Scot Dutchy wrote:I am not vehemently anti-British. I just cant the illusions that many Brits have over their country.

Scot Dutchy wrote:
But I know plenty of Brits and there are still a few here that still have illusions over the mother country even though many of them have been out of the country as long as I have.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

I am not vehemently anti-British. I just cant the illusions that many Brits have over their country.

Scot Dutchy wrote:
So you are quite willing to accept you do not live in a democracy. Nice one.

Animavore wrote:Again, I'm really sorry for losing the head earlier. If any other nationality had've said it I probably wouldn't of cared. It's just when English people describe anything in Ireland in terms of being backward it comes off as really condescending in my ears even if it's not meant to be. Or like they're trying to stick their oar in.

It's silly, really.

Animavore wrote:Again, I'm really sorry for losing the head earlier.

Alan B wrote:Don't forget, people, the data in the OP link is about 4/5 years out of date...

Sendraks wrote:

Animavore wrote:Again, I'm really sorry for losing the head earlier.

For what it is worth, I apologise for the tone of my posts. They weren't helpful in fostering a productive discussion.

Although thanks to your patience and perseverance, that's where things eventually got to.

I'm With Stupid wrote:I saw the TED talk that goes with this, and it seems like a good idea, but there are definitely some weird ones in there.

Why are countries like Spain, South Korea, Sweden, Germany, Canada, the Netherlands, doing so badly on "internet security," but countries like Egypt, Paraguay, Armenia, Algeria, Uganda all score very highly? And it's not just that rich countries will be a bigger target for criminals, because the UAE, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand all score highly too.

Here's a map from the study it's based on.


I don't want to jump to conclusions, but when Burma has better internet security than most Western countries, you have to wonder exactly what they're measuring.

The other major area where there's been a massive flaw for so long is on environmental issues. Moving a shitload of factories to the developing world doesn't mean that Western countries are "doing good" in the world. It's still consumer demand from these countries that's the primary source of the CO2 emission, so I don't see how you can separate that demand from the production. It's also not measure per capita, it's measured relative to the size of the economy, meaning that huge per capita polluters like the USA and Australia get a middling result because their economy is big. They're effectively measuring efficient use of energy, rather than the amount of damage these countries are doing to the environment.

The biocapacity reserve one is also weird, because that's often an accident of geography and history. Of course the Netherlands is going to do worse than Australia in that respect. It also doesn't seem to take into account how effectively the countries manage them. It's all well and good declaring a protected area, but if there's constant illegal logging or poaching because of facilitated by various bank-handers, then you're not really doing good.

And I fail to see what any of the "prosperity and equality" section has to do with equality. Saudi Arabia are 43rd ffs.

And finally, what have drug seizures got to do with anything?