't even understand the basic vocabulary you use, and you employ massive structural contradictions. If the left is much lighter on forms of social controls, then why the hell do you think that the freedom to program is going to be taken away by the left? As far as I know, one of the biggest things halting the freedom to program is that MOST people don't have access to personal computers NOR programming education. What you really meant is that right will ensure that poverty remains at its present levels and only a few will have this wonderful freedom. What kind of freedom is that? And your statement that the right favors smaller central governments is a fucking hoot! Look at the expenditures of the Reagan-Bush years--the only difference between the Clinton administration is a higher concentration of spending by Reagan into the military. Are you arguing the US military isn't a government bureaucracy? Or are you simply implicitly stating your preference that government money is given in military and corporate subsidies rather than to individuals, you know: corporate welfare vs. public welfare. You're probably right, because vastly greater expenditures on coporate welfare has obviously helped the distribution of wealth--now 90% of capital is owned by 10% of the population. Yeah, that's real fair. Or maybe you agree it isn't, but you're inclined to agree with pseudo-scholar of the neo-liberal Chicago school, Milton Friedman, that, well, "Life isn't fair". That's nice and easy to say, isn't it, when you're one of the few well-off.

I have some advice for you--before you make more posts, traffiking in self-centered claims to better knowledge than the other SLashdot readers--who, on the contrary, aren't as left as you think (maybe you should actually figure out what things are in the term)--go out and see some of the real world, where class differences are very wide, where the majority of the world's working women are severely underpaid and overworked, where industrial and public waste by richer nations is relocated globally, you know that world that you live on where a majority of the population is under-nourished despite the fact that developed countries have more than twice the food production necessary to feed everyone. What I can't stand about people like you is that you act like you don't know that you're side is winning! Corporate monopolies hold most of the world's wealth, which lies in the US, Western Europe, Japan, and hardly anywhere else. If you doubt me, why don't you do some real research--go look at the 2000 UNDP report with actual empirical research here

You've answered your own question. You did well in life because you got a good start: your parents were well-educated and supportive. If they had been illiterate, I doubt that you would have fared as well. Poverty breeds poverty.

There are about one million Americans who work full-time, but are still homeless. Moreover, there 1.2 billion people in the world who live on less than $1 a day. I find this unacceptable. Since I earn far more than most, I think it's right that I should give a large portion of my income to help those who are less well-off.

For more about global poverty, see this.

For the causes of poverty, see this.

Then read this or this or this to find out more about what can be done.
--

I would suggest you to get in touch with NGOs involved in Africa (then again, Africa is *huge*). There's also some UN-related agencies working very hard to bring education and tools to developing countries, even in remote/agitated/devastated places (which Africa isn't as a whole, far from it). Most of them are based in Geneva, Switzerland, just in case. Contact them, I'm sure they'd be very happy to get some help. You can probably gather some info at http://www.oneworld.org/ and on the United Nation Development Programme on http://www.undp.org/

If education was more widespread in Africa, you can be sure there'd be much less wars, epidemics and other catastrophies.

Some moronic posters here on /. seem to forget the African continent is several orders of magnitude larger than the USofA and carry almost a billion people. If the "Western" world stops using Africa as a dumpster and testing ground for chemicals and actually starts redistributing its [financial and educational] resources, many African countries could start experiencing strong growth in the tech domains, just like South-East Asian countries did.

Now, tell big companies to give away their old computers so they can be shipped to developing countries... But most of them don't give a shit and most of all don't want to spend a penny for getting rid of their 3 year-old PC junk...

Good luck,

/max

It is worth noting that the UNDP actively promotes Linux in 3rd world countries.

That's right, the Sustainable Development Networking Programme (a UNDP Programme) has a category for Open Source News, and it's almost like reading /. :-)

I agree that a International Agency is needed in these disputes, but I imidiately get a little anxious when the agency that now exists has a "best viewed with" on their homepage. That's bad.

Also, if you check out their primer on electronic commerce, it has a bias towards protecting the rights of distributors:

If rightsholders are secure in their ability to sell and license their property over the Internet, they will exploit this market fully and make more and more valuable works available through this medium.

(This exactly BSA rhetoric.) They acknowledge that both the public's interest and the interests of rightholders must be taken into account:

[...] providing appropriate balance for the public interest, particularly education, research and access to information;

But then goes on in to describe the problems arising for rightholders in detail, but fail completely to even outline the problems faced by the public.

So, we need to educate this agency.

Geekcorp's approach is admirable because it will help increase worldwide participation in cyberspace. I think the Internet has previously-unimaginable potential for social reform, but it will not be realized with such disproportionate access. Check out the UN's 1999 Human Development Report. This link will show you a pie chart that illustrates the divide (plus alot of good docs)

GLOBALIZATION WITH A HUMAN FACE

The Internet can decentralize power, which could be such a boost to humanity. I think the dream will remain unrealized if the power will only spread amongst the top %20 of the world.

But, as with any method of intervention, there is the potential of harm. I personally agree with those who would dissolve/drastically reform the IMF and World Bank. These institutions generate tremendous wealth for financiers and externalize the substantial risk to industrialized tax payers. They loan to the foreign elite, but extract the payoff from the developing poor.
It is not hard to imagine a program like this one creating a stronger dependency on the West, which is probably not in their best interest.

For the most part, I think Geekcorps embodies some great ideals (blending open source with philantropy and a species-centric view), but I'd like to see some more discussion re: How to make sure we are truly helping. I think we'll find it's a more difficult question than we think.

Geekcorps is trying to help companies throughout the developing world take advantage of the 'net. We believe that the best way for less-developed nations to address development issues (healthcare, clean water, nutrition, education) is to improve their economies as a whole. As we've all seen over the last few years, the net has the potential to create powerful new busineses out of thin air in a short time. We're betting that some companies in the developing world could become major players in their economies - and create a large number of well-paying jobs - by taking advantage of the Internet.

Geekcorps is recruiting volunteers to go overseas for three-month stays to work with companies to build better websites, networks, ecommerce systems, etc. We'll be sending our first six geeks to Ghana late this fall, and should be expanding to other countries in 2001. If you're interested in volunteering, or just want to find out more, drop a line to info@geekcorps.org. (We've got a site at www.geekcorps.org, but there's very, very little there at the moment.)

Just to respond to some of the threads going around: the term "developing world" is amazingly broad. The term includes countries like Mozambique, which has a far bigger troubles right now than underdeveloped internet infrastructure, and areas of India like Bangalore, which give Silicon Valley a run for its money in terms of 'net startups per square foot. I think it's worth remembering that, just in the same way that there are highly wired corners of the US, Canada and Europe, there are more and less wired corners of the developing world. I was in Ghana for several weeks in January, a country that meets almost anyone's definition of "developing nation". Despite the poverty and lack of development that pervades the country, there are five national ISPs and over a dozen cybercafes in operation. The net's on the move, in every corner of the world.

For hard data on the international digital divide, I highly recommend the United Nations Human Development Program's 1999 Human Development report, available online at http://www.undp.org/hdro/ There are some thought-provoking stats in there - what does it mean for the culture of the Internet that 1 of 3 Americans are online while 1 of 1000 sub-Saharan Africans, or 1 of 2500 South Asians are online?

Network Startup Resource Center is a good starting point for exploring Internet prolifaration in the developing word - in many cases the information is outdated, because the local Internet grew too much to keep pace with. There was number promoting, funding and training activities to help Internet development in poor countries. Check out NSRC workshop page, Internet Society Network Technology Workshop, and other activities, UNDP's SDNP Programme, Soros Foundation Internet Project, AfNOG page and others.

Some of these activites explicitely aim at Internet accessible to general public (with programs supporting Internet in education, public Internet kiosks etc), but in general the idea is the more networking the better. Frankly, the discussion whether Internet creates new division lines between information haves and have-nots etc sounds a bit pretentious and academic if the only alternative is equality in isolation and poverty. Personally I know a lot of people from developing countries, to whom even very limited Internet presence brough enormous benefits in both knowledge and better living, and that's a good thing. Period.

Honza Jirousek

These statistics look even worse if you limit them to a certain area instead of the whole USA,

by someone whose world view doesn't co-incide with The Truth.

their cultural and economic hegemony has allowed finland to advance technologically at a rate which silicon valley, working under the constraints of the US's social problems, simply cannot sustain. (not that i'm unhappy living where i do, i feel that accepting the challenges of american life can enrich, and waiting 3 months for the latest gizmo is a small price to pay for diversity and tolerance.)
further reading:
Finland and the Future of Europe
The Rise and Fall of the "Swedish Model"