I agree, but calling her "First human to use graphical representation of data" (Pioneer) is completely bullshit.
I didn't say that and neither has anyone else. I said she deserves a lot more credit than she's gotten, and that has nothing to do with her equipment, feminism, propaganda, or tricks. It has everything to do with her working her ass off to save lives, and applying a very creative solution to a previously intractable problem and then succeeding against the incredible stigma and prejudice that beset her on all sides -- a disreputable profession, an entrenched bureauacracy, and sexism that makes your brand of idiocy look like decaf.
Now bugger off or I shall taunt you a second time.
Maybe; from the little I know she seemed very capable. But conversely, if she was a man nobody would feel the need to write an article about it.
You're absolutely right, nobody would feel they had to. When a woman is acknowledged it's out of pity or some emotive source. When a man is acknowledged it's because of his (objective) accomplishments. Two hundred years and you've just underscored how very little things have changed. When people no longer have to go out of their way to find and honor the contributions of women, when their names simply added to the book without a second thought -- then we'll have progress.
Thank you for showing us just how deeply sexism pervades our society, even amongst the most technical and literate of the population (like here, on slashdot).
If she'd been a man presenting this, she'd have made the equivalent of surgeon general in her career. -_- No joke--Despite the blessing of Queen Victoria herself, she was denied a chairman position that oversaw general health affairs in the military. I doubt there's an academic statistics book currently in circulation that gives her any credit for this. Even this--a zine read by only a tiny, tiny fraction of the people who go to school every year and rely on her innovation. Hell, the entire field of field medicine was in disrepute at that time in history -- who needs medicine? Most nurses spent at least part of their time in the kitchen, which was viewed as more important. She made it important. It's been two centuries since then and she's still only a footnote. Today, graphical statistics are used in every trained discipline from engineering to medicine to management, but nobody knows this woman's name. They should -- they owe her a lot.
Or maybe the hackers in the US are smart enough to not get caught in the first place. The best hacker in the world is someone nobody's heard of. You know, as long as we're doing conspiracy theory, we might as well make it sound good....;)
Obviously it would take a high degree of coordination and skill but an electronic attack could take them out for awhile. It's been done before to large companies. My only point is that google is an attractive target for a great many political interests both domestically and abroad.
It's fitting that the NY Times used the word protean to describe Google, since the word also has alternative meanings as a bacteria and is linked to a greek fable of a shape-changing god of the ocean. The problem of the internet is that people, unlike machines, don't handle decentralization well. Anarchy has always been a temporary reprise from authoritarian constructs. In and of itself that's not a problem, but there's too much political pressure to censor, alter, and manipulate access to online information, and let's face it: Very, very few of us have the resources to conduct an exhaustive independent search on the internet.
Honestly, I'm surprised the United States hasn't declared Google (and other major internet pieces) a national security asset and moved to place it under government protection. They've done it before -- citizens who worked on the Manhattan project, for example. It could also easily be looked at as a target for terrorism -- blasting google out of the water would have significant press coverage; And isn't the big reason for terrorism to be visible? It's hard to come up with a bigger target online right now than them.
cue fear-mongerers and anti-government commentary in 5...4...3...
Countries do this all the time. The United States' CIA has ordered assassinations in the past on drug cartel leaders, insurgents, terrorists, and even country leaders in the name of national security. They were going to sail to a French island and attempt to disrupt the nuclear testing there. It doesn't get any more "national security" than interfering in nuclear operations. I didn't say it was right; I said they had the right.
I was aware of the background. But no other environmental groups sent ships into a nuclear test area. France has just as might right as every other country to develop these weapons, as horrible as they are. And the United States also did testing in the middle of the ocean, as well as Russia, and India too will probably do testing unless they get cooperation from western countries to develop the technology without needing to do so. Greenpeace was interfering with the national sovereignty of France. It'd be the same if they sailed in front of a air craft carrier launching from the Seattle shipyards, or interfered with Navy operations; They'd be boarded and arrested. In international waters, every military vessel has that right.
Do I agree with their course of action? No, and let's make that clear. But Greenpeace crossed a line and the normally reserved French were incensed enough about it to sink their ship. That speaks to something.
In other words, Obama understands the need for a symbol, and this is his signal to NASA. The space program has long been a symbol of American achievement and in a time like this, we need symbols of hope. We need to prove that in spite of everything we can still reach for the stars. It's politically sound. But he also wants NASA to get its act together -- he wants the best, and this is also a message to NASA that average and substandard won't be tolerated.
social solidarity matters and that's what the free software movement is really all about.
Sure, and the free software movement is a lot like the GLBT movement I'm involved with this way; Too many people getting hung up on labels and esoteric issues that they forget the reason they're there in the first place. Look at how the HRC quietly tried to maneuver transgender protections out of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) -- which got them kicked out of a great many PRIDE events this year and saw the resignation of several board members and a significant portion of its charity fundraising evaporate. They're a lame duck now.:( It seems every social movement has to learn the same lessons the same way--it has to nearly fall apart before it can really come together.
Fair enough, but he is an exception and it still supports the assertion that rich people stay rich. They don't "become rich" and then spend it all and become "not rich" again, as the previous poster suggested.
Greenpeace--Seriously? They're the PETA of the environmentalist movement. It's like how I feel having Michael Moore on Team Liberal, or Richard Simmons on Team Gay. These people are bordering on terrorist tactics; They have put concrete plugs in industrial exhaust plumes, endangering the plant workers inside and risking explosions. They've put their little boats in front of major ships in international waters, causing trade disruption. Their little protests cause a lot of economic damage, and their so-called "non-violent" stance? Please! There's press you can find online of various groups claiming to act for Greenpeace that have assaulted people. Of course, Greenpeace denies that they were acting for the cause (and they might even be right) -- but this group tends to attract the fringe and the radicals. There's a reason the FBI has them on several watchlists.:\ I mean, the French bombed their flag ship! The French -- you know, white flags France... Yeah, Greenpeace pissed them off enough that the President himself ordered their ship blown up.
If you're an environmentalist, or a greenie, you DO NOT WANT Greenpeace on your team.
I am a case in point? Sorry, I don't understand what you're implying. Did I attack you? No. Was I offensive towards you? No. So why aren't you showing me the same respect? I actually never mentioned you at all in my comment except to add context. So I'm not really sure what your reply is meant to mean. Thanks.
The seriousness cops will be by to pick you up shortly, please place your hands in the little circles on the wall.:) I meant no disrespect... You just underscored my point which is that geeks like to argue over minutiae. Sometimes a little ambiguity is okay, that's all. I think the definition of "Free as in freedom, not free as in beer" is a good enough definition for 99.9% of all these arguments, but many people insist on making something that could be simple into something really complicated.
Well, I think the FSF are taking the exact opposite approach to the example you cite in your comment (note that I am not commenting on whether I agree with their definition or not). But that's the key word. Definition. The FSF are trying to define free software; probably to help ensure that things (subjective arguments) like your comment refers to don't occur. Everything in your comment referred to (by example) was, really, about personal opinion--i.e. people arguing semantics. The thing is though, they're aguing about something that is not clearly defined. Clear definitions help rule out subjectivity. An unambiguous definition, whether it's 'right' or 'wrong', states clearly the intended meaning--leaving little room for argument over the definition.
*blinks* Umm wow. I was mocking the common tendancy of smart, geeky types to over-analyze and get lost in the details, and you've just written an entire paragraph to say "It's good to agree on definitions before arguing over substance". You are a case in point tonight my friend.;)
I suppose we'd all better find something else to do. Given how much of Slashdot is devoted to pointless arguments, the only thing that makes sense is to shut the whole site down.
Can't do that. I don't have anything better to do; That's why I'm here.;) And you give me way too much credit -- I don't care at all about how FOSS is defined or Richard Stallman's latest diatribe, or how linux is being ruined by code of an impure nature. It's just the adult version of what boys do when they play with their toys...
"I blast you with my laser beam"
"I block your laser beam with my shield"
"nuh uh, because my laser beams are mega fusion powered"
"yeah so? I told you my shield bounces all lasers back to you. so you blow up."
"no I don't! it bounces into the ground underneath you and you fall into the hole." *kicks sand*
This can go on for hours. Then they grow up, forget about all of this, and then standing by the soda machine one day...
"I just built this server with raid 1+0 running an oracle database and 4GB of RAM"
"Well that'll only handle about a thousand users unless you use dual NICs, which you don't have"
"nuh uh, it has a gigabit ATM card which is more than enough to handle those requests"
"Yeah until that guy in marketing runs a query on the entire recordset to find week to week sales figures" *kicks sand*
You capture the essence of the entire debate, and get modded down for Flame bait...:) Like you can flame someone on the surface of the sun... You just left out one part.
The vast majority that don't care about the vocabulary. They just like the stuff they use, and are amused by the spectacle.
Yeah. I'm one of them. Some people take this stuff way too seriously. It's been said before the greatest spectator sport ever is politics. The only thing that would make it better would be if they dressed up in football uniforms while they did it. All those nice padded butts... MMmmmMMMmmmmm....:D Oh, sorry.. Forgot, room full of guys. achem... carry on.
Your link doesn't even address the statement you quoted, so I don't really see how you can expect me to revise anything.
At least I'm providing links, achem. You said earlier "What you and the other numbnut are referring to is the infinitesimal percentage of people who actually know how to make large amounts of money, and use it wisely." I was quoting statistics about how big that percentage is. These people don't make large amounts of money, they have large amounts of money. The numbers suggest that these people save a disproportionate amount of wealth; their overall flow, that is, how much money they are making over a given period of time versus how much they're spending is wildly disproportionate compared to the average person.
Here's a listing of the richest people in the world and a quip about how they did it. Let's test the assertion you made that "a large percentage of those who were rich last year are poor today"... Source
#1 Warren Buffett Age: 77 Net worth: $66 bil -- "Son of Nebraska politician delivered newspapers as a boy. Filed first tax return at age 13, claiming $35 deduction for bicycle. Studied under value investing guru Benjamin Graham at Columbia. Took over textile firm Berkshire Hathaway 1965. Today holding company invested in insurance (Geico, General Re), jewelry (Borsheim's), utilities (MidAmerican Energy), food (Dairy Queen, See's Candies)."
Well, this guy seems to have made his fortune by saving and investing over the course of his entire life.
#2 Carlos Slim Helu & family Age: 68 Net worth: $60 bil "thanks to strong Mexican equities market and the performance of his wireless telephone company, America Movil. The son of a Lebanese immigrant, Slim made his first fortune in 1990 when he bought fixed line operator Telefonos de Mexico (Telmex) in a privatization. In December, America Movil struck a deal with Yahoo to provide mobile Web services to 16 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean."
This guy seems to have made his fortune by being at the right time and place, and has been busy expanding in his market ever since.
#3 William Gates III Age: 52 Net Worth: $58.0 bil
Do I even need to say it? He got lucky and has sat on his ever-growing gold horde ever since.
#4 Lakshmi Mittal Age: 57 Net Worth: $45.0 bil "Heads world's largest steelmaker, $105 billion (sales) ArcelorMittal, which accounts for 10% of all crude steel production."
This guy was born into it.
#5 Mukesh Ambani Age: 50 Net Worth: $43.0 bil "Asia's richest resident heads petrochemicals giant Reliance Industries, India's most valuable company by market cap. His fortune is up $22.9 billion since last year, making him the world's second biggest gainer in terms of dollars. The biggest gainer was his estranged brother Anil, who ranks 6th in the world just behind his older brother. The sons inherited their fortune from their late father, renowned industrialist Dhirubhai Ambani."
Another guy born into it.
#6 Anil Ambani Age: 48 Net Worth: $42.0 bil "The sons inherited their fortune from their late father, renowned industrialist Dhirubhai Ambani. But they couldn't get along and in 2005 their mother brokered a peace settlement breaking up the family's assets."
Another guy born into it.
#7 Ingvar Kamprad & family Age: 81 Net Worth: $31.0 bil Peddled matches, fish, pens, Christmas cards and other items by bicycle as a teenager. Started selling furniture in 1947. Now his company Ikea, which sells hip designs for the cost conscious, is one of the most beloved retailers in the world, with an almost cultlike following.
This guy clawed his way to the top and now sits on his horde.
Oh god, here we go again with another sequel to "Defining Free Software: The Neverending Story"...
It's just like people who argue the United States is a democracy. Then some joker has to stand up and correct them and say it's actually a federated republic. And then someone has to mention that it's a capitalistic federated republic. And then the grizzly-haired guy in back stands up and he says it can't be capitalism because we've got things like the Security and Exchange Commission, and rules and regulations, and the FCC, and the FDA, and and and -- why my god there's an awful lot of socialism here. And then someone has to point out that what we're really talking about is whether something is mostly a free market, because nothing out there is truly one thing or another-- And then the liberal arts major stands up and everybody laughs at him before he can say anything.
I'm going out for a smoke... I already know how this ends. Mr. Rogers wins (in a blood stained sweater).
Prevalent bulk of the populaton sinking from middle class to working poor reflects this, I'd expect, already, as life expectancy even in the last hundred years has jumped from perhaps 80 to perhaps 100? Im not familiar with the exact numbers as per census, but I'd love to see them for the sake of comparisson.
I'd love to give them to you too, but unfortunately the sudden collapse of the middle class is a recent phenomenon and we're going to have to wait another 4-8 years to have reliable metrics and analysis on why this is happening or what its impact is. what I can say, however, is that the life expectancy in this country has been on an overall upward trend, but these past 5 years has stagnated and for some groups reversed due to harsh economic realities... Or so a lot of people suspect.
If history is any judge, medical processes get consistently cheaper and more widely available.
I'm sorry but the facts do not support this conclusion. The percentage of uninsured persons in the United States has been on the rise for some time and as of 2006 was at just over 20%. The percentage of people (workers and dependents) with employment-based health insurance has dropped from 70 percent in 1987 to 59 percent in 2006. Clearly, availability is going down. As to costs... You must not read the papers. Medicaid is about to go bankrupt due to skyrocketing health care costs.
Do you seriously believe the only way to acquire wealth is to sit and wait for someone to die and have it given to you? Sheesh.
I didn't say it was the only way. They could spend it. The majority of wealth (~70%) is owned by under 5% of the population, and given their spending habits, I just think it's far more practical to wait for them to die.
Let me tell you the easiest way to become wealthy: SAVE. That simple. Don't be a typical consumer idiot. Save 25% of your income. By the time you retire, you will be one of those rich people you think hoard all the wealth.
I thought the easiest way was being born into a rich family or winning the lottery. And as to "saving"... Honey, don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining; Most of us are living paycheck to paycheck, and we spend everything we get on basic necessities. We're not "consumer idiots" -- the technical term for people like us is fucking broke.
What makes you think immortality leads to population increases?
People live longer and they're still going to want to fuck. Heeeere's your sign.
I doubt that immortal people will continue to crank out kids decade after decade.
Funny, since most people look at having kids as their best shot at immortality.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, but calling her "First human to use graphical representation of data" (Pioneer) is completely bullshit.
I didn't say that and neither has anyone else. I said she deserves a lot more credit than she's gotten, and that has nothing to do with her equipment, feminism, propaganda, or tricks. It has everything to do with her working her ass off to save lives, and applying a very creative solution to a previously intractable problem and then succeeding against the incredible stigma and prejudice that beset her on all sides -- a disreputable profession, an entrenched bureauacracy, and sexism that makes your brand of idiocy look like decaf.
Now bugger off or I shall taunt you a second time.
Ah ha ... now there's where you went wrong.
Compared to the general population, even Anonymous Coward is educated. Is probably an alcoholic too, but with a name like that I'd probably drink too.
Maybe; from the little I know she seemed very capable. But conversely, if she was a man nobody would feel the need to write an article about it.
You're absolutely right, nobody would feel they had to. When a woman is acknowledged it's out of pity or some emotive source. When a man is acknowledged it's because of his (objective) accomplishments. Two hundred years and you've just underscored how very little things have changed. When people no longer have to go out of their way to find and honor the contributions of women, when their names simply added to the book without a second thought -- then we'll have progress.
Thank you for showing us just how deeply sexism pervades our society, even amongst the most technical and literate of the population (like here, on slashdot).
If she'd been a man presenting this, she'd have made the equivalent of surgeon general in her career. -_- No joke--Despite the blessing of Queen Victoria herself, she was denied a chairman position that oversaw general health affairs in the military. I doubt there's an academic statistics book currently in circulation that gives her any credit for this. Even this--a zine read by only a tiny, tiny fraction of the people who go to school every year and rely on her innovation. Hell, the entire field of field medicine was in disrepute at that time in history -- who needs medicine? Most nurses spent at least part of their time in the kitchen, which was viewed as more important. She made it important. It's been two centuries since then and she's still only a footnote. Today, graphical statistics are used in every trained discipline from engineering to medicine to management, but nobody knows this woman's name. They should -- they owe her a lot.
Or maybe the hackers in the US are smart enough to not get caught in the first place. The best hacker in the world is someone nobody's heard of. You know, as long as we're doing conspiracy theory, we might as well make it sound good.... ;)
Obviously it would take a high degree of coordination and skill but an electronic attack could take them out for awhile. It's been done before to large companies. My only point is that google is an attractive target for a great many political interests both domestically and abroad.
It's fitting that the NY Times used the word protean to describe Google, since the word also has alternative meanings as a bacteria and is linked to a greek fable of a shape-changing god of the ocean. The problem of the internet is that people, unlike machines, don't handle decentralization well. Anarchy has always been a temporary reprise from authoritarian constructs. In and of itself that's not a problem, but there's too much political pressure to censor, alter, and manipulate access to online information, and let's face it: Very, very few of us have the resources to conduct an exhaustive independent search on the internet.
Honestly, I'm surprised the United States hasn't declared Google (and other major internet pieces) a national security asset and moved to place it under government protection. They've done it before -- citizens who worked on the Manhattan project, for example. It could also easily be looked at as a target for terrorism -- blasting google out of the water would have significant press coverage; And isn't the big reason for terrorism to be visible? It's hard to come up with a bigger target online right now than them.
cue fear-mongerers and anti-government commentary in 5...4...3...
Countries do this all the time. The United States' CIA has ordered assassinations in the past on drug cartel leaders, insurgents, terrorists, and even country leaders in the name of national security. They were going to sail to a French island and attempt to disrupt the nuclear testing there. It doesn't get any more "national security" than interfering in nuclear operations. I didn't say it was right; I said they had the right.
I was aware of the background. But no other environmental groups sent ships into a nuclear test area. France has just as might right as every other country to develop these weapons, as horrible as they are. And the United States also did testing in the middle of the ocean, as well as Russia, and India too will probably do testing unless they get cooperation from western countries to develop the technology without needing to do so. Greenpeace was interfering with the national sovereignty of France. It'd be the same if they sailed in front of a air craft carrier launching from the Seattle shipyards, or interfered with Navy operations; They'd be boarded and arrested. In international waters, every military vessel has that right.
Do I agree with their course of action? No, and let's make that clear. But Greenpeace crossed a line and the normally reserved French were incensed enough about it to sink their ship. That speaks to something.
In other words, Obama understands the need for a symbol, and this is his signal to NASA. The space program has long been a symbol of American achievement and in a time like this, we need symbols of hope. We need to prove that in spite of everything we can still reach for the stars. It's politically sound. But he also wants NASA to get its act together -- he wants the best, and this is also a message to NASA that average and substandard won't be tolerated.
No, I was referring to the cars, which by casual observation appear to be the dominant lifeforms on this planet. I've never heard of intelligent meat.
social solidarity matters and that's what the free software movement is really all about.
Sure, and the free software movement is a lot like the GLBT movement I'm involved with this way; Too many people getting hung up on labels and esoteric issues that they forget the reason they're there in the first place. Look at how the HRC quietly tried to maneuver transgender protections out of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) -- which got them kicked out of a great many PRIDE events this year and saw the resignation of several board members and a significant portion of its charity fundraising evaporate. They're a lame duck now. :( It seems every social movement has to learn the same lessons the same way--it has to nearly fall apart before it can really come together.
Fair enough, but he is an exception and it still supports the assertion that rich people stay rich. They don't "become rich" and then spend it all and become "not rich" again, as the previous poster suggested.
... Heh, figures. Truth hurts.
Greenpeace--Seriously? They're the PETA of the environmentalist movement. It's like how I feel having Michael Moore on Team Liberal, or Richard Simmons on Team Gay. These people are bordering on terrorist tactics; They have put concrete plugs in industrial exhaust plumes, endangering the plant workers inside and risking explosions. They've put their little boats in front of major ships in international waters, causing trade disruption. Their little protests cause a lot of economic damage, and their so-called "non-violent" stance? Please! There's press you can find online of various groups claiming to act for Greenpeace that have assaulted people. Of course, Greenpeace denies that they were acting for the cause (and they might even be right) -- but this group tends to attract the fringe and the radicals. There's a reason the FBI has them on several watchlists. :\ I mean, the French bombed their flag ship! The French -- you know, white flags France... Yeah, Greenpeace pissed them off enough that the President himself ordered their ship blown up.
If you're an environmentalist, or a greenie, you DO NOT WANT Greenpeace on your team.
I am a case in point? Sorry, I don't understand what you're implying. Did I attack you? No. Was I offensive towards you? No. So why aren't you showing me the same respect? I actually never mentioned you at all in my comment except to add context. So I'm not really sure what your reply is meant to mean. Thanks.
The seriousness cops will be by to pick you up shortly, please place your hands in the little circles on the wall. :) I meant no disrespect... You just underscored my point which is that geeks like to argue over minutiae. Sometimes a little ambiguity is okay, that's all. I think the definition of "Free as in freedom, not free as in beer" is a good enough definition for 99.9% of all these arguments, but many people insist on making something that could be simple into something really complicated.
Well, I think the FSF are taking the exact opposite approach to the example you cite in your comment (note that I am not commenting on whether I agree with their definition or not). But that's the key word. Definition. The FSF are trying to define free software; probably to help ensure that things (subjective arguments) like your comment refers to don't occur. Everything in your comment referred to (by example) was, really, about personal opinion--i.e. people arguing semantics. The thing is though, they're aguing about something that is not clearly defined. Clear definitions help rule out subjectivity. An unambiguous definition, whether it's 'right' or 'wrong', states clearly the intended meaning--leaving little room for argument over the definition.
*blinks* Umm wow. I was mocking the common tendancy of smart, geeky types to over-analyze and get lost in the details, and you've just written an entire paragraph to say "It's good to agree on definitions before arguing over substance". You are a case in point tonight my friend. ;)
I suppose we'd all better find something else to do. Given how much of Slashdot is devoted to pointless arguments, the only thing that makes sense is to shut the whole site down.
Can't do that. I don't have anything better to do; That's why I'm here. ;) And you give me way too much credit -- I don't care at all about how FOSS is defined or Richard Stallman's latest diatribe, or how linux is being ruined by code of an impure nature. It's just the adult version of what boys do when they play with their toys...
"I blast you with my laser beam"
"I block your laser beam with my shield"
"nuh uh, because my laser beams are mega fusion powered"
"yeah so? I told you my shield bounces all lasers back to you. so you blow up."
"no I don't! it bounces into the ground underneath you and you fall into the hole." *kicks sand*
This can go on for hours. Then they grow up, forget about all of this, and then standing by the soda machine one day...
"I just built this server with raid 1+0 running an oracle database and 4GB of RAM"
"Well that'll only handle about a thousand users unless you use dual NICs, which you don't have"
"nuh uh, it has a gigabit ATM card which is more than enough to handle those requests"
"Yeah until that guy in marketing runs a query on the entire recordset to find week to week sales figures" *kicks sand*
You capture the essence of the entire debate, and get modded down for Flame bait... :) Like you can flame someone on the surface of the sun... You just left out one part.
The vast majority that don't care about the vocabulary. They just like the stuff they use, and are amused by the spectacle.
Yeah. I'm one of them. Some people take this stuff way too seriously. It's been said before the greatest spectator sport ever is politics. The only thing that would make it better would be if they dressed up in football uniforms while they did it. All those nice padded butts... MMmmmMMMmmmmm.... :D Oh, sorry.. Forgot, room full of guys. achem... carry on.
Your link doesn't even address the statement you quoted, so I don't really see how you can expect me to revise anything.
At least I'm providing links, achem. You said earlier "What you and the other numbnut are referring to is the infinitesimal percentage of people who actually know how to make large amounts of money, and use it wisely." I was quoting statistics about how big that percentage is. These people don't make large amounts of money, they have large amounts of money. The numbers suggest that these people save a disproportionate amount of wealth; their overall flow, that is, how much money they are making over a given period of time versus how much they're spending is wildly disproportionate compared to the average person.
Here's a listing of the richest people in the world and a quip about how they did it. Let's test the assertion you made that "a large percentage of those who were rich last year are poor today"... Source
#1 Warren Buffett
Age: 77
Net worth: $66 bil
--
"Son of Nebraska politician delivered newspapers as a boy. Filed first tax return at age 13, claiming $35 deduction for bicycle. Studied under value investing guru Benjamin Graham at Columbia. Took over textile firm Berkshire Hathaway 1965. Today holding company invested in insurance (Geico, General Re), jewelry (Borsheim's), utilities (MidAmerican Energy), food (Dairy Queen, See's Candies)."
Well, this guy seems to have made his fortune by saving and investing over the course of his entire life.
#2 Carlos Slim Helu & family
Age: 68
Net worth: $60 bil
"thanks to strong Mexican equities market and the performance of his wireless telephone company, America Movil. The son of a Lebanese immigrant, Slim made his first fortune in 1990 when he bought fixed line operator Telefonos de Mexico (Telmex) in a privatization. In December, America Movil struck a deal with Yahoo to provide mobile Web services to 16 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean."
This guy seems to have made his fortune by being at the right time and place, and has been busy expanding in his market ever since.
#3 William Gates III
Age: 52
Net Worth: $58.0 bil
Do I even need to say it? He got lucky and has sat on his ever-growing gold horde ever since.
#4 Lakshmi Mittal
Age: 57
Net Worth: $45.0 bil
"Heads world's largest steelmaker, $105 billion (sales) ArcelorMittal, which accounts for 10% of all crude steel production."
This guy was born into it.
#5 Mukesh Ambani
Age: 50
Net Worth: $43.0 bil
"Asia's richest resident heads petrochemicals giant Reliance Industries, India's most valuable company by market cap. His fortune is up $22.9 billion since last year, making him the world's second biggest gainer in terms of dollars. The biggest gainer was his estranged brother Anil, who ranks 6th in the world just behind his older brother. The sons inherited their fortune from their late father, renowned industrialist Dhirubhai Ambani."
Another guy born into it.
#6 Anil Ambani
Age: 48
Net Worth: $42.0 bil
"The sons inherited their fortune from their late father, renowned industrialist Dhirubhai Ambani. But they couldn't get along and in 2005 their mother brokered a peace settlement breaking up the family's assets."
Another guy born into it.
#7 Ingvar Kamprad & family
Age: 81
Net Worth: $31.0 bil
Peddled matches, fish, pens, Christmas cards and other items by bicycle as a teenager. Started selling furniture in 1947. Now his company Ikea, which sells hip designs for the cost conscious, is one of the most beloved retailers in the world, with an almost cultlike following.
This guy clawed his way to the top and now sits on his horde.
#8 KP Singh
Age: 76
Net Worth: $30.
As I mentioned in my previous post, Chuck Norris loses to Mr. Rogers. ._.
Oh god, here we go again with another sequel to "Defining Free Software: The Neverending Story"...
It's just like people who argue the United States is a democracy. Then some joker has to stand up and correct them and say it's actually a federated republic. And then someone has to mention that it's a capitalistic federated republic. And then the grizzly-haired guy in back stands up and he says it can't be capitalism because we've got things like the Security and Exchange Commission, and rules and regulations, and the FCC, and the FDA, and and and -- why my god there's an awful lot of socialism here. And then someone has to point out that what we're really talking about is whether something is mostly a free market, because nothing out there is truly one thing or another-- And then the liberal arts major stands up and everybody laughs at him before he can say anything.
I'm going out for a smoke... I already know how this ends. Mr. Rogers wins (in a blood stained sweater).
I do real security. I work with people who do real security. Password anal retentiveness never ever helps; it just pisses users off.
I heart you. ^_^
Prevalent bulk of the populaton sinking from middle class to working poor reflects this, I'd expect, already, as life expectancy even in the last hundred years has jumped from perhaps 80 to perhaps 100? Im not familiar with the exact numbers as per census, but I'd love to see them for the sake of comparisson.
I'd love to give them to you too, but unfortunately the sudden collapse of the middle class is a recent phenomenon and we're going to have to wait another 4-8 years to have reliable metrics and analysis on why this is happening or what its impact is. what I can say, however, is that the life expectancy in this country has been on an overall upward trend, but these past 5 years has stagnated and for some groups reversed due to harsh economic realities... Or so a lot of people suspect.
If history is any judge, medical processes get consistently cheaper and more widely available.
I'm sorry but the facts do not support this conclusion. The percentage of uninsured persons in the United States has been on the rise for some time and as of 2006 was at just over 20%. The percentage of people (workers and dependents) with employment-based health insurance has dropped from 70 percent in 1987 to 59 percent in 2006. Clearly, availability is going down. As to costs... You must not read the papers. Medicaid is about to go bankrupt due to skyrocketing health care costs.
Do you seriously believe the only way to acquire wealth is to sit and wait for someone to die and have it given to you? Sheesh.
I didn't say it was the only way. They could spend it. The majority of wealth (~70%) is owned by under 5% of the population, and given their spending habits, I just think it's far more practical to wait for them to die.
Let me tell you the easiest way to become wealthy: SAVE. That simple. Don't be a typical consumer idiot. Save 25% of your income. By the time you retire, you will be one of those rich people you think hoard all the wealth.
I thought the easiest way was being born into a rich family or winning the lottery. And as to "saving"... Honey, don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining; Most of us are living paycheck to paycheck, and we spend everything we get on basic necessities. We're not "consumer idiots" -- the technical term for people like us is fucking broke.
What makes you think immortality leads to population increases?
People live longer and they're still going to want to fuck. Heeeere's your sign.
I doubt that immortal people will continue to crank out kids decade after decade.
Funny, since most people look at having kids as their best shot at immortality.