US has 4 murders per 100,000 people France has 1 murder per 100,000 people UK has 1 murder per 100,000 people Ireland has 0 murders per 100,000 people
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap
is 4 murders per 100,000 people a lot more than 1 murder per 100,000 people? i guess i don't really know. i don't feel unsafe in my city.
maybe only 5% have passports because its the best place in the world to be. last time i checked, everyone outside wanted in. the US is also really freaking big. not having left germany is like not ever having left ohio. ooooo there are germans that have been to paris. sheesh its only like 5 miles away.
i know its a joke, but thats not even close to true.
Lenin's collectivization and purges of 1921-1922 caused 4 million deaths. In 1932, Stalin ordered the Ukraine starved to enforce collectivization and crush Ukrainian nationalism. At least 8 million Ukrainians were murdered. Others resorted to cannibalism. From 1917 to Stalin's death in 1953, the Soviet Union, worshipped by leftists around the world as the pinacle of human political accomplishment, shot, tortured, beat, froze or starved to death at least 40 million of its people. Some Russian historians claim the true figure is even higher.
About 25 million soldiers died in World Wars I and II. Another 12 million were killed in the 20th century's other wars and revolutions, a total of 37 million dead.
In China, Mao Zedong had 2 million 'class enemies' shot when the communists took control. Another million Tibetans and Turkestani Muslims were 'liquidated' from 1950-1975. During Mao's Great Leap Forward, in which China's farmers were collectivized en masse, an estimated 30 million or more people starved to death. Another two million are said to have been killed in Mao's Cultural Revolution.Total: 35 million dead.
Hitler was responsible for the deaths of 12 million civilians, half of them Jews.
supposedly about 10,000 iraqis have died "due to us intervention in iraq" (iraqibodycount.org -- a rabidly leftist freakshow). bodycount.org doesn't distinguish between innocent iraqis and saddam's raping, thieving fedayeen thugs for example. it also includes "civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation." on the other hand it only includes deaths confirmed by two different sources.
Casualties from saddam's gulag alone (not even mentioning casualties from wars, starvation, poverty, sponsered terrorism, etc, etc) are about 200,000 over about 20 years which averages to about 10,000 dead iraqis a year. (data from a new york times article, link here: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp ?ID=5773 ).
so if you figure that saddam would have been in power another 10 or 20 years, it could be argued that american intervention in iraq has saved 100,000 - 200,000 lives. and thats probably a conservative number since we don't count how many people saddam caused to starve by destroying the economy, dead iraqi soldiers from crazy wars, etc.
these are obviously not super solid statistics. (figures don't lie, but lyars can figure) but i'm just saying that its not easy or obvious to conclude the war was immoral or bad or not worth it or whatever if you only consider innocent civilian deaths as a metric. and its too often assumed to be otherwise.
Re:How does this differ from other efforts?
on
Linux in Iraq
·
· Score: 1
ctually, 25% unemployment seems more likely according to npr (http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1958 109), although some neighborhoods can have rates of 50% to 60%. (See February CPA brief). Also, this 25%--"28% late last year"--figure does not include the Kurdish areas, which have been better off for quite some time now.
these articles say iraqi unemployment during saddam's ruthless regime was roughly 50%
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1013-07. ht m http://www.monitor.upeace.org/archive.cfm?id_ar tic le=99
couldn't find any more substantial references to those unemployment numbers though. but after 5 minutes on google it looks to me like america, bush and the war improved employment by 25% in iraq -- a pretty spectacular accomplishment.
Re:How does this differ from other efforts?
on
Linux in Iraq
·
· Score: 1
america didn't have a significantly higher standard of livinng than the rest of the world until the industrial revolution. you could even argue (probably not very well) that lincoln had already freed the slaves at that point.
i'm not defending slavery. but the greatness of america comes from its freedom -- mainly from free markets and the industrious people who created wealth in that environment. this is indeed something to applaud.
iraq, also a nation of industrious people, is finally being given that same opportunity.
"To the glory of mankind, there was for the first and only time in history, a country of money -- and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being -- the self-made man -- the American industrialist.
"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose -- because it contains the phrase 'to make money.' No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity -- to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality.
- Francisco d'Anconia
Re:How does this differ from other efforts?
on
Linux in Iraq
·
· Score: -1, Troll
sure. egypt did amazing things like build pyramids with their slaves too. enslave a couple million people and you too can build wall that can be seen from outer space.
what beautiful accomplishments this great iraqi culture has produced.
Actually, 25% unemployment seems more likely, although some neighborhoods can have rates of 50% to 60%. (See this February CPA brief). Also, this 25%--"28% late last year"--figure does not include the Kurdish areas, which have been better off for quite some time now.
not that 25% is a good thing. but it seems it was 50% under saddam. so thats a 25% decrease in unemployment. pretty spectacular.
Re:Iraqis?
on
Linux in Iraq
·
· Score: 2, Informative
these articles say iraqi unemployment during saddam's ruthless regime was roughly 50%
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1013-07. ht m http://www.monitor.upeace.org/archive.cfm?id_ar tic le=99
couldn't find any more substantial references to those unemployment numbers though. but after 5 minutes on google it looks to me like america, bush and the war improved employment by 25% in iraq -- a pretty spectacular accomplishment.
whereas democrats never take money from powerful special interest groups.
so what if politicians take money from supporters? sounds like free speech to me.
what we really need is an extra check on congress who keeps passing more and more laws every year when we don't need more laws, we need better laws.
i think we should have either a 10 year limit on all/most laws or a new legislative body called the anti congress of elected officials whose only role is to repeal laws.
but what about support? when companies offer support isn't that a conflict of interest?
i just don't think this is an "evil" move by microsoft. i don't think a conspiracy always arises from a conflict of interest anyway -- though obviously there is that opporunity/motive for abuse.
certainly windows users will need to factor in the cost of av software when they decide to purchase windows. and they gotta do that anyway.
of course if they do bundle it in an anticompetitive way (like the courts have said they did in the past), thats leveraging their monopoly and is bad, but thats a seperate issue.
and theoretically, as long as microsoft doesn't abuse their monopoly status or the government actually bothers to enforce antitrust laws, the market will take care of any bad security choices as people and companies will move to another operating system.
For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors -- between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of the ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it.
John Galt
you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made -- before it can be looted or mooched -- made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.
yeah those works of art were the spoils of the roman empire and the catholic church. they invaded and enslaved people and then stole half the food they grew. thats how taxes were invented. besides the artists you talk about didn't perform their art for free and they didn't get it from some public funding project, they got paid by some rich dude. rich people have financed pretty much all the great art in the world.
in response to your list of blathering: - if you are too irresponsible to pay for your fire insurance, why should i have to pay the bill? - gee i hear about libertarians supporting rfid all the time! - libertarians all belong to mensa? is that an instut? weird.
first of all, some media entrepreneurs such as Ted Turner are quite liberal.
also, the pew research center for the people and the press isn't just some crazed republican think tank. it is, in fact, a crazed liberal think tank. they have a recent study: http://people-press.org/reports/display.ph p3?PageI D=829
and their study shows:
1. Journalists tend to be more liberal than the average American. A recent Pew poll confirms previous studies of journalists. In this study, journalists did not describe themselves as liberal (which previous studies did find to be very common) but their attitudes tended to be very liberal. For example, 51% of Americans thought homosexuality should be accepted, while 88% of journalists in the national media thought so.
2. Very few journalists describe themselves as conservative. In the same Pew poll, 33% of Americans described themselves as conservative while 7% of journalists said they were conservative. Previous studies have found that journalists overwhelmingly vote for Democrats, except during the 1950's - probably because Eisenhower was the most liberal of recent GOP presidents, when compared to the competition.
if you read the link i provided, pew somehow thinks this translates into the media being slanted towards the right and bush isn't receiving enough criticism.
Since the whole journalism profession is pretty much liberal, it's probably hard for more conservative owners to impose their will on the newsroom - although they try quite hard sometimes. The end result - an untapped market of conservative viewers that can be catered to by the likes of Limbaugh and the Fox network. The Al Frankens of the world probably focus on the high-profile conservatives (like Rush) and ignore the average news reporter, while the Limbaugh's obsess over the New York Times - a model for much of the journalism profession - and ignore successful niche players such as Fox.
much of this post is directly quoted from this brilliant blogger: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/margin alrevoluti on/2004/06/media_bias.html
from http://www.npr.org/about/privatesupport.html:
In 2004, public radio stations and producers will receive $86 million from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is funded by Congress (that amounts to only 30 cents per American to support local public radio stations). The appropriation from Congress accounts for only about 14 percent of the cost of operating local public radio stations
between 1-2 percent of NPR's annual budget - comes from competitive grants sought by NPR from federally funded organizations, such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Arts.
..mmm the xmms find plugin does this too. (and has been around since before itunes;) very very handy. this is indeed much MUCH faster than looking at hundreds or thousands of directories.
i don't agree with the fcc, but i find it wierd that so many liberals worry about what the rest of the world thinks. we aren't running for prom queen here. when jobs founded apple, how many people in the world thought you could make money selling a personal computer? just because 90% of the people don't agree doesn't mean they are right.
dude have you even been off of the "continent"? racism is a 100 times worse just about every part of the world than it is in america. just keep watching those hollywood movies.
ask france about their muslims. ask asians about their daughters marrying white men. ask any south american about the status of indians in their country. i think your precious muslims are real nice to women too.
no group of people is perfect. try keep it in perspective, dufus.
i think this is just a publicity stunt on the part of the movie industry. they want to be able to say to congress (or to the public via those inane ads), see what lengths we have to go to in order to protect ourselves from these nasty pirates?
Slashdot Mirror
hmm....
US has 4 murders per 100,000 people
France has 1 murder per 100,000 people
UK has 1 murder per 100,000 people
Ireland has 0 murders per 100,000 people
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap
is 4 murders per 100,000 people a lot more than 1 murder per 100,000 people? i guess i don't really know. i don't feel unsafe in my city.
maybe only 5% have passports because its the best place in the world to be. last time i checked, everyone outside wanted in. the US is also really freaking big. not having left germany is like not ever having left ohio. ooooo there are germans that have been to paris. sheesh its only like 5 miles away.
what about target practice? what about self defense? hunting?
i know its a joke, but thats not even close to true.
p ?ID=5773 ).
Lenin's collectivization and purges of 1921-1922 caused 4 million deaths. In 1932, Stalin ordered the Ukraine starved to enforce collectivization and crush Ukrainian nationalism. At least 8 million Ukrainians were murdered. Others resorted to cannibalism. From 1917 to Stalin's death in 1953, the Soviet Union, worshipped by leftists around the world as the pinacle of human political accomplishment, shot, tortured, beat, froze or starved to death at least 40 million of its people. Some Russian historians claim the true figure is even higher.
About 25 million soldiers died in World Wars I and II. Another 12 million were killed in the 20th century's other wars and revolutions, a total of 37 million dead.
In China, Mao Zedong had 2 million 'class enemies' shot when the communists took control. Another million Tibetans and Turkestani Muslims were 'liquidated' from 1950-1975. During Mao's Great Leap Forward, in which China's farmers were collectivized en masse, an estimated 30 million or more people starved to death. Another two million are said to have been killed in Mao's Cultural Revolution.Total: 35 million dead.
Hitler was responsible for the deaths of 12 million civilians, half of them Jews.
supposedly about 10,000 iraqis have died "due to us intervention in iraq" (iraqibodycount.org -- a rabidly leftist freakshow). bodycount.org doesn't distinguish between innocent iraqis and saddam's raping, thieving fedayeen thugs for example. it also includes "civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation." on the other hand it only includes deaths confirmed by two different sources.
Casualties from saddam's gulag alone (not even mentioning casualties from wars, starvation, poverty, sponsered terrorism, etc, etc) are about 200,000 over about 20 years which averages to about 10,000 dead iraqis a year. (data from a new york times article, link here: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.as
so if you figure that saddam would have been in power another 10 or 20 years, it could be argued that american intervention in iraq has saved
100,000 - 200,000 lives. and thats probably a conservative number since we don't count how many people saddam caused to starve by destroying the economy, dead iraqi soldiers from crazy wars, etc.
these are obviously not super solid statistics. (figures don't lie, but lyars can figure) but i'm just saying that its not easy or obvious to conclude the war was immoral or bad or not worth it or whatever if you only consider innocent civilian deaths as a metric. and its too often assumed to be otherwise.
ctually, 25% unemployment seems more likely according to npr (http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1958 109), although some neighborhoods can have rates of 50% to 60%. (See February CPA brief). Also, this 25%--"28% late last year"--figure does not include the Kurdish areas, which have been better off for quite some time now.
. ht mr tic le=99
these articles say iraqi unemployment during saddam's ruthless regime was roughly 50%
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1013-07
http://www.monitor.upeace.org/archive.cfm?id_a
couldn't find any more substantial references to those unemployment numbers though. but after 5 minutes on google it looks to me like america, bush and the war improved employment by 25% in iraq -- a pretty spectacular accomplishment.
mod parent up
america didn't have a significantly higher standard of livinng than the rest of the world until the industrial revolution. you could even argue (probably not very well) that lincoln had already freed the slaves at that point.
i'm not defending slavery. but the greatness of america comes from its freedom -- mainly from free markets and the industrious people who created wealth in that environment. this is indeed something to applaud.
iraq, also a nation of industrious people, is finally being given that same opportunity.
"To the glory of mankind, there was for the first and only time in history, a
country of money -- and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay
to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production,
achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there
were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of
swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest
worker, the highest type of human being -- the self-made man -- the American
industrialist.
"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose --
because it contains the phrase 'to make money.' No other language or
nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a
static quantity -- to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained
as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be
created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality.
- Francisco d'Anconia
sure. egypt did amazing things like build pyramids with their slaves too. enslave a couple million people and you too can build wall that can be seen from outer space.
what beautiful accomplishments this great iraqi culture has produced.
Actually, 25% unemployment seems more likely, although some neighborhoods can have rates of 50% to 60%. (See this February CPA brief). Also, this 25%--"28% late last year"--figure does not include the Kurdish areas, which have been better off for quite some time now.
5 81 09
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=19
not that 25% is a good thing. but it seems it was 50% under saddam. so thats a 25% decrease in unemployment. pretty spectacular.
these articles say iraqi unemployment during saddam's ruthless regime was roughly 50%
. ht mr tic le=99
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1013-07
http://www.monitor.upeace.org/archive.cfm?id_a
couldn't find any more substantial references to those unemployment numbers though. but after 5 minutes on google it looks to me like america, bush and the war improved employment by 25% in iraq -- a pretty spectacular accomplishment.
autonuts-mutella
uses Soundex algorithm to download unique files using mutella (a command line gnutella client). saves me hours of time.
requires mutella:
nohup does the same thing.
i used to be a big screen fan about 5 years ago. now i can't remember why.
whereas democrats never take money from powerful special interest groups.
so what if politicians take money from supporters? sounds like free speech to me.
what we really need is an extra check on congress who keeps passing more and more laws every year when we don't need more laws, we need better laws.
i think we should have either a 10 year limit on all/most laws or a new legislative body called the anti congress of elected officials whose only role is to repeal laws.
but what about support? when companies offer support isn't that a conflict of interest?
i just don't think this is an "evil" move by microsoft. i don't think a conspiracy always arises from a conflict of interest anyway -- though obviously there is that opporunity/motive for abuse.
certainly windows users will need to factor in the cost of av software when they decide to purchase windows. and they gotta do that anyway.
of course if they do bundle it in an anticompetitive way (like the courts have said they did in the past), thats leveraging their monopoly and is bad, but thats a seperate issue.
and theoretically, as long as microsoft doesn't abuse their monopoly status or the government actually bothers to enforce antitrust laws, the market will take care of any bad security choices as people and companies will move to another operating system.
Guns of the U.S. Army, muscles of the U.S. Treasury Department printing presses
sure, the muscles of the us treasury department printing presses invaded iraq. and the US has made so much money from invading iraq.
For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors -- between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of the ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it.
John Galt
you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made -- before it can be looted or mooched -- made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.
Francisco d'Anconia
yeah those works of art were the spoils of the roman empire and the catholic church. they invaded and enslaved people and then stole half the food they grew. thats how taxes were invented. besides the artists you talk about didn't perform their art for free and they didn't get it from some public funding project, they got paid by some rich dude. rich people have financed pretty much all the great art in the world.
in response to your list of blathering:
- if you are too irresponsible to pay for your fire insurance, why should i have to pay the bill?
- gee i hear about libertarians supporting rfid all the time!
- libertarians all belong to mensa? is that an instut? weird.
you need to relax man.
i thought it was funny.
jeez, i'm economically conservative and socially liberal. mostly. i think.
:)
anway, you suck.
first of all, some media entrepreneurs such as Ted Turner are quite liberal.
h p3?PageI D=829
n alrevoluti on/2004/06/media_bias.html
also, the pew research center for the people and the press isn't just some crazed republican think tank. it is, in fact, a crazed liberal think tank. they have a recent study:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.p
and their study shows:
1. Journalists tend to be more liberal than the average American. A recent Pew poll confirms previous studies of journalists. In this study, journalists did not describe themselves as liberal (which previous studies did find to be very common) but their attitudes tended to be very liberal. For example, 51% of Americans thought homosexuality should be accepted, while 88% of journalists in the national media thought so.
2. Very few journalists describe themselves as conservative. In the same Pew poll, 33% of Americans described themselves as conservative while 7% of journalists said they were conservative. Previous studies have found that journalists overwhelmingly vote for Democrats, except during the 1950's - probably because Eisenhower was the most liberal of recent GOP presidents, when compared to the competition.
if you read the link i provided, pew somehow thinks this translates into the media being slanted towards the right and bush isn't receiving enough criticism.
Since the whole journalism profession is pretty much liberal, it's probably hard for more conservative owners to impose their will on the newsroom - although they try quite hard sometimes. The end result - an untapped market of conservative viewers that can be catered to by the likes of Limbaugh and the Fox network. The Al Frankens of the world probably focus on the high-profile conservatives (like Rush) and ignore the average news reporter, while the Limbaugh's obsess over the New York Times - a model for much of the journalism profession - and ignore successful niche players such as Fox.
much of this post is directly quoted from this brilliant blogger:
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/margi
from http://www.npr.org/about/privatesupport.html:
In 2004, public radio stations and producers will receive $86 million from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is funded by Congress (that amounts to only 30 cents per American to support local public radio stations). The appropriation from Congress accounts for only about 14 percent of the cost of operating local public radio stations
between 1-2 percent of NPR's annual budget - comes from competitive grants sought by NPR from federally funded organizations, such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Arts.
..mmm the xmms find plugin does this too. (and has been around since before itunes ;) very very handy. this is indeed much MUCH faster than looking at hundreds or thousands of directories.
i don't agree with the fcc, but i find it wierd that so many liberals worry about what the rest of the world thinks. we aren't running for prom queen here. when jobs founded apple, how many people in the world thought you could make money selling a personal computer? just because 90% of the people don't agree doesn't mean they are right.
dude have you even been off of the "continent"? racism is a 100 times worse just about every part of the world than it is in america. just keep watching those hollywood movies.
ask france about their muslims. ask asians about their daughters marrying white men. ask any south american about the status of indians in their country. i think your precious muslims are real nice to women too.
no group of people is perfect. try keep it in perspective, dufus.
i think this is just a publicity stunt on the part of the movie industry. they want to be able to say to congress (or to the public via those inane ads), see what lengths we have to go to in order to protect ourselves from these nasty pirates?
Humans are uniquely vulnerable to radioactivity. Most(all?) other species are not.
what about the teenage mutant ninja turtles?