I think you're misreading and misapplying that chart.
It doesn't say that the tax rate of the 6836 people at the top is 3%. It says that top 6836 had 2.8% of all the taxable income in the US but paid 5.1% of all the income taxes.
The bottom chart is more interesting.
Is shows that the top 2,567,220 filers account for over 40% of all income tax given to the federal government. That's out of 130,000,000.
What is local? Your home? Block? Town? County? State? Region? Country? Planet? Saying it should be a local decision is sort of like saying too violent. How do you define it?
Good question. I would define "local" as meaning the extent of the effects. A town or city would probably be considered local in this case since most children and teens tend not to stray far from their city or town.
you linked to one site... that's not science, thats biased FUD
You didn't bother to check the links, did you?
Sciencedaily is merely a site that collects university press releases and stories all related to science. They have no mission or agenda. Take a look for yourself.
That said, the decision to ban violent video games should be a local one. If people wish to accept the risks the might come with allowing violent video games in their city, town, etc, that's fine and it's no one else's business.
Likewise, places that don't wish to accept the risks shouldn't be forced to.
If people want to live in "Safetyland", let them create such a place.
And if people want "Anarchyville", let them create a place.
But we should never advocate that one philosophy be THE single philosophy over the entire country. Let people find or make the place that's right for them.
This will be their downfall. In the end, people will remember Charter Schools USA as "difficult to deal with" and not as a good place to send their child to.
Sad.
No, good. This is how it should work. You screw up, you lose students and the money that comes with them.
What is sad it that this doesn't happen to government schools.
I'm afraid I find your logic a little hard to follow here. You see, what I would say is that the US should sincerely make an effort to investigate it's own mistakes and report on them honestly for multiple different reasons.
And the problem is that, unless the US investigation implies US guilt, they will be accused of not investigating sincerely.
People don't want facts. What they want is to have their anti-US prejudices justified and reinforced. They would prefer to believe lies that support their sense of moral supperiority instead of facts that might deflate their egos.
So, why should the US bother helping them? Where is their sincerity?
How is that interesting? It's the report by the US supposed to show that the US didn't do anything wrong. How is that a surprise?
It's this very logic that gives the US no reason to report anything else.
It's unlikely that you or anyone else would give credit to the US for revealing information damaging to the US. You'd simply use the information to further bludgeon the country.
It's ashame that we've decending to the point where honesty is second to making sure my group/nation/country/ethnicity/political party beats your group/nation/country/ethnicity/political party.
Take for example Massachusetts Sentencing Guidlines. And compare it to this new federal law that was signed. Larceny on a scale of $10,000-$50,000 can get an offender 36 months (in some cases, less!) than someone breaking copyright on a *single file*.
And the power of the internet is such that breaking the copyright on a single movie can lead to millions in lost sales. Just place the file on Gnutella and watch the leaching.
And we're not talking about movies seen at 3am on the "lame 60's horror movie reruns" channel. These are new movies.
The potential exists that millions will have watched the movie before it even makes it into the theater. How much money does that represent?
So consider this: you can potentially cause losses in the millions of dollars, yet only get up to 3 years.
Touchy, aren't we? Who pissed in YOUR cornflakes this morning?
I think you're projecting. Relax.
The simple fact is that the US is NOT the "longest-running continuous government in the world" no matter how you slice it. As I pointed out, the Brits have a parliament that goes back to LONG before North America was even discovered.
I think most people would agree that the British form of government essentially changed with Parliment Acts 1911 and 1949 basically making the government uni-cameral. This would be like the house of representatives passing a law saying the senate was no longer necessary.
Such a dramatic alteration in government amounts to a change in government since it alters the very principles on which law is made. "Do we re-write the constitution every 4 years? Nope.
No, but your current government is doing a nasty end-run around it. Maybe you should rewrite it to prevent such abuses in the future, instead of trying to get a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
Just because the government is doing things you don't like doesn't mean it's doing some "nasty end-run around it".
The full text of the constituion in online. I'll concede your point if you can give me an example where this administration is doing an "end-run" around the constitution. Just give me an action of theirs and the corresponding clause of the constitution that's being violated.
Do we re-write the constitution every 4 years? Nope.
And what about the fact that Senators have 6 years terms? Oh, and about 1/3 have are elected every 2 years. So, does the government get "re-booted" every 2 years then even though 2/3rds of the Senators are not involved in the election?
And what about the Supreme court? It's members are appointed for life. Yet they are responsible for interpreting the constitution (the law of the land). Do they change their minds every 4 years?
I'll take a stab at this... GCC BASH GNU/HURD Linux Minix
Those are a few of the things which would not have been invented had it not been for copyright law and the restrictions surrounding the use and distribution of UNIX.
If you decide to go with this kind of setup, try to make sure you use a fan with low vibration (well balanced, low speed). The last thing you need with a hard drive is more vibration. The drive head is only flying a few hundred molecules above the drive surface.
Most drives can stand the head being somewhat jarred up and down perpendicular to the platters, but any vibration that tends to move the head laterally can increase the time it takes to seek a track.
Yes, vibrations of a sort can actually reduce drive performance.
That said, I think it might be difficult to get a fan that vibrated enough to make much difference. But a server next to an airport or construction site might see an effect.
2015, averaging right around oil peaking, with all its fun geopolitical and subsequent economic ramifications. I think the more pressing questions then will be, how am I going to eat today, than what google will look like.
Actually, 2005 may be the year of the peak.
The only reason it hasn't been sooner is that demand from China and other developing countries has been so strong and raising prices that suppliers have been busting their butts to get at more oil.
Of course there are physical limits that can't be overcome.
But lets hope you're right and it's 10 years away.
In any event, start getting your shit together now.
One of the biggest performance helps is to keep the paging file from being fragmented, and I'm not talking about three or four fragments.
The trouble is that some (like Windows) memory allocation algorithms combined with demand paging cause accesses to the page file to be mostly spacially random.
While moving the pieces of the page file physically closer together on the disk helps a little, there isn't a huge improvement because accessing sectors in anything but sequencial order will still be terribly slow.
In fact, for certain sequences of access, getting a sector from a neighboring track might even be faster than getting one on the same track. If you have a 7200 rpm drive, it might take up to 8 ms to get another sector from a track just accessed since you're forced to wait for the disk to spin it around to you. A track to track seek, on the other hand might take just 2 ms. If you seek a neighboring track and happen to pick up the sector you need right away, you might only have to wait 2ms. Of course, if you miss, you may end up having to wait 2ms+8ms, but like I said it depends on the sequence.
One of the reasons SCSI drives have historically been so much faster than IDE is because they can take a list of sectors to be accessed and change the order to minimize total access time. Newer IDE and SATA drives have this ability, too.
For a single faulting application this may not help that much since the app is probably waiting anyway for a new page to be brought in.
But suppose you have several faulting processes. If the system is smart, these faults will get queued up, rearranged, and serviced by the drive in an manner that tends to get all of them up and running again as quickly as possible.
I beg your pardon? Shacks? Please do tell me in which country you saw this. I have lived and worked in no less than 5 European countries and visited nearly all the western ones. I have never seen anyone living in shacks.
They do amount to shacks when compared to what most Americans have.
"The average size of a newly-built US single-family house has ballooned from 983 square feet in 1950 to 2,230 square feet in 2002, a rise of 126 percent in just over half a century. A record 37 percent of new homes built in the US last year boasted four or more bedrooms; an even more remarkable 95 percent had two bathrooms or more. "
"These homes are not merely the preserve of the rich: a median new house in the US costs about $200,000 (UKpound 110,000, E166,000) and 68.4 percent of Americans own their home. An Englishman's home may still be his castle; an American's home is undoubtedly his palace. "
"All the statistics tell the same story: the proportion of new US homes that are less than 1,200 square feet has tumbled from 62 percent in 1950 to 5 percent last year, while the share of those over 2,400 square feet has increased from 10 percent in 1970 to 37 percent in 2003. In 1950, 66 percent of new houses had two bedrooms; today, only 11 percent do; only 1 percent benefited from four or more bedrooms in 1950, today the proportion is 37 percent and rising. "
"Americans also enjoy more bathrooms, fireplaces and garages: 96 percent of new homes had on average 1.5 or fewer bathrooms in 1950, compared with just 5 percent today (US housing statistics rate some bathrooms as half-units). By contrast, the number of homes fitted with 2.5 or more bathrooms has surged from 1 percent to 56 percent. Around 88 percent of new homes come fitted with air-conditioning; 54 percent with one fireplace and 5 percent with two or more; 83 percent include a two-car or larger garage. "
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're misreading and misapplying that chart.
It doesn't say that the tax rate of the 6836 people at the top is 3%. It says that top 6836 had 2.8% of all the taxable income in the US but paid 5.1% of all the income taxes.
The bottom chart is more interesting.
Is shows that the top 2,567,220 filers account for over 40% of all income tax given to the federal government. That's out of 130,000,000.
Excellent point.
I guess the lesson is that, whenever you install someone elses software on you system, you're essentially letting them use that system.
Can you always trust them to do the right thing? Not in this case, apparently.
No amount of money will make a dolt a genius.
I know. I've tried.
What is local? Your home? Block? Town? County? State? Region? Country? Planet? Saying it should be a local decision is sort of like saying too violent. How do you define it?
Good question. I would define "local" as meaning the extent of the effects. A town or city would probably be considered local in this case since most children and teens tend not to stray far from their city or town.
you linked to one site... that's not science, thats biased FUD
You didn't bother to check the links, did you?
Sciencedaily is merely a site that collects university press releases and stories all related to science. They have no mission or agenda. Take a look for yourself.
Violent Video Games Can Increase Aggression
Report Shows 'Unequivocal Evidence' That Media Violence Has Significant Negative Impact On Children
Violence Is A Learned Behavior, Say Researchers At Wake Forest University
Gratuitous Media Violence Can Increase Violent Responses To Provocation, Acceptance Of Violence, Studies Show
Violent Music Lyrics Increase Aggressive Thoughts And Feelings, According To New Study; Even Humorous Violent Songs Increase Hostile Feelings
That said, the decision to ban violent video games should be a local one. If people wish to accept the risks the might come with allowing violent video games in their city, town, etc, that's fine and it's no one else's business.
Likewise, places that don't wish to accept the risks shouldn't be forced to.
If people want to live in "Safetyland", let them create such a place.
And if people want "Anarchyville", let them create a place.
But we should never advocate that one philosophy be THE single philosophy over the entire country. Let people find or make the place that's right for them.
A country is a machine, and like all machines, good design pays off.
I suppose the government/dictator/party in charge gets to do the designing, while the rest of us cogs in the machine just do what we're told.
This will be their downfall. In the end, people will remember Charter Schools USA as "difficult to deal with" and not as a good place to send their child to.
Sad.
No, good. This is how it should work. You screw up, you lose students and the money that comes with them.
What is sad it that this doesn't happen to government schools.
This image is a little off the deep end, but today seems to fit.
I'm afraid I find your logic a little hard to follow here. You see, what I would say is that the US should sincerely make an effort to investigate it's own mistakes and report on them honestly for multiple different reasons.
And the problem is that, unless the US investigation implies US guilt, they will be accused of not investigating sincerely.
People don't want facts. What they want is to have their anti-US prejudices justified and reinforced. They would prefer to believe lies that support their sense of moral supperiority instead of facts that might deflate their egos.
So, why should the US bother helping them? Where is their sincerity?
How is that interesting? It's the report by the US supposed to show that the US didn't do anything wrong. How is that a surprise?
It's this very logic that gives the US no reason to report anything else.
It's unlikely that you or anyone else would give credit to the US for revealing information damaging to the US. You'd simply use the information to further bludgeon the country.
It's ashame that we've decending to the point where honesty is second to making sure my group/nation/country/ethnicity/political party beats your group/nation/country/ethnicity/political party.
Take for example Massachusetts Sentencing Guidlines. And compare it to this new federal law that was signed.
Larceny on a scale of $10,000-$50,000 can get an offender 36 months (in some cases, less!) than someone breaking copyright on a *single file*.
And the power of the internet is such that breaking the copyright on a single movie can lead to millions in lost sales. Just place the file on Gnutella and watch the leaching.
And we're not talking about movies seen at 3am on the "lame 60's horror movie reruns" channel. These are new movies.
The potential exists that millions will have watched the movie before it even makes it into the theater. How much money does that represent?
So consider this: you can potentially cause losses in the millions of dollars, yet only get up to 3 years.
Touchy, aren't we? Who pissed in YOUR cornflakes this morning?
I think you're projecting. Relax.
The simple fact is that the US is NOT the "longest-running continuous government in the world" no matter how you slice it.
As I pointed out, the Brits have a parliament that goes back to LONG before North America was even discovered.
I think most people would agree that the British form of government essentially changed with Parliment Acts 1911 and 1949 basically making the government uni-cameral. This would be like the house of representatives passing a law saying the senate was no longer necessary.
Such a dramatic alteration in government amounts to a change in government since it alters the very principles on which law is made.
"Do we re-write the constitution every 4 years? Nope.
No, but your current government is doing a nasty end-run around it. Maybe you should rewrite it to prevent such abuses in the future, instead of trying to get a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
Just because the government is doing things you don't like doesn't mean it's doing some "nasty end-run around it".
The full text of the constituion in online. I'll concede your point if you can give me an example where this administration is doing an "end-run" around the constitution. Just give me an action of theirs and the corresponding clause of the constitution that's being violated.
Nope, it gets re-booted every 4 years.
Do we re-write the constitution every 4 years? Nope.
And what about the fact that Senators have 6 years terms? Oh, and about 1/3 have are elected every 2 years. So, does the government get "re-booted" every 2 years then even though 2/3rds of the Senators are not involved in the election?
And what about the Supreme court? It's members are appointed for life. Yet they are responsible for interpreting the constitution (the law of the land). Do they change their minds every 4 years?
I'll take a stab at this...
GCC
BASH
GNU/HURD
Linux
Minix
Those are a few of the things which would not have been invented had it not been for copyright law and the restrictions surrounding the use and distribution of UNIX.
And would UNIX have existed if not for copyright?
It's difficult to believe this was done without GPL'd code.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but consider how long it took to bring Linux to it's current state. Has China really been working 10+ years on this?
It seems to me this is probably just another CherryOS.
Does anyone have access to source we can look at?
If you decide to go with this kind of setup, try to make sure you use a fan with low vibration (well balanced, low speed). The last thing you need with a hard drive is more vibration. The drive head is only flying a few hundred molecules above the drive surface.
Most drives can stand the head being somewhat jarred up and down perpendicular to the platters, but any vibration that tends to move the head laterally can increase the time it takes to seek a track.
Yes, vibrations of a sort can actually reduce drive performance.
That said, I think it might be difficult to get a fan that vibrated enough to make much difference. But a server next to an airport or construction site might see an effect.
2015, averaging right around oil peaking, with all its fun geopolitical and subsequent economic ramifications. I think the more pressing questions then will be, how am I going to eat today, than what google will look like.
Actually, 2005 may be the year of the peak.
The only reason it hasn't been sooner is that demand from China and other developing countries has been so strong and raising prices that suppliers have been busting their butts to get at more oil.
Of course there are physical limits that can't be overcome.
But lets hope you're right and it's 10 years away.
In any event, start getting your shit together now.
One of the biggest performance helps is to keep the paging file from being fragmented, and I'm not talking about three or four fragments.
The trouble is that some (like Windows) memory allocation algorithms combined with demand paging cause accesses to the page file to be mostly spacially random.
While moving the pieces of the page file physically closer together on the disk helps a little, there isn't a huge improvement because accessing sectors in anything but sequencial order will still be terribly slow.
In fact, for certain sequences of access, getting a sector from a neighboring track might even be faster than getting one on the same track. If you have a 7200 rpm drive, it might take up to 8 ms to get another sector from a track just accessed since you're forced to wait for the disk to spin it around to you. A track to track seek, on the other hand might take just 2 ms. If you seek a neighboring track and happen to pick up the sector you need right away, you might only have to wait 2ms. Of course, if you miss, you may end up having to wait 2ms+8ms, but like I said it depends on the sequence.
One of the reasons SCSI drives have historically been so much faster than IDE is because they can take a list of sectors to be accessed and change the order to minimize total access time. Newer IDE and SATA drives have this ability, too.
For a single faulting application this may not help that much since the app is probably waiting anyway for a new page to be brought in.
But suppose you have several faulting processes. If the system is smart, these faults will get queued up, rearranged, and serviced by the drive in an manner that tends to get all of them up and running again as quickly as possible.
I beg your pardon? Shacks? Please do tell me in which country you saw this. I have lived and worked in no less than 5 European countries and visited nearly all the western ones. I have never seen anyone living in shacks.
They do amount to shacks when compared to what most Americans have.
From here:
"The average size of a newly-built US single-family house has ballooned from 983 square feet in 1950 to 2,230 square feet in 2002, a rise of 126 percent in just over half a century. A record 37 percent of new homes built in the US last year boasted four or more bedrooms; an even more remarkable 95 percent had two bathrooms or more. "
"These homes are not merely the preserve of the rich: a median new house in the US costs about $200,000 (UKpound 110,000, E166,000) and 68.4 percent of Americans own their home. An Englishman's home may still be his castle; an American's home is undoubtedly his palace. "
"All the statistics tell the same story: the proportion of new US homes that are less than 1,200 square feet has tumbled from 62 percent in 1950 to 5 percent last year, while the share of those over 2,400 square feet has increased from 10 percent in 1970 to 37 percent in 2003. In 1950, 66 percent of new houses had two bedrooms; today, only 11 percent do; only 1 percent benefited from four or more bedrooms in 1950, today the proportion is 37 percent and rising. "
"Americans also enjoy more bathrooms, fireplaces and garages: 96 percent of new homes had on average 1.5 or fewer bathrooms in 1950, compared with just 5 percent today (US housing statistics rate some bathrooms as half-units). By contrast, the number of homes fitted with 2.5 or more bathrooms has surged from 1 percent to 56 percent. Around 88 percent of new homes come fitted with air-conditioning; 54 percent with one fireplace and 5 percent with two or more; 83 percent include a two-car or larger garage. "
Shacks, biatch.
I'm asking because I'm cannot think of any place in western Europe where people live in shacks.
I suppose it depends on where you decide Western Europe begins as you move west. But I did say simply Europe.
But what about slums? The United Nations Human Settlements Programme estimates there are 25 million people living in slums in Europe versus about 3 million in North America.
Can you see those from your window? Or do they not exist, too?
Those income figures are not right. All other reports say that the average for the uk is £22,000.
No. Other reports say the median UK income of full time employees is £22,000. That's not the same thing as per capita GDP.
But the Guardian is getting it's information from Payfinder.com which does give salary, not per capita income, figures.
So the average you have is for those with positions versus per capita income (including children) in the United States.
You can't compare the two.
Don't confuse per capita GDP with average wage.
But I'd still like to see your reference.
And when you say average wage, is that per capita income, or is that the average wage of those that are employed?
It's possible that the average wage could be higher and per capita income lower if unemployment in the UK is higher.
Again, do you have a reference?
The gross national income figures here show the UK with a per capita income of $24637 and the US $33684.
A cache of the report is here.
Reading your comment, and comparing it with the report, I see no evidence you actually read the report.
The report focuses on GDP, not income after taxes as you claim.
Maybe you read a different report.