My point being, if you aren't in the first percentile, you aren't making any real money. Did you know the top 400 earners in America make as much as the bottom fifty percent combined? Second percentile? Pfft, you might as well be on welfare. You aren't even playing the same game as the fat cats on Wall Street.
Fully armed and operational, except for the bit that actually aims the weapons. Anonymous might demolish a genuine bad guy, or they might destroy the life of some innocent teenager. Being what it is, Anonymous has only a small chance of evolving into real hacktivism and away from it's "for the lulz" roots. That makes it even more dangerous than most vengeful vigilante groups. I mean, "That teenage girl is a camwhore!" is as much of a motivating battle-cry to Anonymous as "That guy is subverting the law to attack wikileaks." Needless to say, I'm happy this creep got his comeuppance. But I would much rather his downfall were accomplished through the rule of law and not vigilante justice. Still, when real justice is hopelessly corrupt, what else is there?
The key findings relating to intergenerational mobility include the following:
*Children from low-income families have only a 1 percent chance of reaching the top 5 percent of the income distribution, versus children of the rich who have about a 22 percent chance.
*Children born to the middle quintile of parental family income ($42,000 to $54,300) had about the same chance of ending up in a lower quintile than their parents (39.5 percent) as they did of moving to a higher quintile (36.5 percent). Their chances of attaining the top five percentiles of the income distribution were just 1.8 percent.
*Education, race, health and state of residence are four key channels by which economic status is transmitted from parent to child.
*African American children who are born in the bottom quartile are nearly twice as likely to remain there as adults than are white children whose parents had identical incomes, and are four times less likely to attain the top quartile.
*The difference in mobility for blacks and whites persists even after controlling for a host of parental background factors, children’s education and health, as well as whether the household was female-headed or receiving public assistance.
*After controlling for a host of parental background variables, upward mobility varied by region of origin, and is highest (in percentage terms) for those who grew up in the South Atlantic and East South Central regions, and lowest for those raised in the West South Central and Mountain regions.
*By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States.
Key findings relating to short-run, year-to-year income movements include the following:
*The overall volatility of household income increased significantly between 1990-91 and 1997-98 and again in 2003-04.
*Since 1990-91, there has been an increase in the share of households who experienced significant downward short-term mobility. The share that saw their incomes decline by $20,000 or more (in real terms) rose from 13.0 percent in 1990-91 to 14.8 percent in 1997-98 to 16.6 percent in 2003-04.
*The middle class is experiencing more insecurity of income, while the top decile is experiencing less. From 1997-98 to 2003-04, the increase in downward short-term mobility was driven by the experiences of middle-class households (those earning between $34,510 and $89,300 in 2004 dollars). Households in the top quintile saw no increase in downward short-term mobility, and households in the top decile ($122,880 and up) saw a reduction in the frequency of large negative income shocks.
*For the middle class, an increase in income volatility has led to an increase in the frequency of large negative income shocks, which may be expected to translate to an increase in financial distress.
*The median household was no more upwardly mobile in 2003-04, a year when GDP grew strongly, than it was it was during the recession of 1990-91.
Contractors are just as fucked, though. The point being: most of the value you produce is going into another man's pockets. You are, at a measly quarter million a year, barely upper middle class. You are still playing the chump's game, working for a living, rather than having other people work for you. Basically, you can either be a sucker or a con artist, letting yourself be taken advantage of, or taking advantage of others. If you are working for a living, as opposed to making other people work for you, you are a sucker. In the eyes of the elite, you aren't even a real person.
Wait, do you think we live in some kind of meritocracy where intelligence and hard work are rewarded, while stupidity is punished? No, we live in a kleptocracy where connections and favors are rewarded and being born poor is punished. If you have money and/or connections, you can make more money with very little risk or effort by stealing the labors of honest working people, who are so desperate that they will do nearly anything for you. So, you shouldn't have to look to hard to find suckers like this, if you aren't already rich, try looking in a mirror. If you are halfway intelligent and working at a salaried job, you've more than likely given away at least that much value.
Your comment about "real" Linux users is basically the attitude that turns off a lot of people from even listening to reasonable arguments about free (libre) software.
What's more, they are damaging ALL of their customers and potential customers. They are getting people thinking about classifieds and crime. They are making people wonder, "Say, if I invite a stranger into my home to look at this $50 couch, what might happen?" Oodle and AIM Group both are taking a cheap shot that is likely to ricochet right back at them. Stupid.
Right? Well, obviously it is cheaper and easier to produce some FUD, but it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to make something better than craigslist.
And what does the Craigslist competitor that funded this study offer? Free classified ads verified by a Facebook account, or to put it another way: free, anonymous advertising. But furthermore, I do not accept your premise. How does anonymity and free advertising create a high risk environment? I mean, paint me a picture here, maybe I'm a little dense, but I just don't see it. Who is at risk, the advertiser or the shopper? How is that different than traditional classifieds?
Haha, nice try. But my question is rhetorical, I mean, obviously, if these assholes will stoop to phony manufactured scare tactic reports, they will also stoop to astroturfing.
No, this is a report, funded by a Craigslist competitor, who specifically asked the AIM group to find a link between Craigslist and crime. It is a publicity piece, a smear job, it is not a scientific study. They started from the conclusion they wanted to reach, and worked backwards to find evidence to support that conclusion. They did not put the data into a larger context and compare the incidence of crime on Craigslist with incidence of crime against traditional classified users or other classified websites.
Note that I have no financial interest in any of the companies involved, and no particular love for Craigslist. If they tried the same sneaky, underhanded marketing tactics, I would call them out on it as well. I wonder how many people posting here attacking Craigslist like you are doing are employees of Oodle or the AIMgroup? I mean, if they would pay for a "study" like this, obviously they also would pay for astroturfers, right?
Sometimes you need a competitor to find public faults with its competition.
And sometimes a competitor hires a third party to find exactly what they want found. How many crimes have been committed against Oodle users, per capita? How about traditional Classified users? This study is not a real scientific study, it says exactly and only what Oodle wants it to say.
The AIM Group has just completed a research project for Oodle, a Craigslist competitor, cataloging crimes that have been linked to Craigslist. And the results surprised even us.
Yeah. Screw you assholes and your manufactured FUD.
The study was published by "The AIM Group," of which there are two. One is a placement agency for the petro industry, the other is (can you guess yet?) "Consulting Services for Interactive Media and Classified Advertising"
Shorter version of TFA "Don't use the crime infested, but generally free Craigslist, pay our customers to place your classifieds safely, without the fear of VIOLENT RAPE!"
I just love screwing with marketing numbskulls who try to manipulate people into giving them free publicity. Where's your free publicity now, AIM Group?
"They're SUPER, thanks for asking! All things considered they couldn't be better I must say They're feeling super No bugs inside them Everything is super when you're - don’t you think they look cute in this rack?"
The laws have changed since the Tax Act was first implemented, basically, when the program was started, you needed a stamp on your cannabis and hemp in order to get a stamp on your cannabis and hemp. Simply putting a bunch of domestic hemp growers out of business was good enough for DuPont. Marinol was patented when it first came out, which actually makes my case for me: big pharma would rather sell a patented synthetic chemical compound than an unpatentable plant which contains the same compound.
You might want to try the stuff, did you know it can relax the anal sphincter and help get your head out of your ass?
No, "below 0.3%" is not the same thing as "around 0.3%." You could try it, but most industrial hemp has a LOT less than 0.3%, to ensure the suppliers do not get into legal trouble.
There is some debate as to whether indica is a separate species, or merely a subspecies. In any case, if indica and ruderalis are both subspecies, then sativa is the only cannabis species.
There are over 170 species of Cannabaceae, including cannabis and hops, perhaps that is what Velex was thinking of.
Ah, so you think that marijuana was outlawed simply because it is a drug? Haha, no. The fact that hemp is so useful at producing fiber and paper is actually one of the bigger reasons it was outlawed in the first place. Basically, there were three real reasons: First, it is an effective treatment for many minor conditions, but is not patentable, and therefore, even though big pharma companies all sold it, they would rather sell patent medicines for a higher profit. Second, at the time of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, nylon had just been invented (1935) and DuPont wanted people to buy nylon rather than hemp ropes, especially with war looming. Thirdly, William Randolph Hearst's newspaper empire had begun to crumble when he flipped political positions and began viciously attacking FDR: Hearst's readership were mostly blue collar workers, and not happy with his editorial slant. But Hearst had huge timber holdings, if he couldn't make money selling newspapers, he could still make money selling paper, even more if hemp were out of the picture.
The legislators who outlawed the demon weed Marijuana at the behest of wealthy interests probably had no idea that marijuana and hemp were the same thing.They were told that it was a drug used by Mexicans and Blacks that made them want to rape white women.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh do they now? Classy. Hope you're the next one in the gunsights, dude. You need the perspective.
My point being, if you aren't in the first percentile, you aren't making any real money. Did you know the top 400 earners in America make as much as the bottom fifty percent combined? Second percentile? Pfft, you might as well be on welfare. You aren't even playing the same game as the fat cats on Wall Street.
Fully armed and operational, except for the bit that actually aims the weapons. Anonymous might demolish a genuine bad guy, or they might destroy the life of some innocent teenager. Being what it is, Anonymous has only a small chance of evolving into real hacktivism and away from it's "for the lulz" roots. That makes it even more dangerous than most vengeful vigilante groups. I mean, "That teenage girl is a camwhore!" is as much of a motivating battle-cry to Anonymous as "That guy is subverting the law to attack wikileaks." Needless to say, I'm happy this creep got his comeuppance. But I would much rather his downfall were accomplished through the rule of law and not vigilante justice. Still, when real justice is hopelessly corrupt, what else is there?
There is no social mobility in America anymore.
http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/01/the_economist_o.html
and, from here: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html
The key findings relating to intergenerational mobility include the following:
*Children from low-income families have only a 1 percent chance of reaching the top 5 percent of the income distribution, versus children of the rich who have about a 22 percent chance.
*Children born to the middle quintile of parental family income ($42,000 to $54,300) had about the same chance of ending up in a lower quintile than their parents (39.5 percent) as they did of moving to a higher quintile (36.5 percent). Their chances of attaining the top five percentiles of the income distribution were just 1.8 percent.
*Education, race, health and state of residence are four key channels by which economic status is transmitted from parent to child.
*African American children who are born in the bottom quartile are nearly twice as likely to remain there as adults than are white children whose parents had identical incomes, and are four times less likely to attain the top quartile.
*The difference in mobility for blacks and whites persists even after controlling for a host of parental background factors, children’s education and health, as well as whether the household was female-headed or receiving public assistance.
*After controlling for a host of parental background variables, upward mobility varied by region of origin, and is highest (in percentage terms) for those who grew up in the South Atlantic and East South Central regions, and lowest for those raised in the West South Central and Mountain regions.
*By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States.
Key findings relating to short-run, year-to-year income movements include the following:
*The overall volatility of household income increased significantly between 1990-91 and 1997-98 and again in 2003-04.
*Since 1990-91, there has been an increase in the share of households who experienced significant downward short-term mobility. The share that saw their incomes decline by $20,000 or more (in real terms) rose from 13.0 percent in 1990-91 to 14.8 percent in 1997-98 to 16.6 percent in 2003-04.
*The middle class is experiencing more insecurity of income, while the top decile is experiencing less. From 1997-98 to 2003-04, the increase in downward short-term mobility was driven by the experiences of middle-class households (those earning between $34,510 and $89,300 in 2004 dollars). Households in the top quintile saw no increase in downward short-term mobility, and households in the top decile ($122,880 and up) saw a reduction in the frequency of large negative income shocks.
*For the middle class, an increase in income volatility has led to an increase in the frequency of large negative income shocks, which may be expected to translate to an increase in financial distress.
*The median household was no more upwardly mobile in 2003-04, a year when GDP grew strongly, than it was it was during the recession of 1990-91.
Contractors are just as fucked, though. The point being: most of the value you produce is going into another man's pockets. You are, at a measly quarter million a year, barely upper middle class. You are still playing the chump's game, working for a living, rather than having other people work for you. Basically, you can either be a sucker or a con artist, letting yourself be taken advantage of, or taking advantage of others. If you are working for a living, as opposed to making other people work for you, you are a sucker. In the eyes of the elite, you aren't even a real person.
Wait, do you think we live in some kind of meritocracy where intelligence and hard work are rewarded, while stupidity is punished? No, we live in a kleptocracy where connections and favors are rewarded and being born poor is punished. If you have money and/or connections, you can make more money with very little risk or effort by stealing the labors of honest working people, who are so desperate that they will do nearly anything for you. So, you shouldn't have to look to hard to find suckers like this, if you aren't already rich, try looking in a mirror. If you are halfway intelligent and working at a salaried job, you've more than likely given away at least that much value.
Your comment about "real" Linux users is basically the attitude that turns off a lot of people from even listening to reasonable arguments about free (libre) software.
According to whom?
lol, u mad?
What's more, they are damaging ALL of their customers and potential customers. They are getting people thinking about classifieds and crime. They are making people wonder, "Say, if I invite a stranger into my home to look at this $50 couch, what might happen?" Oodle and AIM Group both are taking a cheap shot that is likely to ricochet right back at them. Stupid.
Right? Well, obviously it is cheaper and easier to produce some FUD, but it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to make something better than craigslist.
And what does the Craigslist competitor that funded this study offer? Free classified ads verified by a Facebook account, or to put it another way: free, anonymous advertising. But furthermore, I do not accept your premise. How does anonymity and free advertising create a high risk environment? I mean, paint me a picture here, maybe I'm a little dense, but I just don't see it. Who is at risk, the advertiser or the shopper? How is that different than traditional classifieds?
Haha, nice try. But my question is rhetorical, I mean, obviously, if these assholes will stoop to phony manufactured scare tactic reports, they will also stoop to astroturfing.
No, this is a report, funded by a Craigslist competitor, who specifically asked the AIM group to find a link between Craigslist and crime. It is a publicity piece, a smear job, it is not a scientific study. They started from the conclusion they wanted to reach, and worked backwards to find evidence to support that conclusion. They did not put the data into a larger context and compare the incidence of crime on Craigslist with incidence of crime against traditional classified users or other classified websites.
Note that I have no financial interest in any of the companies involved, and no particular love for Craigslist. If they tried the same sneaky, underhanded marketing tactics, I would call them out on it as well. I wonder how many people posting here attacking Craigslist like you are doing are employees of Oodle or the AIMgroup? I mean, if they would pay for a "study" like this, obviously they also would pay for astroturfers, right?
Craigslist does not serve alcohol.
Sometimes you need a competitor to find public faults with its competition.
And sometimes a competitor hires a third party to find exactly what they want found. How many crimes have been committed against Oodle users, per capita? How about traditional Classified users? This study is not a real scientific study, it says exactly and only what Oodle wants it to say.
The AIM Group has just completed a research project for Oodle, a Craigslist competitor, cataloging crimes that have been linked to Craigslist. And the results surprised even us.
Yeah. Screw you assholes and your manufactured FUD.
The study was published by "The AIM Group," of which there are two. One is a placement agency for the petro industry, the other is (can you guess yet?) "Consulting Services for Interactive Media and Classified Advertising"
Shorter version of TFA "Don't use the crime infested, but generally free Craigslist, pay our customers to place your classifieds safely, without the fear of VIOLENT RAPE!"
I just love screwing with marketing numbskulls who try to manipulate people into giving them free publicity. Where's your free publicity now, AIM Group?
"They're SUPER, thanks for asking!
All things considered they couldn't be better
I must say
They're feeling super
No bugs inside them
Everything is super when you're -
don’t you think they look cute in this rack?"
Obama has instructed the DOJ not to investigate or prosecute medical marijuana cases.
Marinol is now out of patent, but it was certainly patented (and expensive) when it first came out.
The laws have changed since the Tax Act was first implemented, basically, when the program was started, you needed a stamp on your cannabis and hemp in order to get a stamp on your cannabis and hemp. Simply putting a bunch of domestic hemp growers out of business was good enough for DuPont. Marinol was patented when it first came out, which actually makes my case for me: big pharma would rather sell a patented synthetic chemical compound than an unpatentable plant which contains the same compound.
You might want to try the stuff, did you know it can relax the anal sphincter and help get your head out of your ass?
No, "below 0.3%" is not the same thing as "around 0.3%." You could try it, but most industrial hemp has a LOT less than 0.3%, to ensure the suppliers do not get into legal trouble.
There is some debate as to whether indica is a separate species, or merely a subspecies. In any case, if indica and ruderalis are both subspecies, then sativa is the only cannabis species.
There are over 170 species of Cannabaceae, including cannabis and hops, perhaps that is what Velex was thinking of.
Ah, so you think that marijuana was outlawed simply because it is a drug? Haha, no. The fact that hemp is so useful at producing fiber and paper is actually one of the bigger reasons it was outlawed in the first place. Basically, there were three real reasons: First, it is an effective treatment for many minor conditions, but is not patentable, and therefore, even though big pharma companies all sold it, they would rather sell patent medicines for a higher profit. Second, at the time of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, nylon had just been invented (1935) and DuPont wanted people to buy nylon rather than hemp ropes, especially with war looming. Thirdly, William Randolph Hearst's newspaper empire had begun to crumble when he flipped political positions and began viciously attacking FDR: Hearst's readership were mostly blue collar workers, and not happy with his editorial slant. But Hearst had huge timber holdings, if he couldn't make money selling newspapers, he could still make money selling paper, even more if hemp were out of the picture.
The legislators who outlawed the demon weed Marijuana at the behest of wealthy interests probably had no idea that marijuana and hemp were the same thing.They were told that it was a drug used by Mexicans and Blacks that made them want to rape white women.
Hemp grown for fiber does not contain enough THC to get a fly high.