Slashdot Mirror

Me thinks it time for a bloody revolution again!

We have a good system. What it requires is citizen participation. Yes, corporations have money. Yes, politicians are corrupt. But in the last presidential election, only 67% of eligible voters (and that's the most since 1968) turned out. That 2/3 of the electorate voted in Bush despite all the evidence that had accumulated since his election in 2000.

A representative system only works if the people are engaged. The problem is, the people don't want to be engaged. They don't want a smart leader. They don't want to know what's going on in the world. They enjoy watching TV infotainment. They elected the man they felt would be the most fun to take a to a barbeque. Now people are coming out of the woodwork saying they are surprised and dismayed by the actions of the Bush Administration, even though they were willfullly ignorant of his autocratic tendencies in the first four years of his presidency.

We have to point the finger of blame at ourselves, or we're no better than the politicians we elect. Excuses about media bias, corporate power, and so on are ultimately just mechanisms for us as voters (or in many cases, non-voters) to pawn off responsibility on someone else. If we want to fix the system, we need to convince other voters that protection of the balance of powers is of paramount importance, and the rule of law should be more than just a phrase we use when we're invading other countries. We need to do some hard work here at home.

"he is totally reliant on the generosity of his company for this to continue."

My insurance is compensation. Part of an intelligent job search is finding one that has compensation that satisfies you.

"as has already been stated, 30% of Americans are without health coverage"

Nobody stated that, and it's wrong. The number isn't 30%, it's around 15-18%.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/a rchives/income_wealth/002484.html

USA (3,732,400 square miles)
Sweden (173,732 square miles)

USA (3,732,400 square miles)
Sweden (173,732 square miles)

http://www.census.gov/population/documentation/twp s0027/tab22.txt The author was writing about Houston, TX... as in the 4th largest city in the United States.

We're talking about the 60th percentile and below, not people living in poverty. The 50th percentile - median income - was $42k in 2001. That's enough to pay a mortgage on a nice house, own a car and DVD player, etc, and if you're responsible with your money, pay a little extra principal on your note each month, and pay off your credit cards. Instead, people at this level tend to carry tens of thousands in consumer debt (ie, other than their mortgage).

At the 20th percentile - $18k - you won't have a mortgage, but you should be able to live decently with a little savings, NOT a mountain of credit card debt.

So yeah, the kind of "poor people" we're talking about tend to have DVD players and health insurance.

Not only that, but they're horrible at rounding. The average commute in the US is 24.4 minutes. That comes to 81 hours and 20 minutes each year driving to work (40/50). So it's not "20 hours more than a typical years supply of vacation", but it is 1 hour and 20 minutes more than a year's supply of vacation.

Actually, only a small percentage of Americans voted for him. The problem is, most people did not, or were 'unable' to vote...

http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm

lookee here, 55 to 65% of americans elegible to vote, voted!, of those, bush got just over 50% and kerry 48%. I dont think anyone was suppressed, unless you think illegal immigrants and the like should be allowed to vote...granted most people who didnt vote just plain did not want to.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/a rchives/voting/004986.html
http://www.voterunlead.org/facts/voter_turnout_2 004_e.cfm

so what the HELL are you smoking?!

You've got the good old tyme free market religion my friend. How about getting some facts?

According to the Statistical Abstract of the United States, total R&D spending by the U.S. government was $85.2 billion of the total $283.8 billion spent - 30% of the total in 2003. Compare that figure to 1970 (57%), 1980 (47%), 1990 (40%), and 2000 (25%). As you can see, "With more and more scientific studies paid for out of public dollars" can only reasonably be applied from the period 2000-2003 and it does not factor in proportions. You are just looking at the total dollars spent by government.

Even there, your argument is weak. If you adjust for inflation - I used CPI for my calculations, the increases in government spending on R&D for 2003 is about 20% above the figure in 1970 dollars adjusted for inflation. This figure pales in comparison to the increase in private industry spending - I calculate it is about a 340% increase over 1970 spending using the same metric over the same period.

Care to talk about the impact of this increase in spending for R&D by private industry and its role in bringing more politics into science in the first place? Leaving that issue aside, you don't have to be a climate change scientist to see that there is a pattern of problems - glacial levels, rise in Tsumani/Katrina incidents, pollutant propagation, reduction of species diversification and so forth - that indicate that there is going to be hell to pay.

From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans,_Louisia na) : "The per capita income for the city was $17,258. 27.9% of the population and 23.7% of families were below the poverty line. Out of the total population, 40.3% of those under the age of 18 and 19.3% of those 65 and older were living below the poverty line."

Below I set out a comparison of the US average versus New Orleans.

Comparison of US average:
Median household income 1999 $41,994
Per capita money income 1999 $21,587
Persons below poverty, 1999 12.4%

With New Orleans
Median household income, 1999 $27,133
Per capita money income, 1999 $17,258
Persons below poverty, 1999 27.9%

(statistics taken from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html )

People are not joking when they said they could not afford a bus ticket out of town. Some places I know in Mississippi which was also hit by Katrina were even poorer than that.

Mississippi and Louisiana have had some of the worst education systems in the nation for over a decade. As a result there is a poorly educated workforce, which means there is no industry, which means there are no jobs, which mean there is no money for education, which means the next generation is also poor. This is a "vicious cycle" that contributes to the long term poverty of residents.

People don't work because there are no jobs in their community. When a community has 20% unemployment then service sector jobs an minimum wage opportunities also dry up. Also a LOT of people were unemployed after the storm making it even harder to find work.

Sorry, I just took umbrage at your choice of New Orleans residents as freeloaders.

Millions of people?!? Whoa, buddy, watch the hyperbole...

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06075.h tml

Census bureau says less than 800,000... Maybe you're thinking of the San Francisco Bay Area?

BTW, shame on you moderators for modding this +5 insightful... that's BS...

There are roughly298,488,666 people in the U.S.A. with 574/1000 people having a P.C. so thats around ( 298,488,666 * .57) 170138540 P.C.'s.

At $25/10,000, that's $425,346.35 to own all the P.C.'s in the U.S.A.. Anyone want to pitch in?

(Yes, there were a lot of assumptions made. So many, I will
not list them)

City/Town Average Year 2000 Household Income
 
Baker $29,020
Bend $40,857
Kla. Falls $28,498
Ontario $29,173
Prineville $30,435
Pendleton $36,800
The Dalles $35,430
Redmond $33,701
Burns $26,658
Enterprise $31,429
John Day $31,953
Madras $29,103
Nyssa $27,372
Umatilla $33,844
Hines $40,917
Warm Spr. $29,886

I'm not so sure. In 2004 about 56% of eligible voters voted for pro-war candidates, about 44% didn't even vote, and less than half a percent voted for candidates against the war.

If those who couldn't be bothered to even show up to vote, were against the war, they still have innocent blood on their hands. Those who were against the war but still voted for pro-war candidates because of some other reason - ditto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_e lection%2C_2004
http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/national.ph p?year=2004
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/a rchives/facts_for_features_special_editions/002957 .html

"Real median household income remained unchanged between 2002 and 2003 at $43,318." (source)

That includes a whole lot of two-worker households. Unfortunately, not everyone is privileged enough to support their family on a single person's salary.

Unfortunately, most parents can't be there all the time for their children. I think it would be great to stay at home with my children, but the chances of my wife supporting both of us in the near future are slim to none.

On the other hand, I agree the parents need to be responsible for what their kids do on the Internet. If you don't understand how to set up filtering software, and you don't want them to see porn, take away the computer. Problem solved.

An even better solution: talk to them about sex and sexuality.

An epidemic merely is a disease that is occuring at a rate far more prevalent than it's long term rate in a region. AIDS easily fits that definition on every continent in the world (excluding Anartica). For example, the Center for Disease Control, the International Red Cross, the World Health Organization, and the US Census Bureau all call it a pandemic. It's not just a matter of semantics either. For example, in the US, death from AIDS or related illnesses is among the top ten causes of deaths in people aged 20-54 (see this CDC report).

As an example: If the overhead cost at a publishing house is $10,000 to be ready to start printing, Book A will have an added cost of 10 cents. Book B will have an added cost of 10 dollars. This is for everytime the book is reprinted. Publishers try not to sell books at a loss, and neither do book stores.

So when you ask yourself how many tech books sold this month- You stated in the parent: Why? These books are standards and needed by everyone. They should be able to capitalize off the popularity by lowering the price. Surely it doesn't take $120 to make Mitchell's Machine Learning--it's such a tiny book!. Your correct statement would be: These are books needed by all Computer Science Majors/programmers. After stating it that way you cut down on a lot of the potential market. The number of people who graduated from college in the US is 23.8%. From there you can weed out the anyone who didn't take a programming class (Art, Business, Literature, History, Medicine, Fashion Design, Dance, Social Policy, Accounting, Politics, etc). After that weed out the ones who took one or two programming courses because it was required for their major (Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Architecture, Areonautical Engineering, Physics, Bio-Engineering, Structural Engineering, etc). From there, there is maybe one in one thousand people who are potential customers for that book. With a US population of 295 Million people, that would give you 295,000 potental customers. Remove anyone who already has a copy of the book, buys one used, or has a similar book and doesn't feel like buying another AI book you chop the market down quite sharply. I haven't purchased many tech books since I graduated from college (a couple of references for the FE/EIT). Those books have still served me quite well. So back to the point above: Book A sells 100,000 copies in the first month, with continuing sales for the next couple of years so a large initial print run is justified. Book B may sell 5,000 per semester. Which is going to cost more to print, store and sell?

An interesting reference on selling books from Publishers Marketing Association. It may answer some of your questions. Their estimate is that you reach between 0.01% and 10% of your potential market with a given book.

Side note:

Once you see books being sold for $5-$10 in the bargain bin, those books aren't being sold at cost, they are being sold below cost to get them out the door because they are taking up sales space that other (money making) books could be using.

:) yes, i slipped up too. thought population was 3 billion instead of 6 billion.

Hmmm.. it's 6.5 billion now according to http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html

So it's 1/13th. :)

Ever filled out census information? Because, if you have, your information is available to anyone via a number of sites. That's right, for as cheap as an $8-$10 fee, people can find out what income range you are in along with a variety of other facts about you. They can also find out where you live for free!

wouldn't you prefer a tab-separated values document (plain ASCII) or excel spreadsheeds instead? it's much easier to process! and free! and it's well-organized for ease-of-use!

disclosure: in one of my previous jobs, i used publicly-available Census 2000 data imported directly in MS Access '97 to generate detailed maps and datasets appropriate for detailed population analysis. it made possible a blitzkrieg FM translator application process possible. we had well over 17,000 applications prepared, and submitted 4,221! guess who we were!

Ever filled out census information? Because, if you have, your information is available to anyone via a number of sites. That's right, for as cheap as an $8-$10 fee, people can find out what income range you are in along with a variety of other facts about you. They can also find out where you live for free!

wouldn't you prefer a tab-separated values document (plain ASCII) or excel spreadsheeds instead? it's much easier to process! and free! and it's well-organized for ease-of-use!

disclosure: in one of my previous jobs, i used publicly-available Census 2000 data imported directly in MS Access '97 to generate detailed maps and datasets appropriate for detailed population analysis. it made possible a blitzkrieg FM translator application process possible. we had well over 17,000 applications prepared, and submitted 4,221! guess who we were!

I don't know where you're getting that 90% figure from. The fraction of people with middle-class or better earnings is much lower than that. 12.5% of the US is below the official Census "poverty line" ($19,000 for a family of four), which is by no means set high enough to truly define poverty. 15.6% of Americans don't have medical insurance. Census press release.

Whatever, despite I really don't care where you live, my point still stands.

Yawn... go back to buy your $0.99 128kbps DRMed songs ...

Your point simply does not stands because buying from ALLOFMP3 in Russia IS LEGAL, that is why they are still in buisness, you see, the fact that it is not moral/ethical/right/whatever from your POV does not make it illegal. It is the same face of the coin as with copyright or DMCA in USA, the fact that the copyright or DMCA laws are not right/moral/ethical or whatever (as they tend to screw end users) does not mean they are less valid. It is simple, Russian laws allow something, USA allows something else.

I know it is a concept that most of the people from the USA just can not understand; that other countires DO have different laws than yours (and thus keep tryingn to enforce USA laws in other countries) but hey, that is what happens and you would have to bomb all the countries until they comply with the USA constitution.

So, sure, it *may* be illegal for you to buy from allofmp3 if you live in USA (although I doubt it as you can see from my profile comments page ) but I do not give a damn, as the laws from your country are different from mine and as I told you in my country we can import most legally bought things (although weed is not one of these so I would have to smoke it all in Amsterdam =oP, but then again there are also food legislation that deny the importing of certain food) from other countries.

In most countries the legality of allofmp3 is questionable but most likely just as illegal

Hey! got you again, in most countries, you mean, how many of the 227 countries are you taling about? Again, at least from Russia it is totally legal to buy music over there. And again, they may be exploiting a loophole or whatever from the legislation but strictly talking IT is legal.

And, I am sure a lot of those countries does not ban importing of music goods bought for personal use in another country.

So, as I told you before, I hope you are enjoying your $1 128kbps music, I myself only download v6 or v7 OGG encoded files, and let me tell you that my consience is quite fine :) man I even listen to that music when going to sleep =oD

Neither of those things will make your health care affordable though, the only way it will be affordable is if you tax wealthy Americans more and use their money to pay for it. Which to me, just seems a bit too socialist.

I hate it when just because you want to tax those who have more that you're "socialist". It's stupid poo-flinging arguments like that which've made it so that 45 million Americans are uninsured. Let me quote myself in a post I made earlier on /.:

Just look at the Toyota plant in Ontario [harpers.org]; The company turned down hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies in the United States because, when compared to Canadians, U.S. workers are too hard to train, often illiterate, and expensive to insure. Also according to General Motors Corp. chairman and chief executive G. Richard Wagoner Jr. the American car manufacturers are losing [washingtonpost.com] their ability to compete in the global marketplace in large measure because of the crushing burden of health care costs.
The US is the only industrial country without a national healthcare system. We're the most dissatisfied [umaine.edu] out of the top ten. Pay almost twice as much [newsbatch.com] as number two. Yet still 45 millions are uninsured [census.gov].

You're saying to me that it's not in the best interest of the rich to have insured Americans? As Adam Smith said; it's justified to take from the rich as it's them who benefit the most from the smooth functioning of the state.

To make the obvious connection here, if you look at the Statistical Abstract 2006 Chart 1117 in the Information & Communications section, you will see that household penetration is lower for many things that you would think are near 100%: telephones (95.5%), cable television (69.8%), internet connections (54.4%), etc. Telephones, for example, had a hoursehold penetration rate of 61.8% in 1950 - see page 130 of the Trends in Telephone Service report. You could argue that adoption rates for technologies are faster, but you are still talking a slow climb once you reach a certain threshold.

One very fallacious error that leftists make is that they claim that government should be "compassionate" and forcibly take money from the most successful in society and give it to the poor because all rich people are selfish (or some other theme).
(Mind you, it's Progressives/Social Democrats and populists who like to dish out at the rich. True Liberals don't).

Why should we take from the rich and give to the poor?

Just look at the Toyota plant in Ontario; The company turned down hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies in the United States because, when compared to Canadians, U.S. workers are too hard to train, often illiterate, and expensive to insure. Also according to General Motors Corp. chairman and chief executive G. Richard Wagoner Jr. the American car manufacturers are losing their ability to compete in the global marketplace in large measure because of the crushing burden of health care costs.
The US is the only industrial country without a national healthcare system. We're the most dissatisfied out of the top ten. Pay almost twice as much as number two. Yet still 45 millions are uninsured.

You're saying to me that it's not in the best interest of the rich to have insured Americans? As Adam Smith said; it's justified to take from the rich as it's them who benefit the most from the smooth functioning of the state.

Even the Census Department likes FF12, and they've been liking it since at least 1999.

Good data, but it is also worth pointing out that income disparity is also growing. See here for the share of income by quartile. Notice the poor have an ever decreasing portion of total GDP.

Say what? Where did this "fact" come from? Have you ever been overseas?

The US's foreign trade deficit is a fact, to the tune of $726 billion.

And yes, I used to live in Germany. American pop culture is very prevelant, but are American products? That McDonald's I went to every week in Berlin used German beef, served in a German store, with fry cartons printed somewhere in Europe closer than the US. Coca-Cola is bottled locally everywhere it is sold. Marlboro... you got me there.

What you are (apparently) unaware-of is that around the world, population growth is slowing

While this is true if you are simply comparing birth and death rates, it is very much false in terms of the impact of the human species upon our global environment. Consider that an average individual's weight increases 16 fold from birth (3.5 kg) to maturity (56 kg). Consider that 40% of the world population is not yet mature. Recognize that from this perspective, even if zero population growth became fact at midnight tonight, the amount of human biomass would continue to increase at an exponential rate well beyond 2020 (assuming no limiting factors).

With so much of the population as young as it is, this kind of discussion makes no sense unless one talks of kilograms of biomass. There are about 288 billion kg of human biomass on this planet at this moment, and even with zpg, this would increase by at least 30% to 375 billion kg in the next 15 years.

In contrast, in the 1950s with a more stable world population of about 2 billion, the amount of human biomass was roughly 75 billion kg.

Numbers derived from the world population pyramid from the US Census Bureau's http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idbagg.html IDB Aggregations page.

As for the value of a liberal arts education, it's well demonstrated that people with bachelor's degrees earn significantly more than people with incomplete or no college education. An individual's income level has a direct bearing on their quality of life, including access to superior healthcare, more flexibility in their jobs, and more free time. How do you figure this is "worthless"?

Reference: http://www.collegeboard.com/csearch/majors_careers /profiles/careers/106175.html
Quote:


The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates the 2004 average yearly earnings of teachers (not including special education teachers) by educational level taught:

        *
            Kindergarten: $44,940
        *
            Elementary school: $46,350
        *
            Middle school: $47,170
        *
            Secondary school: $48,980


Now also consider that they work 10 Months out of the year for 10 hours a day. So that is close to $24 an hour average pay.

Now for the rest of us

Reference: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/a rchives/income_wealth/002484.html
Earnings

        * Real median earnings of men age 15 and older who worked full-time, year-round in 2003 ($40,668)

Which is on Par with the average salary of a person working a 40 hour week for a full year.

Plus teachers normally get on the average more benefits then the average working including pentions, retirement, and sometimes Tax Credits.

Yes teachers are normally forced to get a Masters Degree and which makes their saleries on the average lower then with people with Masters degrees. But they do have the advantage of relitivly easy to find jobs, That offer confortable living wages, and excelent benefits.

But after seeing the classes the Education majors have to take vs. Engineering or Science Majors, The Education field makes the Masters Degree excuse a little lame. Because many of these Master Courses could be taken for the BA Degree.

So all in all I don't beleave teacher are either UnderPaid or overpaid, they are getting a fair wage.

As for Lack of computer skills I whole hartely agree. Education Degrees rairly focus on Math and Science and teach them as those supid classes that you need to graduate College, Not as important topics (in which they subconsiously portrait to their students). CS110 Intro to Computer Programming should be mandatory to all Teachers, and that Intro to Computer Classes should be Religated to pre-school learning.

Reference: http://www.collegeboard.com/csearch/majors_careers /profiles/careers/106175.html
Quote:


The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates the 2004 average yearly earnings of teachers (not including special education teachers) by educational level taught:

        *
            Kindergarten: $44,940
        *
            Elementary school: $46,350
        *
            Middle school: $47,170
        *
            Secondary school: $48,980


Now also consider that they work 10 Months out of the year for 10 hours a day. So that is close to $24 an hour average pay.

Now for the rest of us

Reference: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/a rchives/income_wealth/002484.html
Earnings

        * Real median earnings of men age 15 and older who worked full-time, year-round in 2003 ($40,668)

Which is on Par with the average salary of a person working a 40 hour week for a full year.

Plus teachers normally get on the average more benefits then the average working including pentions, retirement, and sometimes Tax Credits.

Yes teachers are normally forced to get a Masters Degree and which makes their saleries on the average lower then with people with Masters degrees. But they do have the advantage of relitivly easy to find jobs, That offer confortable living wages, and excelent benefits.

But after seeing the classes the Education majors have to take vs. Engineering or Science Majors, The Education field makes the Masters Degree excuse a little lame. Because many of these Master Courses could be taken for the BA Degree.

So all in all I don't beleave teacher are either UnderPaid or overpaid, they are getting a fair wage.

As for Lack of computer skills I whole hartely agree. Education Degrees rairly focus on Math and Science and teach them as those supid classes that you need to graduate College, Not as important topics (in which they subconsiously portrait to their students). CS110 Intro to Computer Programming should be mandatory to all Teachers, and that Intro to Computer Classes should be Religated to pre-school learning.

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/hig hlights/top/top0512.html
Everybody will notice if something happens to the third biggest business partner of the USA. It is as big partner as Mexico (second place)and only 8% points behind the biggist US' trade partner Canada.

I'm sure that US is going to do compromises because it is less costly then switching the trade routes for Malaysia and alike... math here is not as difficult.

"I don't know about Europe, but in the U.S., aprox 85% of the goods consumed here are produced right here in the U.S. That percentage is down quite a bit (it used to be in the lower 90%s in 1992), but we still produce the vast majority of our own goods.."
What is your source? What kind of goods? Sure, I guess that we have approximately the same percentage because it does not payback to import bread from China...

What, this isn't the FBI trying to recapture the (fabulous, baby!) glory days of J. Edgar Hoover.

This is NSA doing the surveillance. If you want the list of people targeted, you gotta call these guys!

FWIW, I was wrong.

According to the US Census Bureau, homeownership rate has been no lower than 62% nationwide for the last forty years.

Which, all told, may still mean that about half of tax-filers can't deduct mortage intrerest, either due to owning their home outright (rare for the lower-income set, unfortunately) or due to being a secondary-wage earner not married to the homeowner. I.e., a kid at home, like the kind of guy sitting down reading /. at 1:00 am Sunday morning... not me, but the guy reading this after I sign off.

"You can be virtually guaranteed a decent (50-80k) paying job"

Woah up there, buddy. When you say stuff like a decent (decent) income is 50k to 80k, you are doing a great disservice and illustrating the terrible gap in the US.

A decent paying income is one that gets you 30k a year. On 30k a year, you can live like any other person easily. If you're a one-person household, you can probably like on 22k and still be pretty fine -- you'll always have food; shelter; clothes; and, with the way credit is available, you can buy a car or a house.

About 50% of the US population makes less than 30k a year. If you want a lot of money, form an economic alliance (family). Most 4-person US families make about 70k a year (see these US Government statistics).

50-80k is great. You're upper-middle class the moment you make that. If you hit above 90, you're into upper-class. Of course, 1 high-end family makes 20 times what a low-end family makes, so there's still plenty more for you to strive for.

OTOH, I'd look at what exactly causes crime in the US and other social problems, and see if there was a relationship to income level.

"You can be virtually guaranteed a decent (50-80k) paying job"

Woah up there, buddy. When you say stuff like a decent (decent) income is 50k to 80k, you are doing a great disservice and illustrating the terrible gap in the US.

A decent paying income is one that gets you 30k a year. On 30k a year, you can live like any other person easily. If you're a one-person household, you can probably like on 22k and still be pretty fine -- you'll always have food; shelter; clothes; and, with the way credit is available, you can buy a car or a house.

About 50% of the US population makes less than 30k a year. If you want a lot of money, form an economic alliance (family). Most 4-person US families make about 70k a year (see these US Government statistics).

50-80k is great. You're upper-middle class the moment you make that. If you hit above 90, you're into upper-class. Of course, 1 high-end family makes 20 times what a low-end family makes, so there's still plenty more for you to strive for.

OTOH, I'd look at what exactly causes crime in the US and other social problems, and see if there was a relationship to income level.

Interesting use of statistics pulled from the ether. According to the US census bureau, 15.7% of the nation's population have no health insurance. Thus, the proportion of people with emergency coverage is necessarily greater than 15%.

(Although, I'm not sure how health insurance is related to TV taxes...)

This doesn't exactly prove the gp post but at 85+ there are 40.7 males for every 100 females according to the 2000 census. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y &-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_QTP1&-ds_ name=DEC_2000_SF1_U

As of 2003, there were 111 million households in the US. And, as of 2002, 405 million acres of forest land, with another 402 million acres of unclassified Federal land.

So, that's 3.6 acres of forest per household, with possibly another 3.6 including Federal lands. But, keep in mind, Federal land is more than just forest, including desert, and is usually sub-par. And a large portion of US forest remaining is in Alaska -- not exactly near high population areas.

This could all be moot, of course, since heating costs vary with climate. But, at the least, it means the northeast, with the highest population density and high heating costs, is screwed (so much for New England self-sufficiency). The south will soon become overpopulated. Alaska is still the best $7.2 mil we've ever spent. And the midwest will be doing fine with grass pellets instead of wood :p

The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps).

And yet the vast majority of Russia lives in poverty.

It's good they've built a better mouse. That's what the people need. *note sarcasm*

Anyone find any numbers on what these "zig-zagging" missiles cost to develop? Anyone else sick of seeing countries burn money on defense while their people starve?

What it's come down to is simply Fruedian penis...err...missile envy.

I'm talking china, australia, india etc..

You know ..that is a very oversimplified explanation to this problem. India and China combined still dont produce as many pollutants as the US. India and China have a combined population of TWO BILLION PEOPLE, versus the US population of under 300,000. So much fewer people are producing a lot more to damage the environment!

Even if the US altered its behavior to reduce emissions to the same level of either India/China, it would make a big difference. But little Bush doesnt seem to see the problem at all, let alone address it.

I hate to break it to you but a company can't just "stay out of China" these days. This http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsprd is way to many human beings for ANY company to ignore. Censored google is better than no google at all....it's not like the Chinese search engines are not censored. To pull out of China would be very stupid for google and google is not stupid. They are just a company, not lawmakers. They are an admirable company that seems to integrate ethics into their business model but they don't have enough power YET to do whatever they want....

Decline to do business with China. Heh. You know, this holier than thou tirade of the /. masses simply reeks of hypocrisy. China had roughly 225 billion dollars worth of exported goods to the United States last year, accounting for 14.6% of total imports for the US, second only to Canada. Their total percentage of trade with the US last year (imports and exports) was 11.1% of all trade for the US, our third largest trading partner. These numbers are straight from the US Census Bureau.

Are you from the US? Do you think that you don't do business every week with China? Every day? Where did those shoes come from? That furniture? Those pots and pans? That toothpaste? The pencil you're writing with? When's the last time you went to Wal Mart? Target? Staples? Home Depot?

Supporting the Chinese government in any way goes against this value system you would so like to uphold in your mind. To single Google out when you consume Chinese-made goods throughout your life is completely hypocritical.

According to the US Census list of the top 100 largest cities; #100 is Arlington CDP, VA, with a population of 170,936. http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation /twps0027.html

According to a September BusinessWeek Article, MS has ~60000 employees.
This company is 1/3 the size of the 100th largest city in the country.
Microsoft also has more people than 70% of the counties in the US. The average county population is ~90000, microsoft is 2/3 of that.

According to Forbes, MS is the 47th largest company in the WORLD.

They're frickin BIG. No amount of money they spend is going to change that. In fact, the more they spend, the more it PROVES how big they are.

The amount used by the TV is quite significant when you multiply it by the 248 million television sets in the US. This is a 2001 number and so flat panel televisions are not statistically significant. If you never turned any of those televisions on, they would be using over 2200 million megawatts (aka, 2.2 gigawatts.)

An average adult would supposedly watch 1,669 hours of television in 1994. There's about 8760 hours in a year. That leaves 7091 hours when they're not watching it. Let's say the average television is watched twice that amount, or 3,338 hours (based on multiple people living in a dwelling, and so on - this is a number I pulled straight out of my ass, so beware. It stinks.)

That's 38% utilization (or close enough anyway.) Thus, 62% idle time. That's 1.364 gigawatts wasted on keeping TVs warm and waiting for your power signal, in the US alone. Still think it's insignificant?

ObDisclaimer: Numbers and I do not get along, so this could all be way the hell wrong. Sorry if it is :(

Americans is one of the most ethnocentric nations in the world. Look at your media, mostly white people.

Which "white people" are you referring to? Are we referring to traditional anchors like Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, and Peter Jennings? Or are we referring to Julie Chen, Connie Chung, Bryant Gumbel, Stuart Scott, Robin Roberts, etc.? Or are we referring to "white people" like George Stephanopolos (Greek)?

Do Americans watch movies made in other nations?

A question that is opinionative at best. Numbers? I can't speak for everyone, but in my household, we have no less than 17 movies written, produced, and directed in other countries, and every one of those cost twice what a comparable Hollywood film would have cost. Maybe that has something to do with it. And of course, nobody watches anime and kids don't watch Pokemon et al. Were you referring to those art house flicks that nobody buys from Hollywood, either?

Do you see minority male actors in romantic leads?

You mean like Denzel Washington, Will Smith, and Jamie Foxx? I notice that you conveniently left out the minority female actors, which removes Halle Berry, Vanessa Williams, Salma Hayek, Penelope Cruz, and company.

Do you see a white male in almost every movie, regardless of location or story?

Yes. Statistically, males constitute ~50% of the world's population, and (as you have assumed that all movies Americans watch are made in Hollywood) 75.1% of Americans are white. Statistically speaking, 3 out of every 8 people in a movie should be white males. Of course, we have "good neighborhoods" and "bad neighborhoods," and white people can't possibly be undeprived enough to live in "bad neighborhoods."

Fact is, white Americans have a harder time putting themselves in the shoes of another race, or nation even.

I'll agree that your average American has a hard time putting himself in the shoes of other nations. Beyond that, I call bullshit. Large number of wealthy Americans don't have to put themselves in the shoes of others, and yes, white people make more money on average than minorities. This implies that many white people don't have to put themselves in the shoes of others.

As someone who didn't achieve "majority" status until going off to college, let me enlighten you. I was raised in a town which is 60.4% black and attended a school that was ~65% black.

When you are a minority -- black, white or polka-dotted -- it's easy to play the role of a victim. I was roughed up in hallways for dressing well on days that I had to attend an off-campus school activity. Several students tried to "out black" me (to steal a Chris Rock term) to do things for them or let them see my homework. Intimidation was a very commonly used tactic. Don't tell me that racism is white people keeping minorities down. It was even worse in Mississippi because, despite being a healthy majority, several (not all) of these black people felt that I owed them something because I am white, despite the fact that my family was too poor to have ever owned more land than needed for subsistence, let alone own a slave.

I also had the opportunity to spend 3 years on a U.S. military base in the Tokyo area. It was shortly after Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines, meaning that the area had lots of Filipinos. As a result, my on-base high school was approximately 70% Filipino. Everyone still broke into their ethnic groups, and sure enough, the Filipino kids imposed their will on the white, black, and Japanese kids. The point is that the majority gets to push people around until it begins to impose on the protected rights

From parent post:
Or freedom from racism - unless you're a non-white-male.
All right - white American males complaining that they have been the victim of institutional racism, from either their employer or their government (or their landlord, etc.), are so delusional and so far from understanding what minorities and women face every day that I am forced to completely discount the rest of what they have to say. STFU. And I'm a white American male who actually grew up somewhere where I was* a minority.

*Miami-Dade County, Florida: White persons, not of Hispanic/Latino origin, percent, 2000: 20.7%

What percentage of Americans live in poverty: 12.7%

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty.htm l