That's quite right. The airforce voted for grippen MANY times. It was always the 'best' for their technical views.
Grippen WAS the frontrunner in the beggining. The technicians from the brazilian airforce always said the grippen was better (for some reasons I don't really know).
In the last government, the french Rafale was the frontrunner. The reasons were not technical, but political: to get close to france and, maybe, get a chair at the UN backed by France.
Then the president of Brazil changed (Lula -> Dilma) and the odds changed too. The f-18 was, then, the frontrunner with the new president. But after the NSA shit, things changed back again.
Guns are common place where I live. The thing in Brazil is that the law do not allow you to use your gun outside your property, but it's very easy to have access to guns to 'keep at home'. Anyway, it's a stupid law: if you shoot someone on the streets, the last law you are concerned it's the law about the limits of your gun.
Don't know, but I Think USA is more comparable (GDP per capita, etc) to Germany than to Mexico.
And, of course, if your neighbor (that you have 3k miles of borders) have easy access to guns, probably your country will have easy access to guns no matter what laws you implement.
Shimizu, a giant civil engineering and construction firm, plans to install a 'solar belt' around the moon's equator."
Link to Original Source
I really can't see how GPS (or galileo) (or odometer checking) could be more usefull than taxing the gas/diesel, since both systems could be cheated, but you cannot drive without gas.
And there is another point of taxing gas (versus km driven): it estimulates people to buy more economic mileage cars.
So, why change a system that (a) works and (b) it's fair to a system that can be cheated and it's not so fair?
So the source used wikileaks to remain anonymous? heh
USA pays 1-1.5% of interest rates, and yet is one of the countries with more debt/gdp (plus, there is the political situation that almost lead to a short default)
Brazil pays 10-15% of interest rates, and have well less debt/gdp and never defaulted.
Why? Conflict of interest. Who works at the central bank will eventually get off the government. And this guy will need a job - at some bank or financial organization. Why should he(she) piss off the same institutions that will provide him(her) a job in the future?
You know, wikileaks is doing the job that a transparent government should do in the first place.
And sorry, but is completely bullshit to compare mass-spying with disclosure of secret acts of the government.
Sorry, but when exactly NSA was part of the solution?
Sorry to reply this in a off-topic, but your signature message had 3 lines, don't? (I'm serious).
Anyway, I remember your signature for dozens of very good comments here.