Slashdot Mirror

So does these ones apparently:
Poverty
African-American

Obligatory xkcd as a warning for maps (yours seem fine, though):
xkcd: Heatmap

So does these ones apparently:
Poverty
African-American

Obligatory xkcd as a warning for maps (yours seem fine, though):
xkcd: Heatmap

they have an $80 billion per year budget. That's $255 for every Man woman and child living in this country. They certainly can track every single one of us. Especially considering the Majority of US Citizens aren't even old enough to use a phone or the internet yet.

Pedant here -- at the 2010 Census, 79.9% of the US population was 15 or older, which seems like a good age by which most everyone will have a cell phone. So about $322 for everyone 15 and over.

statistics are statistics

arrest stats
population stats

sad, but true: 11.5% of the population and almost 50% of the arrests. Now those statistics might be caused by racism, but it's not exactly racist to analyze those and display content based on them is it?

It's more than 8 million, almost for certain.

Let's say there's 300 million people in the US, and 1/3 of them work, 1/3 are kids, and 1/3 are old folks who retired. Which is generously low considering this population curve, but for the sake of easy numbers and argument let's leave it.

That's 100 million working people. 16% of 100 million is 16 million people (16% being the estimated current unemployment rate). Which is higher than the Labor Department's 9% estimate, which is also higher than your 7% "in between jobs" estimate. I'm also pretty sure that 50% of unemployed are not covered by CORBA considering it's private companies dropping people from their jobs, and unemployment benefits do shit all for healthcare when it's barely enough to keep your family fed.

Also, not every senior citizen and kid is covered, so that would boost the number even higher. Don't know how much, but that 8 million is starting to look pretty small.

And if you're insured, but you don't know it, isn't that the same as being uninsured, since you won't go to the doctor since you think it won't be paid for? Why not give those people the certainty they are insured, and stop small health problems before they become big ones? Make preventative care cheap, and health care costs go down almost automagically.

*CA budget levels have not remained at 1978 levels.

Thank you for agreeing with me. It's the tax revenues that have remained at 1978 levels, thanks to Prop 13.

*CA budgets have exceeded the rate of inflation and population growth.

Not true, CA population has increased more than 43% since 1980 http://www.censusscope.org/us/s6/chart_popl.html

*CA Spends too much

That is obviously true, so does every state. But the fact that they've put their tax statutes in the hands of special interests is a leading cause of thier budget shortfalls.

What you think it means, is not necessarily what it means. Consider this population pyramid for the US. You see that dip after the 35-39 year olds? That's a problem. Those smaller bands of teens and 20 somethings are going to be supporting the 35-49 bands 20 years from now. Probably the reason the population increase seems to hint that things are still okay is because of those upper bands. People are living longer, so the net population change is not as apparent. But as economists are well aware, very soon way too many of our citizens will be hitting retirement age, and there are not enough young people to absorb their cost.

Note that this is federal spending. There are billions more collected at the state and local level. For example, the estimate in 2003 was nearly $450 billion nationwide. That's just for K-12. FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY BILLION DOLLARS.

Philadelphia, New Beijing, Taiwan, Seoul, Londinium, Carthos, Constantinople, Phoenix, Chicago, Tampa, Rio De Janeiro, Tokyo/Kyoto, Sydney, Jakarta and Dubai were all carefully planned.

A defining feature of many of those cities is that they were completely destroyed, sometimes repeatedly, and rebuilt. As such they went through "iterations" of planning which resemble an agile process much more closely than they resemble a waterfall process. Not a single one of those cities was originally planned according to some conception when the city was founded.

Er, that's just not correct. Philadelphia's expansion after incorporation - that is, after the 20,000 person mark - was planned carefully. No destruction. New Beijing was an emperor's experiment; so was Seoul. Londinium was invented as a support system for the critical military juncture of the area by the Romans. Carthos was created to fortify a supply depot with major importance to fighting Rome, and was designed by military leaders for the express purpose of maintaining definsibility throughout growth. Constantinople was founded, and Rome quite literally stripped to create it, in the interests of re-seating the Roman empire to deal with communications problems springing from sheer empire size; it was arguably the finest example of Roman pre-creation planning, and had its first 500 years of growth sketched out before the ground was broken. Phoenix was planned when it was founded, and re-planned with the advent of air conditioning. Tampa was planned as a swamp-dredge city in the same way that Washington DC was. Rio de Janeiro was the root of Spanish action in the area, and the only destruction that happened during its creation was the Spanish razing the area and starting over. Tokyo has been planned and re-planned seven times, all but one of which reflect simple socio-political changes. Sydney was planned as the port supplier and basis of the British penal system of the day. Jakarta is an imperial city which carefully phased out the old city a piece at a time. Dubai is currently under development as a monarchial experiment in the interests of commerce.

Indeed, the only cities in that list that have actually been replanned due to destruction were Chicago and Kyoto, both after fire, and both cities had been previously planned for other reasons. There is no such coincidence regarding destruction at hand; I was quite careful to avoid such a thing.

Most people don't know that one of the most carefully planned cities in the US was Los Angeles.

Los Angeles predates the United States by almost two hundred years, and is the confluence of nine monasteries. It was largely grown by accident as a commercial hub during the gold rushes of 1849 and later 1861. In fact the formal urban planning of Los Angeles did not begin until 1922. This simply is not true. Please begin to cite sources; your data is false.

It's amazing to me how ridiculous were the planning assumptions, made 4 decades ago, for a city with a population 1/5th what it is now.

Los Angeles had a population of 9,519,338 at the 2000 census, and a current population estimate of 9,935,475. In 1960, the population at census was 6,038,771. This is a growth rate of 64% in 40 years, rather than the 400% you suggest. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't invent data while arguing.

Los Angeles has traditionally had the most rigid zoning requirements, and the strictest building codes, of anywhere.

Los Angeles is actually famous for its lack of zoning requirements, something typified by the Long Beach port wars of the 1980s and the Earthquake Safety Urban Reinvention Board after the quake in 1993. You are in fact simply incorrect. I would ask that in the future, when making sweeping claims like this that you begin to cite da

Most of Korea is between the ages of 10-39 (http://www.paulnoll.com/Korea/History/South-Korea n-demographics.html/) crappy link.

Compared to Canada which is somewhat evenly distributed and is hard to dissect, however since the even distribution one would assume the majority of the population is average adults with a family (http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/peopleandsoc iety/age/age1996/can_graph.gif/image_view/)

AND America which is about the same as canada's distribtion...(http://www.censusscope.org/us/print _chart_age.html/

The results from this study are interesting, they are either flawed by census irregularity due to cultural differences or its just freakin strange.

Maybe you should look at a chart of age distribution for the U.S. and compare it to a chart of age distribution for the Congo. One of those charts looks like it could support old people while having a minimal impact on younger generations for as far as the eye can see, the other, not-so-much. And it only gets worse for other countries, like Italy. Judge for yourself.

You must be joking. Californians are leaving in droves - to Nevada, Oregon, Arizona, Washington, Utah, and yes even Idaho. This internal migration from California is being offset by immigrants from other countries.