Print 104 comment(s) - last by Myrandex.. on Oct 12 at 1:09 PM

Although the majority of North Korea does not have much in way of electricity at night, Kim Jong-il has no problem navigating the Internet.  (Source: Global Security)
Kim Jong-il claims to be the world's Internet expert; Al Gore jealous

North Korean leader Kim Jong-il met with South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun this week in the North Korean city of Kaesong. This meeting is only the second ever meeting between North and South Korean leaders.

One topic of conversation during the meeting put forth by Roh was a request that South Korean companies operating in an industrial park in the North Korean city of Kaesong be allowed the use of the Internet.

The response from the Dear Leader, according to Yahoo! News, was, “I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired.”

Kim went on to say, “If that problem is addressed, there is no reason not to open [web access].” Kim did not elaborate on the "many problems" caused by opening Internet access to all of North Korea, though clearly the intention of Roh's suggestion is to increase North Korean exposure to South Korean and Western influence.

North Korea explicitly prohibits its 23 million citizens from accessing the Internet and mobile phones outside of government research groups. South Korea, by comparison, is one of the world's most digitally connected countries.

However, given the secretive nature of just about everything in North Korea, it's been difficult to even ascertain just how "connected" Kim actually is. Satellite photographs of North Korea at night reveal very few lights, indicating the country does not have a very high capacity for electricity, let alone computers or Internet.

What is known, is that Kim and the ruling party has a definitive taste for all things Western. Kim's son, Jong-nam, was arrested and expelled from Japan while trying to enter Disney Land in 2001.  Late last year, the U.S. imposed a ban on all luxuries originating from the U.S. destined for North Korea, including the Great Leader's beloved iPods.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Kim has a reason to be proud
By derwin on 10/8/2007 1:36:47 AM , Rating: 2
democratic would imply a free election with more than one person on the ballet

Lol, yeah, you missed his point.

And yes, people are still serving extremely long sentences for drug use (ever hear of the 3 strikes policty in cali?)... Drug use

Drug use is not a precursor to violent crime, prohibition is a precursor to violent crime. Hard drugs are a precursor to early death, physical disability and addiction. Only one of those (addiction) leads to crimes seeking money (drug dealer v drug dealer or addict v citizen), and without prohibition, costs drop dramatically, rehabilitation takes a public turn, and drug dealers at least get a corporate umbrealla and have to follow the law and file taxes now. Crime is not the issue to be discussed in regards to drug use, only drug prohibition. If you really want to address the legality of drugs, try considering what harm they cause, what benefit the bring, and what balance of the two exists and what balance of the two would be acceptable, and lastely, what poliies would create this desired balance.

And lastly, the final step that Americans seem to have completely forgotten - the feasability (sp?) of such policies. "Just say no" doesn't quite cut it, if you know what I mean. The biggest issue I have with drug prohibition (as did most americans eventually aquire with alcohol prohibition) is that it just can never work. Drugs are too easy to grow, make, or find, and thus, buy. Without an orwellian style of surveilance, we will never catch even a majority of drug users, and without being able to prosecute somebody for a crime, the law criminalizing it becomes useless (see illegal imigration).

RE: Kim has a reason to be proud
By geddarkstorm on 10/8/2007 1:51:48 PM , Rating: 1
"Drug use is not a precursor to violent crime, prohibition is a precursor to violent crime."

Actually, that is totally wrong. Plenty of studies show direct correlation of drug use with violent crimes. See
and (to show this is not just something in the USA only. Go down to section 9 for the crime section if the rest doesn't interest you)

This is only to be expected. Anything that impairs mental functions and rational judgment will obviously lead to an increase in criminal tendencies and accidents. Pay close attention to the statistics in the third link relating violent crime to attempts to get money for drugs--you'll notice the percentages there are lower (especially in the homicide/murder and sexual assaults catagories) than the overall violent crimes due to drug use showing that this is a drug use induced event not a prohibition induced event.

RE: Kim has a reason to be proud
By elgoliath on 10/8/2007 4:52:31 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, imo you are wrong. The problem is that you are trying to find correlations between the wrong things. History on the other hand speaks for itself- when was alcohol related violent crime at it's worse? During prohibition. The problem is as has been stated above me- the few select in government overstepping their bounds and making us criminals for doing something to our bodies that is inherently private. Will violent crime stop if we legalize drugs? No (I'll bet you it will go down). Will some of the violent criminals also be drug users? Yes (so what?). It appears you seem to think that they are violent BECAUSE they use drugs (there are exceptions to every rule, I know). Have you ever thought that these people have something else in common?

Let me ask you this: would violent crime related to drugs go down or up if it was legalized? If it were legalized and the local Rite Aid started selling marijuana and cocaine, do you think the Rite Aid employees are going to hope in a car and do a drive by of the nearest Walgreens?

Drugs are expensive (relatively speaking) BECAUSE they are illegal. Make them legal, tax them a bit (to pay for rehab when necessary- or just reroute the millions and millions we have/are spending to fund the war on drugs) and you would probably be surprised at how drug related violent crime goes down. Hell if it's more affordable, then those people pretty far gone would have to do less violent crime to pay for them even. Win/win if you ask me.

My biggest question tho is how is it legal for the government to police our bodies and private lives? Whomever can give me an acceptable answer to that wins a cookie-

RE: Kim has a reason to be proud
By rcc on 10/8/2007 7:23:52 PM , Rating: 1
My biggest question tho is how is it legal for the government to police our bodies and private lives? Whomever can give me an acceptable answer to that wins a cookie-

Because your right to do drugs ends at other people's realities. All the class act druggies on the way home from Rite Aid causing accidents, etc. If all they did was sit at home and not bother anyone, it probably wouldn't be an issue. As soon as something comes to the publics attention in a negative manner, someone will legislate restrictions.

RE: Kim has a reason to be proud
By elgoliath on 10/8/2007 8:11:24 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure I get what you mean by other peoples realities, but I understand and agree that my rights end when they infringe upon other peoples rights. Regarding your second sentence, oh jeez- you do realize how ridiculous that comment is, right?

RE: Kim has a reason to be proud
By Myrandex on 10/12/2007 1:09:35 PM , Rating: 1
fuck no, I don't want to pay taxes for stupid a$$ drug users doing rehab. I want the drugs to be legal, and I want to tax the hell out of them to make up for deficites later, and if some junkie gets all screwed up because he decided to do drugs in the first place, then it is his own fault and I wouldn't want any "free" health care being waste on him.

In fact my whole problem with "free" health care is that people that I feel don't deserve free health care would be getting it. I have no problem if someone who can barely make a living working at a walmart falls and breaks her arm and gets fre helth care to cover it, but if that same person decided to smoke 3 packs a day, gets lung cancer, and suddenly free health care has to cover that, hell no. It wasn't like she accidentally smoked all of those cigs all of her life. I don't care what people do to their own bodies, just as long as it doesn't affect someone else (whether financially, or medically like 2nd hand smoke, or other methods).

"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot
Related Articles
U.S. Bans Kim Jong Il Tech Toys
November 29, 2006, 6:17 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki