US No Longer Technology King

An anonymous reader writes to tell us that according to a recent report from the World Economic Forum the US has lost the leading spot for technology innovation. The new reigning champ is now apparently Denmark with other Nordic neighbors Sweden, Finland and Norway all claiming top spots as well. "Countries were judged on technological advancements in general business, the infrastructure available and the extent to which government policy creates a framework necessary for economic development and increased competitiveness."

Telecomm

[dedazo]

It appears it's mostly based on that... but then we all know this country sucks there in regards to Europe and Asia. As soon as the FCC stops sucking up to the big telecom corps and opens up the spectrum, the game is on again.

Re:

[DCheesi]

Keep in mind that all of the countries that are listed above the US are much smaller than the US, with higher population densities. Thus it's easier to reach high broadband penetration rates in those countries.

Re:Telecomm

[drinkypoo]

Wireless can take care of the problem rather neatly if it's allowed to exist. Satellite could take care of the problem, too, if they had more capacity. If the former is being blocked by the FCC (they do sell spectrum to the highest bidder, which is not necessarily in the public interest, and thus a violation of their charter) then it's an artificial limitation, not a natural one. I don't know what's stopping the latter, unless they simply can't afford to loft another bird, or they're just waiting for them to be built. SkyBlue in particular is oversold... And I'm told that Hughes has their own problems as well. DirectTV won't sell me satellite service for some reason, must be oversold as well...

Re:

[Chainsaw]

Sorry, that might be correct for Denmark, but not for the other nordic countries. Population density in the US is 31/km2. Denmark is very dense with 128.48/km2, Sweden has 20/km2, and Finland 16/km2.

Re:Telecomm

[dgatwood]

What's interesting is not the mean, but rather the standard deviation. The U.S. has a large concentration along the coast, but a third of the population is rural. That's very unusual. Most countries with low population density tend to have very high density along the coast and almost nobody anywhere else. Sweden, for example, has 84% of its population spread over only 1.4% of its land area. The U.S. has 80% of its people in urban areas, so a lower percentage, and spread across a whopping 3%. Thus, assuming the definitions of urban vs. rural are similar between those two statistics (I'm not certain), the urban areas are only about half as dense, and the rural areas are roughly 25% more populous.

Re:Telecomm

[LynnwoodRooster]

And so many people forget just how BIG the US is. You can fly for 6 hours and still be over the same country. Most people in Europe really don't understand the scale of the US...

Having been the Europe many times, I've often been asked by friends and colleagues why we in the US don't have high speed trains everywhere. Well, considering that - if we used the fastest TVGs and ICEs they have in the EU - it would still take about 7 hours to take a train from Seattle (where I live) to San Francisco - the nearest big city (assuming 300 KPH and slowing down for the occasional towns/crossings). Or 30 hours from Seattle to Miami, at the same average speed.

Compare that to under 2 hours for Paris to Brussels. It's just a different scale over here. And that makes telecom also difficult. Distances between big population centers would cover multiple EU countries. It takes a lot of time and a lot of money to pull more fiber from Seattle to Chicago, or Houston to Los Angeles... It's not a small 150-100 kilometer run of fiber; it's literally hundreds - if not thousands - of kilometers to cover.

The last mile

[bjourne]

As has been pointed out many times previously on Slashdot, it is the Last Mile that counts. Putting down a few thousand kilometers of fibre in rural areas isn't that expensive. What costs is connecting each and every user of the network to the hubs.

This is where European cities have a big advantage. Most people live in apartments with sometimes hundreds of families living in the same block of flats. The cable companies can just connect the whole building to a hub and draw the cables inside the house. In the

Very True

[tkrotchko]

I live in a rural area about 20 miles away from a major US city. When Verizon hooked up fiber to my house about 18 months ago, it took a crew of 6 men all day to go from the pole at the road to get the fiber to my house. They had 4 pieces of heavy equipment.

And they had to spend that much time at the 9 houses on the same road as me. So 6 men spending 9 days gets 9 families connected to fiber.

By the way, "analysts" are now criticizing Verizon for spending so much time and money to get that last mile hooke

Re:

[vought]

if we used the fastest TVGs and ICEs they have in the EU - it would still take about 7 hours to take a train from Seattle (where I live) to San Francisco - the nearest big city (assuming 300 KPH and slowing down for the occasional towns/crossings).

As Pretzeldent Bush would say..."You forgot Portland!"

Re:Telecomm

[Atmchicago]

I was a little surprised about your 7 hour time quote from Seattle to San Francisco, so I did some fact checking:

Google maps says that the distance between the two cities is 808 miles, or 12 hours 40 mins by car. Google converts those 808 miles into kilometers: 808 miles = 1 300.34995 kilometers.

The time it takes to travel 1300 kilometers at 300km/hour: 4.33 hours. So you were off by a substantial amount of time - 2 hours and 20 minutes or so.

High speed trains will become more popular when gas prices go up. That will affect both car travel and airplane travel. Gas prices are already high in Europe for car travel, and trains are a lot more comfortable that planes, so that's probably why they are more popular there. Particularly when you take into account all the security checkpoints they force you through at airports these days, it's a royal pain to fly.

Re:Telecomm

[c_forq]

Remember the slowing down for towns and such, there are several towns and areas where the train would most likely have to go to 1/4th of its top speed. Add in the time to to accelerate after each slow down and you have a pretty significant amount of time.

Re:Telecomm

[feyhunde]

It's worse than that...

I've ridden ICE some rather nice distances. Except for construction work, it was straight. I've also ridden Amtrak around the Pacific NW between Spokane/Seattle, Spokane/Portland and Seattle/Eugene. This is 137,858 square miles for Germany, 98,466 for Oregon, and 71,342 for Washington. These two states are larger than Germany, with just over 9 million in the space of 82 million.

Spokane to Portland or Seattle takes about 8 hours. This is using a heavy sleeper liner that travels between Chicago and Seattle, taking approximately 46 hours. It is also available once a day, leaving at 2 in the morning from Spokane.

The Eugene-Seattle line is a newly built train from Taiwan based off the type used in Europe for regional lines. The train is available about 6 times a day, takes 5 hours to do Eugene-Seattle, partly due to layover. It's actually a really nice train and has a good bistro car along with it's own built in movie service. It's also slower than driving.

Much of the reason why they are slow is the US hasn't built new rail lines in a very long time. Most of these lines are just improved versions of the ones first laid down after the Civil War. And some of these lines skip major towns in semi-rural areas because their spurs don't have enough traffic. Southern Oregon lacks Amtrak service because of this. The line East of the Cascades was kept up, but the line going parallel to I5 (the major West Coast freeway) can't carry modern trains.

Most of these lines have to slow down every 5 to 10 minutes as they cross highways and city streets. Compare this to European dedicated lines that have their own right of way and don't need to slow down except for stations...

Now consider the coast of refurbishing the entire rail network in the US to have its own right of way. Billions upon billions. There's talk of going maglev in some small sections of the country along populated stretches. One plan to connect LA and Las Vegas has already spent billions for about 1 mile of track.

And one related note. The reason US telecom lags is because 15 years ago we were the best in the world. Billions upon billions were spent by the DoD to build a hardened land line network that can survive a nuclear war. Mandates extended this out to nearly every hamlet. It gave the US spare capacity for a number of years. While Europe and Asia didn't have this large infrastructure and skipped to new generation wireless.

Re:Telecomm

[Trifthen]

So? Forget the US in general, then. I'd like to see a study on dense populated areas alone so we can finally put this tired argument to rest. Why not compare the biggest and densest areas of the US to entire countries in the EU? I'm almost certain we'd still lose. Why not pit Chicago, or New York, or San Francisco against Sweeden, or Norway, or Japan? We'd get obliterated. South Korea, a war torn wasteland in the not too distant past, is handing us our asses. Is there even one city in the US that cracks the top ten? Just one?

Forget the damn rural areas already. It's a nice excuse, but our infrastructure is still slapdash, crawling with shoddy and inconsistent speeds, and woefully behind, even in the largest metropolitan areas.

This always comes up

[Rob Simpson]

And someone always argues along these lines. Yet Canada has a larger percentage of rural population [innovationstrategy.gc.ca], similar geography, and has a higher percentage of broadband use [websiteoptimization.com].

Re:

[mixxu]

all of the countries that are listed above the US are much smaller than the US, with higher population densities

Untrue. According to wikipedia:
usa Density 31 /sq km (172nd) 80 /sq mi
finland Density 16 /sq km (190th) 40 /sq mi
sweden Density 20 /sq km (185th) 52 /sq mi

Re:Telecomm

[paeanblack]

Population density doesn't matter. The Gini coefficient of the population distribution does.

Consider US vs Canada http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content /94116main_usa_nightm.jpg [nasa.gov]

Canada has a much lower population density, but it's far cheaper to lay fiber to 95% of the Canadian population than to 95% of the American population, because the average distance between two random Canadians is far less the average distance between two Americans.

Countries like the US/Britain/France/Germany, which are more evenly populated will simply require much more fiber/area for a given broadband penetration than countries like Canada/Australia/Brazil, which have huge clumps of people and vast areas of sparse population.

Re:Telecomm

[Curunir_wolf]

I'm always hearing this "but the population is too sparse" excuse about why the US is falling behind so badly in broadband deployment. Well, that's all it is - an excuse. And it tells a lot about how the US has changed in the last 100 years.

You didn't hear these kind of excuses when the telegraph was the big communications network - it went to every town. And you didn't hear it when rail travel became prevalent - those tracks went everywhere, and if a mountain needed blasting to make way, the mountain got blasted. You can claim the Chinese worked like slaves to lay track - which may be true, but there is no shortage of cheap foreign labor in the US today - and they could be laying fiber (in fact, a lot of them are - just not enough).

The problem, as usual, is the self-serving traitorous bastards running Washington (the White House *and* congress - especially congress). When WW I started up, the US needed planes. Did they let the Wright Brothers push them around because they had some patent? No. They were like "look, guys, we need planes for the war, and you can't make them fast enough, so were throwing out your patent."

What happens now when we need equipment for the war? The multinational corporation making hummers whines "but we've got a contract - we make hummers and that's what we're gonna make." So what happens? We buy hummers that get our soldiers killed instead of the anti-road-bomb armored equipment we really need. (check this [go.com] out). What's that about? Some greedy frackin senators with their palms greased, that's what!

No more excuses. Build the infrastructure we need, make the equipment we need, and quick dicking around with the greedy corporations.

Re:Telecomm

[arivanov]

I wish I had some moderation points to mod you funny. As I do not, I will comment.

The problem with the US (and to a lesser extent other countries) government supply chain is the fear of the unfamiliar. The rule of the game is that if you supply something familiar which brings out that warm cosy feeling in the congresscritter you succeed. The Humvee is nothing, but a life sizes copy of a badly designed glorified monstertruck toy which American kids have imprinted in their psyche over the first 10 years of their life. It brings out warm fuzzy feeling in the congresscritter and he is reluctant to approve an unfamiliar weird looking design for mass purchase. The same is happening in the UK which keeps buying Landrovers instead of proper vehicles, despite the govt being lambasted into bits by the press. After all the Landy is something which in the UK (if you are past that certain age) you are supposed to love and cherish regardless of how badly does it suck. Russia is no different with Sukhoi scraping money off other projects to work on the Berkut just because it looks weird and keeps not getting the funding it deserves.

The situation is similar in large corporations. Presenting something new and revolutionary to the board is usually a career death. In fact there is a whole niche for highly payed professionals in the R&D of large corps that specialises in presenting the unfamiliar in a familiar way.

And here is where IMO the crucial difference between the US (and UK for that matter) and Scandinavian countries is. The scandinavian countries are currently benefiting from breaking the familiarity circle in their corporation boards and government. By either threatening to put or putting in place mandatory equality legislation and quotas on women in corporate boards and elected assemblies they created a temporary condition where you can present something less familiar to the board (or the parliamentcritters) and survive. This advantage is temporary and will decrease over time. It will never fade fully as do we like it or not we are not create equal and women like different things from men. But it will not be anywhere near what it is now in 10 years time.

So coming back to your rant - if you want that changed you should vote Clinton.

Cheers,

Re:

[Red Flayer]

The Humvee is nothing, but a life sizes copy of a badly designed glorified monstertruck toy which American kids have imprinted in their psyche over the first 10 years of their life.

Maybe you should research a bit. The HMMWV is a useful vehicle, it's just being used for the wrong purpose. When designed, it was not meant to carry troops in forward areas under fire; the US has APCs for that.

Unfortunately APCs are very expensive, so some of the brass decided to convert Humvees into crappy APCs. Which leaves

Re:Telecomm

[vux984]

That isn't insightful. Its an irrelevant statistic. Average population density as it correlates to broadband availability is meaningless if there is enough empty land to skew the statistics.

Canada, for example, has a population density of 3.2 on that chart. Yet it too has excellent broadband penetration (markedly superior to the united states) because despite having an average of 3.2 people per square kilometer, the vast majority of people live in dense cities along the southern border, while vast amounts of geography range from virtually to completely uninhabited.

Several of the nordic countries are similarly laid out. With dense urban populations, and large virtually unpopulated areas where its mountainous, glacial, or arctic tundra.

The GP's post which indicated that these countries had a higher population density than the US is of course patently false, however, he had the right idea. Broadband becomes viable as the population density reaches a threshold in the regions where the population density reaches that threshold. In a these Nordic countries (and Canada), nearly the entire population lives in regions where the population is "dense enough". While in regions where the population isn't that dense, there often isn't any population at all.

Thus despite Canada's excellent broadband availability to like 95% of its people, if you threw a dart at a map of canada, you'd more than likely hit a spot where there there wasn't access. Indeed, this is because you'd more than likely hit a spot where there wasn't any PEOPLE.

In the US, however, there are huge numbers of people living in regions that simply aren't that dense. You throw a dart at a map of the US and odds are there will be people living under it, but probably not enough of them to make broadband viable.

In other words, population density simply indicates the total number of people divided by the total amount of space, and says nothing about where they actually live. If you took everyone in the states and relocated them all to Texas the US would have the exact same population density it has now, but getting everybody broadband access would be comparatively trivial.

cheers,

Re:Poor excuse! US population centers much larger

[vux984]

I don't buy this playing with numbers

The first thing here is not to confuse broadband 'availability' with broadband 'subscribers'. Canada and Nordic countries have both high availability, and high subscription rates.

In the case of a region like NYC, I'm sure it has very high broadband *availability*. (Meaning that if you live in NYC you could get broadband if you decided to, and you probably even have a choice who you get it from.) But I concede that even in places like New York, the subscription rate falls short of other countries.

That said, to address your comment:

New York alone contains more people than all of Sweden and Norway combined. I am sure New York City takes up far less space than Norway and Sweden combined. So why don't cities like LA, New York and Chicago have at least as good broadband penetration as nordic countries? From what I read they don't.

You make a valid point.

New York, is actually the 4th most wired city in the United States, according to this article:
http://www.internetworldstats.com/articles/art030. htm [internetworldstats.com], and broadband penetration was nearly 70% (and that was in 2004!! So I'm sure the numbers are higher now).

That said, I don't know. If I were to speculate I would expect that the answer lies with social issues like poverty and illiteracy, and/or a lack of education. This strikes me as likely for two reasons:

Firstly, it seems logical to suggest that the poor/illiterate would be less likely to subscribe to high speed internet access

Secondly, this is an area where Canada and the Nordic countries differ from the US. Their inner city problems, poverty, and illiteracy rates are markedly lower than in the US, so its reasonable to suggest that it might be responsible for the difference.

regards

Re:

[rucs_hack]

Not wanting to be nasty or anything, but America is going through a bit of a religious experience at the moment, with people rejecting science by the million.

That cannot happen and the US retain their technological advantage.

Point of interest, America was having similer problems pre Sputnik, and when it flew overhead Congress ordered that Science be given a priority in the classroom, and that evolution be taught everywhere. The result? America's rise to technological dominance in the information age.

Now its

Re:Telecomm

[paitre]

Fairly easy to answer -

The Chinese or Indians (or both in concert) landing a man on the moon.
I fully suspect that is what it's going to take.

Re:Telecomm

[rucs_hack]

I would love it if the Chinese did that. I was a kid when man walked on the moon last. We had a TV in my classroom when Armstrong and went for their first walk.

I thought the moon was a place in the outback where people hadn't been before (I was only four).

Re:Telecomm

[btellier]

Not wanting to be nasty or anything, but America is going through a bit of a religious experience at the moment, with people rejecting science by the million.

Really? Got any facts to back that up?

According to the American Religious Identification Survey [cuny.edu] "The proportion of the [American] population that can be classified as Christian has declined from 86% in 1990 to 77% in 2001" and the number of people who believe in no religion AT ALL doubled from 1990 to 2001.

Sorry, homeboy. You're wrong.

Re:

[rucs_hack]

That has nothing to do with it, nothing at all.

You are currently exporting extreme religions (yup, that's what a lot of uk people think of the Johovahs witnesses that come calling, nut jobs to be avoided at all costs), and working in other countries to prop up creationism. Also there's the funding going to the search for the Ark, and the money being sent to Israel to fund the end time preparation...

Also lots of colleges and universities in the US are having to spend time just convincing religious students t

Re:

[putaro]

We're trying to. That's the whole point of exporting those nutjobs. Toxic waste to China, Jehovah's Witnesses to the UK.

Re:Telecomm

[rthille]

My sister-in-law's father likes to drag them inside when they come to the door and 'tell them about my faith'. He doesn't give them a chance to say much and _they_ are the ones stuck listening to what they don't want to hear. :-)

Re:Telecomm

[Blakey Rat]

jehovah's witnesses are so nice (not)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2123546.stm [bbc.co.uk]

To remind you of your original point:

You [the United States, presumably-- I'm not religious, nor do I export anything] are currently exporting extreme religions (yup, that's what a lot of uk people think of the Johovahs witnesses that come calling, nut jobs to be avoided at all costs),

To support your point that the US is exporting extreme religions, you link to an article about a church elder who abused a kid. How does that show extreme religions being exported in any way, shape or form? In what way does it prove that "uk people" are avoiding Jehovah's Witnesses? Hell, how do you even define what "extreme religions" are? How does it show anything other than, "hey one guy did one bad thing!"

How about finding a demographic study that shows the religion gaining influence over time, or perhaps an opinion poll from UK citizens about their acceptance of Jehovah's Witnesses? Those might actually be more relevant to your initial point than this 1-page newspaper article you Googled.

looking for the ark....

http://www.noahsarksearch.com/ [noahsarksearch.com]

There's nothing on that website about funding. For all I know the entire thing is a single guy with a lot of free time, and given the quality of the website that seems a good guess.

Then again, let's assume it is being funded by someone... so what? Unless you prove that the amount of funding goes towards finding Noah's Ark is increasing over time, this does nothing to support the original point.

(Or perhaps you think it should be illegal to fund searches for mythical objects? I, and a lot of other Americans, happen to believe in freedom. If someone wants to spent money to find the flying spaghetti monster, who am I to stop them? They can do what they want.)

the links between americans extreme religions and isreal/funding of end time stuff

http://www.wluml.org/english/newsfulltxt.shtml?cmd [wluml.org] %5B157%5D=x-157-537000

This link goes to a book review. I haven't read the book. If anybody reading this has, please comment on it.

(I will say that President Bush is not a "fervent Christian fundamentalist." If would be interesting to see what definition of "fundamentalist" includes President Bush.)

problems with science in the US classroom

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleUR [sciencedirect.com] L&_udi=B6WSN-4J79KGF-4&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F10 %2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c& _acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid= 10&md5=f91bf7d1e0b2f400ab976e4834c79692

"Not available" error.

That enough?

Not for me. And I'm not even Christian-- I just have a pretty well-developed BS filter.

Re:

[Blakey Rat]

I chose single examples rather then produce an entire page of links, I am actually doing other things at the moment.

I don't need an entire page of links, just a single relevant one. The only one that MAY be relevant is the book review you linked to, but I'm not willing to comment on that until I've read the book myself.

Seems to me you just don't want to admit any problems.

Of course not. The US is flawed in many, many ways. But the way to solve those problems is to gather scientific evidence to understand th

Morons to the left of me Idiots to the right.

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

They're rejection Christianity and Science!

The country is *literally* going to hell in a hand basket!

I always knew we were going to hell, but I was hoping for a ferrari, or maybe a hover craft. But a hand basket, I never say that coming.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[khallow]

If you're from New York, I can understand how you can somehow ignore the rise of the Christian Right in American politics ever since the Reagan era. You need to get out and see the "Heartland" of the country. Try Dallas, or Oklahoma City, or Baton Rouge, or Jackson. How about that Crystal Cathedral in California?

The Christian Right is influential, but the presence of religious regions in the US isn't a new phenomenon. It's been around since the begining of the country's existence. And all those regions

Re:

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

The issue isn't about America finding religion as it is about the folks with the loudest voice (deepest pockets) in the government decision making process has not been interested in technology.

Re:Telecomm

[ScrewMaster]

The GP is correct. Military forces have always been able to command the lion's share of research funds (that's the case with any major power that would like to remain a major power.) That's the case in peacetime, and when there's a conflict on, particularly when dealing with an enemy at or near technological parity, the military usually demands (and gets!) even more funding.

However, our military is one of the comparative few that has regularly spun off non-sensitive research into commercial applications. The old BMDO (Ballistic Missile Defense Organization) group (they've since changed their name) was primarily charged with seeding commercial ventures with government-funded research results. Worked rather well over the past couple decades.

So yes, if all that money simply goes into bigger and better weapons it could be considered a waste from a civilian perspective. But when it is shared and used to improve the private sector, it is anything but.

Re:Telecomm

[rucs_hack]

the problem is that if you reject evolution and the means by which it is verified, you also reject the very scientific methods required to be a good scientist.

And yes, it is required for computer science. Evolutionary algorithms derived from the natural world are a major part of the field, with application to everything from DNA research

Corne, D. Meade, A. Sibly, R. 'Evolving core promoter signal motifs', Proceedings of the 2001 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 2, 1162-1169, 2001

to satellite placement:
Williams, Edwin, William Crossley and Thomas Lang, 'Average and maximum revisit time trade studies for satellite constellations using a multiobjective genetic algorithm', Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, 49, 3, 385-400 2001

No acceptance of evolution, no science...

Re:

[Heir Of The Mess]

Oh no you've done it now. Here's a t list of the replies you are about to get http://fstdt.com/top100.asp [fstdt.com]

Re:

[rucs_hack]

True, but it underwent a fundamental change in the middle ages and turned away from science, leading to the current situation where the Muslim world has the highest rate of illiteracy/poor education of any ethnic group.

It's a crying shame.

Re:Telecomm

[unapersson]

"For some reason, people have gotten the idea in their head that there's some kind of huge Christian uprising or takeover happening in the US, and it's simply not there at all. Sorry. Given that you don't bother to support your initial point, I'm going to just ignore the rest of the post. Hope you don't mind."

Well if that shrinking minority of Christians just happens to be running the country, driving policy (banning gay marriage?) then people may well get that impression. Maybe less a growth in numbers and more a growth in power and influence. I suspect as the number of practising Christians continues to drop that desire to grab power and influence will only increase as an attempt to stop the slide.

Re:Telecomm

[hxnwix]

Gay marriage has always been banned. It's only recently that it's legal anywhere in the world.

Perhaps. However, state constitutional amendments specifically banning gay marriage [washingtontimes.com] are new to me. What strikes me and I think most other progressives about these amendments is that they seem to generate the most controversy only every two years.

America is facing many urgent problems from runaway deficit spending to the continual erosion of federal agency responsiveness and even respect for fundamental human rights. Yet certain politicians seem obsessed with gay marriage during election season - the very time when we need to judge them on their positions and history regarding real issues that actually affect America.

In summary, I worry that Americans are extremely susceptible to distraction by highly irrelevant issues and that exploitation of this weakness gravely impacts the quality of their government. I think that we are seeing the results of this poor governance right now in lost jobs and expertise.

Re:Telecomm

[Red Flayer]

In summary, I worry that Americans are extremely susceptible to distraction by highly irrelevant issues and that exploitation of this weakness gravely impacts the quality of their government.

They are called wedge issues in political circles, and the intent is absolutely to "drive a wedge" between voting factions on irrelevant issues. This is why the rural poor in America have been voting consistently against their own economic interests for the past few election cycles. What's the Matter with Kansas [amazon.com] by Thomas Frank treats the subject well, both anecdotally and on the back of real research.

Re:

[DarthChris]

In summary, I worry that Americans are extremely susceptible to distraction by highly irrelevant issues and that exploitation of this weakness gravely impacts the quality of their government. I think that we are seeing the results of this poor governance right now in lost jobs and expertise.

It's not just Americans, it's people in general. It happens shortly before elections here in the UK as well. The BNP (British National Party, a modern-day fascist group) are notorious for it, although they're certainl

Re:Telecomm

[gstoddart]

For some reason, people have gotten the idea in their head that there's some kind of huge Christian uprising or takeover happening in the US, and it's simply not there at all.

Well, there may not be an actual upswing in the amount of people ... but there sure as hell seems to be a huge rise in the relative influence of religious conservatives in the US.

Between the ongoing "we can teach creationism as if it's valid science", banning all forms of science which run afoul of the religious right, and and administration which seems to believe that God is personally on their side ... to the rest of us, it sure as fsck looks like religion is going through a huge revival. Certainly, the religious right gets to say all sorts of hateful, vile crap, and the mainstream media doesn't view them as cooks. It views them as having an informed position.

However, maybe the rest of the USA are just so damned busy watching American Idol and following everything which is happening with Brittney Spears they're just too damned politically apathetic to stop the bullshit which seems to become policy. Either way, in terms of the way the US is projecting themselves nowadays, there might as well have been an uprising or a takeover or something.

Cheers

Re:

[Blakey Rat]

Well, there may not be an actual upswing in the amount of people ... but there sure as hell seems to be a huge rise in the relative influence of religious conservatives in the US.

Yes, but a lot of things "seem" true and aren't. That toilets flush clockwise on one hemisphere and counter-clockwise on the opposite one seems true to millions of people, but it's not.

Between the ongoing "we can teach creationism as if it's valid science"

That's been ongoing since at least the 1920s (when was the Scopes trial?) Nob

Re: Were you there?

[fyngyrz]

There's an even better answer. To wit, "How do you know there was a Jesus? Were you there?"

There is no historical evidence supporting the actual existence of Jesus. The earliest mention of Jesus is in the context of remarks made by Josephus, a man born about 7 years after Christ's supposed death. Then there is Tacitus, who was born about 55 AD. There are a couple more that come at about 80 AD and 100...110AD and then as the Christians gained followers, more and more mentions. The key thing, though, is that there is no mention anywhere in the records we have from 0 to 30 AD of Mr. Christus, and no mention by anyone whose personal timeline crossed that of Mr. Christus.

"What about the bible?" I hear the apologists winding up to ask. Well, what about it? There are no books of the bible that are any older than 300AD. The earliest documents we have - the Vatican, Sinaitic, and Alexandrin manuscripts - come from 300AD or later; they are supposed to be copies of earlier works, but as no such works have come to light, and of the 5,000 or so documents that went into the mix to be used as a basis for the bible (compared against one another and so on), these three are by far the best ones and the most used... we can pretty much limit the scope of trust to literally hundreds of years after Christus was supposed to have lived - in other words, the bible is actually less authoritative than either Tacitus or Josephus, and as I pointed out, those fellows never even knew the man.

A lot of people take the actual existence of Christ as a given, and then proceed to argue about his divinity. However, examining the history, it turns out there is no reason to even presume the man existed. We know there was a group of people - Christians - who were being a pain in the government's rear by the end of the first century AD. That's all we know.

One more step down the ladder - the argument that "because there were Christians, there must have been a Chirst." I point you to Scientology. Must there have been a Xenu? I point you to Mormonism. Must there have been golden tablets, an angel named Moroni? I can even point you to the wall of your veterinarian. Must there have been a "rainbow bridge"? I could go on (for pages!) but I think I've already made the point. These types of organizations are known to arise for reasons entirely aside from the claims that underlie the mythology. There is no need to assume truth because an organization arises based around certain ideas; quite the contrary. The ideas themselves are what need to be looked at, not the organization. And in the case of Christus, it turns out that there are no more convincing records of him than there are of Xenu.

As the claimant, the burden of proof falls upon the Christian. Presently, there is no historical evidence that backs up their claims; that pretty much cuts the feet right out from under any argument they might make. Much more to the point than the flood. Floods are known to happen. Divine children aren't.

Re: Were you there?

[kripkenstein]

One more step down the ladder - the argument that "because there were Christians, there must have been a Chirst." I point you to Scientology. Must there have been a Xenu? I point you to Mormonism. Must there have been golden tablets, an angel named Moroni?

Whoa, whoa. You were doing ok until here, where you slip up. It is perfectly reasonable to assume, given the existence of early Buddhists, that there was a Buddha. Was he in fact in possession of all of the traits they attributed to him? Probably not, from a skeptical outlook - most likely, he was just a very smart, insightful and charismatic individual. Likewise Jesus. The scant evidence does not prove he exists, but the simplest explanation is that such a person - not necessarily a divine one - did, in fact, exist. Don't mix up the existence of the supernatural Christ with a human Jesus. Don't compare the existence of the human Jesus to the existence of Xenu, these are completely different issues.

Scientology - there was a Ron L. Hubbard. Mormonism - there was a Joseph Smith. Religious movements nearly always start with a powerful leader figure. As skeptics, we would view those people as ('merely') exceptional human beings, not divine or supernatural as the adherents of those faiths would. But let's not deny the likely existence of the individual itself.

Re:

[fyngyrz]

Whoa, whoa. You were doing ok until here, where you slip up. It is perfectly reasonable to assume, given the existence of early Buddhists, that there was a Buddha.

No. Let's retarget your comment, and see what happens:

• It is perfectly reasonable to assume, given the existence of early Panthiests, that there was an Odin.
• It is perfectly reasonable to assume, given the existence of early Egyptian Sun-worshipers, that there was a Ra.
• It is perfectly reasonable to assume, given the existence of early UFO-

Re:

[verloren]

True, but if Paul (or whoever) invented the son of God bit, and the miracles bit, and the resurrection bit, then inventing the actual person seems trivial. If I tell you that I took my penknife and chopped down 4 trees, whittled them into a huge ladder, and climbed up to the clouds to take a ride, I doubt it's wise to assume that I really did have a penknife just because that part of my story is plausible.

Re:

[verloren]

Damn, you got me. There goes my secret identity as superwhittlerman

Re:

[SeaFox]

As soon as the FCC stops sucking up to the big telecom corps and opens up the spectrum, the game is on again.

So in other words... never?

It has everything to do with Porn

[mrbluze]

The nordic countries all have long, cold winters. Most people spend this time in front of their PC playing games and surfing porn. This creates huge bandwidth demands and drives innovation. There is also much of the competitive spirit in these young lads, and the challenge of having the most porn spurs them ever onwards. Of course, to avoid getting in trouble off their parents, they spend a bit of time here and there inventing new CPU designs, producing innovative mobile phones and other high-brow stuff, bu

Nice shootin', Tex

[LunaticTippy]

Only missed it by 5 minutes.

I for one...

[rez_rat]

I for one... aaaaahhhhh, nevermind.

Re:I for one...

[mandelbr0t]

What you DON'T welcome your new Nordic overlords? Don't make me come over there!

Re:

[SeaFox]

What you DON'T welcome your new Nordic overlords? Don't make me come over there!

He can't welcome them unfortunately. Our primitive U.S. technology appears to be unable to interface with their superior Norwegian wares.

well...

[zeromusmog]

I'm sure the RIAA and/or MPAA and/or Microsoft are to blame for this somehow.

Re:well...

[Dan Slotman]

Actually, according to the article, "A deterioration of the political and regulatory environment in the US prompted the fall." However, "Despite losing its top position, the US still maintained a strong focus on innovation, driven by one of the world's best tertiary education systems and its high degree of co-operation with industry."

Don't mod me informative; it is just copy-and-paste magic for people as lazy as the parent poster.

Well, that's not really unexpected

[vivaoporto]

Since the eighties, when Japan began to take over U.S. role on technology, and U.S. started to focus more on services, this was something predictable. Sometimes people forget that there is no way to be prosper doing each others laundry [typepad.com]

Re:Well, that's not really unexpected

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Interesting that the link seems to claim exactly the opposite that you're stating- so which is it? Are we growing jobs in a variety of sectors, roughly half above and half below the average wage? Or if we lose our technology lead, will we end up doing each other's laundry (only having service jobs paying far below $15/hr)? Me, I'm in the second camp with what you're apparently saying in this message, but the link throws me off on what you are saying.

Re:

[servognome]

Since the eighties, when Japan began to take over U.S. role on technology, and U.S. started to focus more on services, this was something predictable. Sometimes people forget that there is no way to be prosper doing each others laundry

Your idea of "services" is skewed. Chip design for example is both technology and a service, as is contracted programming. With modern mass production, the value of goods is in their design, not the acutal labor involved in making them.

Re:Well, that's not really unexpected

[ez76]

Sometimes people forget that there is no way to be prosper doing each others laundry

It all comes down to quality, and at Fjord, quality is job 1.

Re:

[Grishnakh]

For example, take Coke: Coke consists of water, a couple of cents of sugar (bad-for you stuff), caramel, caffiene, CO2 many of which are toxins. How do they make people drink the stuff? By advertising and marketing and creating an image.

Um, no. This isn't correct at all. People drink Coke for the same reason they eat too many Twinkies or doughnuts: it tastes good. It's as simple as that. If it tasted like crap, people wouldn't drink it. They might try it once because of some advertising, but people don

What else do you expect?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

When a society decides that corporations are priviledged citizens, corporations decide that profit [fastcompany.com] and Tax Evasion [wikipedia.org] matter more than Education [ocpp.org], how can the country NOT fall behind in technology?

Re:

[servognome]

When a society decides that corporations are priviledged citizens, corporations decide that profit and Tax Evasion matter more than Education, how can the country NOT fall behind in technology?

If that were the case we would have fallen behind decades ago.

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

A fall takes time- the tax revolts didn't start until the late 1980s. 20 years is just about right.

Re:What else do you expect?

[paitre]

It takes decades for the mistakes and policy changes made 20 and 25 years ago to really start to show, particularly when we're discussing education - you have to essentially flush the system.

So, no - it's only been in the last 15-20 years that we've -really- seen a lot of corporate abuse of their position (not that it didn't happen earlier, but it didn't necessarily happen at the same scale), and the predictable, to some, results. /shrug.

Re:

[RexRhino]

Funny, how when the American economy becomes progressively more regulated, the corporations become more and more privledged citizens... compared to the (relatively) laissez faire days of U.S. technological dominance.

The thing that the anti-corporate crowd doesn't seem to understand is that most legislation presented as "protecting us from corporations" is designed to HELP corporations. For example, what effect does FDA regulations, that drive drug testing cost up into the billions, have on the drug market?

Re:What else do you expect?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

So let me get this straight. You're blaming failed State controlled education on corporations? Hmm, makes sense to me.

Actually, I'm blaming failing state controled services IN ALL ARENAS on corporations not paying for the services they use. Education of workers should be a primary value of any long range thinking company that needs skilled workers- yet for the past 20 years we've had a tax revolt removing money from the schools and making sure corporations pay a significantly lower percentage than they did in the 1950s. Education is just the most visible. Crime is second. But as a state worker working for Oregon Department of Transportation- I have to say roads and shipping are not far behind.

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Given the inflation rate- those numbers seem about right. But when you adjust for inflation AND population, they're lower than what was spent in the 1970s and 1980s. You've got to go back a whole lot further than 2001 to see the full trend in the United States- you've got to go back before Reagan's tax revolt at least, and perhaps back to Kennedy's. The current crop of graduating Bachelor's degree holders don't remember a time when education was a priority and the United States was working hard to beat o

Military Industrial Complex

[Anonymous Coward]

At least we know how to make missiles and $1 million terrorism response vans in the USA. Thank God for our advanced technology.

Validity of the criteria?

[redelm]

I see lots of these "Top 10" type lists, and I always chuckle: The list makers apply whatever criteria they think makes for a good society, then think up a clever name for what those criteria might represent.

One small think they left off -- marginal tax rates. High rates like Sweden positively drive innovators away.

Re:

[TopSpin]

Seems like a pastime for TROTW; carefully craft a set of criteria tailored to accentuate some Asian or European nation's characteristics and then measure the US against it. A Geneva-based foundation attended primarily by European intellectuals, European media, the Leaders and representatives of European nations and assorted activists organizations conclude the US is now technologically inferior to selected EU nations.

Yawn.

Whatever happened to the notion that technological prowess was somehow a poor measure

Re:

[asninn]

Y'know, if US-Americans are so quick to dismiss anything that might not portray them in the BEST possible light as underhanded attacks against them (everyone knows Europe is a cesspool of anti-Americanism, right?), then I'm not surprised you really are falling behind.

Seriously, you can't improve if you don't acknowledge that there's a problem, so wake up and smell the roses! Contrary to what people like you might think, you're not automatically the first, best and greatest in everything simply by virtue of

Re:Validity of the criteria?

[dduck]

++

Also, there are several ways to avoid the high marginal taxes - at least in Denmark. The only thing that is really expensive is conspicuous consumption here and now - if you save it up for your old age, you will get a substantial tax discount. Also, there are significant tax breaks for companies.

I am in fact a successful innovator (not taking over the world any time soon tho), and I'm staying. Denmark has been very good to me, both growing up, and as an environment for innovation. Hey, in some countries I understand you have to pay for your education. In Denmark I got paid, both during my masters and during my PhD. That's pretty hard to beat.

Re:Validity of the criteria?

[AK Marc]

The taxes on a corporation are paid by the corporation. They they only pay taxes if they make a profit, so a corporation that is losing money doesn't pay income taxes. If they make a profit, they pay a portion of it to the government. Whatever makes up the revenue is what makes the money that the taxes are paid from. But, what does that matter? If you want to be stupid and pedantic about it, I don't pay any taxes at all. The company I work for pays me money that I pay to the government, so my company pays all my taxes. So personal income tax on me is dumb because my personal income tax is paid by my company. It's a circular argument that you aren't giving any reason why your vision of who pays is more correct, aside from your rhetorical games that can go both ways.

The trend will continue

[WindBourne]

The reason why is that we are quickly sending our manufacturing elsewhere. As long as America continues to do that, it will make it much more difficult to do small scale start-ups. As it is, I have been trying something none-technical, and am finding that lack of manufacturing capability is making this difficult. Interestingly, I hear from all potential sales that I should send the manufacturing to china, but never to another country. Sad state of affairs. It is good that EU and Japan have figured it out th

It is not just manufacturing, design too

[EmbeddedJanitor]

These days it is easier to find a Chinese phone (designed and manufactured in China) and just send them the artwork for the logo, packaging etc. You then end up with a container load of product to sell. No engineering risk, no pesky engineers to feed and mess up the place. All you need is a marketing department to do the branding. Sure, the process is not wrinkle free yet, but the Chinese custom manufacturers are getting far more sophisticated in what they can do and what services they can offer. Give them

Agreed.

[burning-toast]

If anybody doubts that we have lost our edge in the technology arena let me ask you one question:

Name one complete sub-assembly inside of your computer which had the majority of the R&D and Fabrication done in the USA.

Of that sub-assembly (assuming you have named one), which components are utilizing NEW technology developed here in the USA.

I would like to know why the USA (given a dedicated effort) could not take back the crown of technology power house without doing so by stifling our competition over seas.

There has to be enough room in the future technology development for us to foster and train our citizens to come up with new concepts which will not rely on foreign brains, labor, or money to develop, market, and sell.

Re:

[matt21811]

Dear coward,
here is an interesting concept in science I think you should learn.
When someone puts forward a hypotheses, providing a single example, like you did, does not prove it is true.
But, when someone provides a single counterexample, like I did, it is considered sufficent to prove the hypothese false.

Priorities

[HomelessInLaJolla]

A deterioration of the political and regulatory environment in the US prompted the fall

Our leaders aren't allowing American scientists to innovate. If it doesn't fit into a corporate ledger, or if the return on a research investment can't be forecast in terms of dollars, then the venture capitalists have little or no interest in it. Scientists, increasingly, are finding themselves denied staffing and funding requests because they're not salesmen. Especially over the last ten years I've seen a trend where MBAs, accountants, marketers, and salesmen are bidding for the highest salaries while the scientists and innovators are seen almost as a necessary evil for doing business.

Until the US fixes its priorities we're going to continue to fall. Perhaps the US can keep buying talent from other nations, with H1-B visas, but unless the scientists are given fruitful environments they simply aren't going to come up with anything new or revolutionary. What encouragement do the nation's thinkers have to keep improving their ideas when the laurels and rewards are going only to the people who manage them like a column of assets? It's plain demoralizing to continually refine a product for a year only to see executive support lost and funding slashed. Graduate students and post-docs, while they provide a significant source of intellectual labor, cannot compete with happy and eager experienced scientists in other parts of the world.

Extreme levels of government regulation, oversight, interaction, and micromanaging are probably a significant contributor to the death of American technological innovation as well.

Metric critique #1

[Glowing Fish]

The first thing I would critique about this (amongst many others) is that it is a ranked list. At least in the BBC summary, it doesn't describe the objective rankings of the countries.

For example, if it was on a 100 point scale, the US could have slipped from, say, 99.9 to 99.8, and that would have been enough to slip from first to seventh. Or maybe the objective score would have been a much larger slide. Maybe the US objectively climbed, but just not at the same rate as the other countries. Being that all ten of the top countries have the same mature technological apparatus, I am imagining that whatever shuffling took place in the ratings was rather minor. The actual differences between technology adaption between the US and Iceland might be almost indistinguishable.

"Dumbing down of America"

[MarkWatson]

My wife has been mentioning this for years: it seems like the 'owners' have been cutting back on educational funding, industrial infrastructure, etc.

I am starting to agree with my wife, given evidence like: Bush family buying massive amounts of land in South America, Dick Cheney primarily investing his own money overseas, etc.

I believe that people with real power in the USA are "cutting loose" the middle class and lower class. I write about this in my blog a lot: the best thing to do is to invest heavily in yourself: education, personal learning, pay off debt, invest, and save.

broadband

[planckscale]

While the US sticks it's head in the sand and waits for WiMax to become a reality, I'm sure Nordic countries all have fat pipes going into every home. Not that bandwidth is the cause of technology advancements, but imagine if the cost of broadband in the U.S. was cut 3/4 with government subsidies. For that matter, free to all students in public schools, etc.

I think if the US wants its competitive edge back it needs to buy the dark fiber and make sure it's super cheap if not free.

Re:broadband

[Grishnakh]

Dark fiber isn't useful for pushing out broadband. The dark fiber is just extra fiber that was run alongside lit fiber (because the incremental cost is very low) when they were installing the backbones. If the backbone owners find that they need more bandwidth, they'll use that dark fiber. There's no lack of bandwidth on the backbones; it's with the "last mile" connections to homes and businesses, which requires some type of new infrastructure to be installed.

Whatever...

[ivan256]

Isn't it a global marketplace now? Who cares what 'your country' is doing. Just be the best you can be in your field and you'll be fine. Life will go on even if you can't wave a big flag saying your country is better than somebody else's. Be proud of what *you* can do.

Education, immigration?

[nermaljcat]

Like software, Education and Immigration should be free and open. Providing innovation a fertile breeding ground.

I think that the cost of Education in the US has a big impact on this too. Sadly, a college degree has become a status symbol in the US for "upper class" citizens. A lot of people can't afford a student loan that is sometimes more than their mortgage!

A lot of European countries offer good incentives for people to study, including paying a state allowance for university students.

I'm not up to date on European immigration policy, but I'm sure it would be much more relaxed than the US when it comes to skilled labor. I couldn't imagine it being any more tighter.

Well, that's my 2 cents worth anyways...

US Universities

[PAKnightPA]

One thing i think that has been overlooked in this discussion is the number of amazing institutions. If you compare the number of elite research institutions in the United States to anywhere else the US does extremely well. While this is certainly only one factor in a nations "technology ranking" the amount of research these universities generate and the highly educated people they churn out is undeniable a huge positive force for the US.

I really don't care...

[horati0]

...as long as it remains Plow King.

Technology? What about GTA high scores?

[mnemotronic]

Yea, all the whiney stuff about losing our tech edge... really man, get over it. How about something that really counts, like high scores on Grand Theft Auto? We rule dude. When it comes to whacking cops and hos and stealin stuff, we are like so totally NUMBER ONE! We are the numero uno video game nation! The USA is also top of the heap in pizza, and drinks with cool names like "cocaine", and shopping malls. And stuff like SUVs and MP3 players. You Euro-smack talkers ever look and see where your iPod comes from? Silicone valley usa, dude. And where do you think Star Wars came from? France? Sheesh. They're not even allowed to use cameras anymore. Where else can you see American Idle or a Billy Ray Cirrhosis show? Huh? Not London hon. No way. Cause we are just too bitchin.

Mod Parent Informative

[drewzhrodague]

I think this on should be marked 'Informative' -- it illustrates the American Way. As an American, I completely understand this. What's bad, is where assholes take this kind of attitude. With guns.

I Call BS

[Luscious868]

From the article:

A deterioration of the political and regulatory environment in the US prompted the fall, the report said.

That comment says it all right there. This has nothing to do with technology innovation and everything to do with the members of the World Economic Forum and their collective opinion of the current US administration.

Re:Blame Canada!

[ScrewMaster]

In some respects that's not too far from the truth, but at the rate we're losing those freedoms I figure they'll eventually stop hating us.

Re:I for one...

[Score Whore]

As you should. We're not a bunch of panty wastes. If you don't welcome us properly we'll get in our longships and row our tall, blond asses over there and.... um.... call someone on our cellphones.

Just for the record...

[cyberwench]

The word is "pantywaists [reference.com]". It referred originally to a child's undergarment.

Re:

[owlnation]

In Korea only old people welcome overlords...

Re:

[jonasj]

An invasion is not necessary; the current prime minister of Denmark beats even Tony Blair when it comes to kissing George Bush's ass. The white house dictates so much of Danish foreign policy that it feels like the country is invaded by the US already. (I'm not a Danish citizen, I just live there.)

Re:

[unity100]

no. plain old no.

research was initiate LOONG ago indeed, yes, and the concept of a network come to fruition at the clinton presidency.

but if it was not clinton adm. that was in office back then, internet would be shaped to be and remain a governmental, inter-university, or at most big-buck (you know, at&t, time warner and the like) playing ground just like tv and radios were made to be.

it was very fortunate that at that point democrats were in power, and clinton appointed that black guy (i forg

Re:I have to ask...

[Catbeller]

'What country has landed on the moon?'
38 years ago.

'What country invented the transistor, and later the microchip?'
Over 50 years ago.

'What country harnessed electricity, and set up the first electric lights?'
You'd be surprised. But that was over 120 years ago.

'What country set up the first assembly line, and mass produced the automobile?'
Again, 100 years ago.

'What country split the atom?'
63 years ago.

Now.
Which of the wealthy industrialized countries has the highest percentage of poor?
Which has least progressive taxation, ie rich pay higher percentage, indeed, pay taxes at all.
Which has lowest average wages.
Which has declining participation in the wealth generated by labor.
Which has worst ratio superrich to general population.
Which has giant trade imbalance.
Which has largest debt.
Which has biggest tax breaks for wealthiest people.
Which has collapsing real estate market.
Which has no manufacturing capacity for its own markets.
Which has worst schools.
Which has largest percentage of permanent poor.
Which has poorest representation of science in government.
Which has most money wasted on military and spy networks.
Which has religious belief that markets cure anything.
Which lost a major city and told its people to go to hell for being poor and stupid.
Which has the highest per capita spending on health care with the worst per capita coverage. Add: Which has businesses taking 30 percent or more of the health care expenditures as admin costs and profit.
Which has worst sex education, teen pregnancy rate and STD infection rate.
Which has worst newborn death rate.
Which has collapsing science funding.
Which has had science infiltrated by the operatives of a political party.
Which has a population so uneducated and unimaginative that they only finished 1/4 of a space station and forgot to build a shuttle to get to it. And can't understand why that would matter.
Which economy is about to explode, sinking belly up?
Which nation is exceedingly wealthy and well educated because they nationalized their oil fields, keeping all the profits? That would be Norway.
Which countries tax high, have excellent labor representation in business decisions, has excellent health care at reasonable cost, low poverty rates, lowest teen birth rates and STD infection rates, and now lead the world in tech development? Why, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and all the other countries mentioned.

Apparently the people of a nation taking control of their futures through their representative governments do better than those who abdicate their control to be ruled by corporate business. Who would have thought it.

Re:

[Xiroth]

Uh...you do realise how big your government deficit is, don't you? The US is getting money from other countries, not the other way around.

Re:Is this "study" worth used toilet paper?

[starkravingmad]

Actually India is ranked 44th and you've got dyslexia. Also the study measures ICT readiness, not access to toilets. You can have access to the internet, but not to a toilet.. if you've ever been to India you'll see this is true

http://www.weforum.org/pdf/gitr/rankings2007.pdf [weforum.org]

The WEF is based in Geneva and run by the Swiss government

http://www.weforum.org/en/about/index.htm [weforum.org]

They had a pretty big meeting in Davos in January this year at which several heads of state were present - including Tony Blair and Angela Merkel (also Sergey Brin and Larry Page, and several other industry leaders)
Read about it at that other "USA hating jack-off organization":

http://www.forbes.com/2007/01/23/world-economic-fo rum-lead-lead-citizen-davos07_cx_ag_0123davos_land .html [forbes.com]

But don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion.