Heh. Damn lies and statistics. Median income is the income that is exactly in the middle of the entire population group. What that means that the 50% of the income above is ignored, and the 50% of the income below is ignored. Median income is the one person's income right in the middle of the group.
So let's say that there are three people in China. One is making 1200 dollars a year, one is making 300 dollars a year, and one is making 100 dollars a year. The median income is 300 dollars. The average income is somewhere near 800 dollars.
China isn't the world's second largest economy. Supposedly, Japan and Germany are both higher. (Maybe. China doesn't like to give out accurate economic data.) Anyway, if you have 1.3 billion people making an average income of 1,300 dollars, of course you're going to have a tremendous economy. But remember, unless you know what numbers you're looking for, you're not going to find the proper answer.
The thing about China is that most of the folks in the cities are doing okay. They're making several thousand dollars a year. But the 90% of people in China, the peasants, are making next to nothing. They're the ones that really define how China is doing. (And they're the ones that are beginning to grouse that the revolution needs to be reformed. Scary....)
You are wrong. Marx specifically refers to a period when the proletariat is unable to govern itself. This would be the period immediately following the revolution. That period, according to Marx, would require a benevolent dictatorship, until the proletariat could govern itself.. Except that as history has taught us that dictatorships do not give up power so easily. Ask the Chinese what they thought of Mao, or the Russians Stalin, or the Cambodians Pol Pot.
1. China is running its working class over with trains when they protest. There are no civil liberties in China. If you protest, not only do you die, your family is economically ruined, if not just tossed in jail. There are no rights in China. None.
2. The median annual income for Chinese is somewhere around 300 dollars. Meanwhile, children of Communist officials are making millions of dollars from running state owned enterprises.
3. China barely keeps its population fed. And when it hasn't, it did not face revolt.
China is not Communist. They have adopted capitalist features to better squeeze money out of its people. What do we call such countries? Fascist.
Xinhuanet is state run media. This control of the media is leading (fooling) people in China into believing that things are better off than they really are. Most Chinese are not as savy as the average Slashdot reader. When they read Xinhuanet, they believe that it is the truth.
The upshot for the Communists is that by maintaining a relatively unsophisticated population, they can publish this crap. But I would suggest that most people here are not reading this correctly.
Substitute the word library for Internet cafe and the word intellectual for young people. Tell me if you like what you get. And then tell me the difference.
You are wrong. Communism does imply totalitarian governing methods. If you read it closely, you'll discover that Marx was advocating the creation of a dictatorship, to supposedly aid humanity through the hard period until it could adopt a "true Communist" government.
Marx himself thought that he would be the one leading the people. Communism is fundamentally flawed because its creator was fundamentally flawed. Marx wanted to benefit from the world wide revolution, so he created a system that was designed to be manipulated.
You certainly did extract:) . I was commenting on Galileo's durability, not necessarily its scientific contributions. There were problems with its antenna, and programming as well (iirc). But imagine if the rovers can hang on for another six months or more. Who knows. Maybe they can turn up fossilize life or something equally cool.
Unmanned missions are great. Humans can run out of food and air, and get tired and homesick. Robots can run basically forever, until something breaks or they run out of juice. If these things prove 1/50 as durable as Galileo did, they'll provide science more than we ever could have hoped for.
I actually watch that stuff when I can find it, but I live in the US, and finding it is a problem. I'm just not going to pay the special 60 dollars or more so that I can view BBC programming.
(I will admit that an inordinate amount of my money goes to buying BBC shows on DVD, but then again, I am a geek.)
Good point. News on television is laughable. Why bother with that pointless medium when you have the news you want on the Internet? You get newspaper quality coverage 24/7 and you don't need to deal with the folks who can't seem to make up their minds about what is important and what isn't. I certainly don't watch television so I can see a pixilated breast at the superbowl.
TV has to make itself more relevant if it is to survive. Sure, the Simpsons and 70s Show makes me laugh, and I might occasionally tune in, but otherwise I'll just flip it off and listen to some tunes. So basically, there's nothing good on.
So what does television need to do? Experiment. I want to see stuff on television I haven't seen before, not some dumbass sitcom that's revolutionary because it has a gay person. Real life is far more interesting. Until television takes risks that might let it fail and produces the amazing goods that result, we're not going to bother watching.
Because Google is providing a search engine. Microsoft is providing parts of the firewall and sniffer technology used to trap and jail (or eliminate) people like Stainless Steel Mouse.
That's great that the Chinese astronauts get so much wonderful food. Maybe the Chinese government could then focus on getting the millions in Henan with AIDS some food as well. Or do something about the rioting peasants in the countryside aside from running them over with trains. Maybe, just maybe, the Chinese government could show some responsibility, and try to keep all 900 million peasants fed.
Chairman Mao and his cronies killed more Chinese peasants than the Russians killed Russians, the Japanese killed Chinese, and the Germans killed Jews and other races combined.
And in other news, the United States Air force came under attack today from a group of hackers known as Slashdot. For over five hours, a "denial of service" attack was conducted against an Air Force webserver. Tom Ridge, head of the Department of Homeland Security, said he is looking into the matter, and that he is expects arrests will be made shortly.
If any organization got as much press as the SCO, regardless of whether they did anything or not, they're stock would rise in value.
Besides, the SCO might get somewhere. After all, they've got Sen. Orrin Hatch (R. Utah) looking out after them. He's got to keep his son employed somehow.
I see, what better way to avoid US censure than to attack a US vessel. I like your logic.
It's always been easier to say I'm sorry than to ask for permission. Besides, I said avoid censure in the UN. Israel wanted the best possible UN brokered peace treaty. That couldn't have happened with US opposition.
The reason Israel was so sucessful is that it caught Nasser with his pants down.
Nasser wasn't expecting a fight. Israel attacked unnecessarily. It's a fairly obvious conclusion.
He [Nasser] learned his lesson by the time '73 came around.
Nope, check your facts. Nasser was dead. Sadat led Egypt in '73.
Israel still retains parts of the West Bank. Israel controls all of Jerusalem. Israel has the Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip. They gave back Sinai, which is just a desert. Israel still retains the important and useful pieces of land from the '67 war. The war was a landgrab.
So by calling me delusional, what you're really saying is that you're lossing the argument, and you're afraid to stick around? And then saying "I'm done with you." After making your points. Your name calling is a refuge from your weak arguments.
1.) The attack on the Liberty took place to avoid a premature US censure of Israel in the United Nations.
2.) Egypt was withdrawing. It's a fact. It's one of the reasons why Israel was so successful in the Sinai.
3.) Israel attacked first. Israel began the war. The war was not justified. It was justified earlier in the year, but not when it took place. The timing of the war made it clear that it was a calculated landgrab.
Whenever someone speaks in less than glowing terms of Israel, people beging shouting about Anti-Semitism. This is nonsense. A serious discussion must be had about Israel without name-calling. The cry of Anti-Semitism has too long been a cover that Israel and her advocates uses for illegal and immoral actions.
Israel is a nation stated founded on and using the principles of terrorism. Israel continues to use terrorism to achieve its goals. US support for Israel must end. This has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with mass thievery and terrorism.
The attack on the Liberty was a deliberate attempt to cover troop movements in preparation for an assault on the Golan Heights. Israel had very good reasons for keeping that attack secret, mainly that they did not want American interference in the United Nations during the final offensive. They thought they could get away with it, and they did.
Israel did not need to attack in '67. Egypt was withdrawing and other countries in the region were standing down. There was no need for war. (In '73, Meir was so much an obstinate fool that she forced unpreparedness for the obviously impending attack.) Instead, Israel chose to attack because it was a point before Egypt and her neighbors could get any stronger.
Israel attacked Egypt in 1967. This is was the action. Israel committed the Middle East to war, not Egypt. Nasser was in the process of removing his troops from Egypt when Israel attacked. There was no excuse for Israel's belligerence.
Egypt controls one side of the canal. And the other. The canal is internal to Egypt. To say otherwise would be like saying the Mississippi River should be considered an international and free-for-all waterway.
Maybe it's time for you to learn that anti-Israel is not anti-Semetic.
Israel was on the offensive since 1948. It was a state founded on terrorism, and has not given up the use of terrorism since.
Israel attacked Egypt. That's all that happened. They attacked Egypt in '56 and they attacked Egypt in '67. Egypt attacked Israel in '72.
Israel has not offered the Palestinians a state, they have offered the Palestinians the right to starve.
The airliner shot down was not over the Indian Ocean, it was over the Persian Gulf. And the Iranian Pilot was attempting to goad the US ship. It was his bad luck it was shot down.
Current Palestinian land through which a wall is being built is controlled by Palestinians.
The legitimate "Cassus Belli" is nonsense. An internal issue of one nation is not cause for war. The treaty of Westfallia decided that.
They dropped napalm on the ship and shot it with 50 caliber machine guns. How do they miss the giant American flag, or the 6 foot western lettering on the stern at that range? And Israel paid less than 15 million dollars for a ship worth twice that. Not hundreds of millions.
And of course, the Golan Heights were used by Israel to shell Damascus in the '73 war.
If you're going to try and correct me, at least have the right war. In 1967 Israel conducted a preemptive strike against Egypt and her neighbors. You're confusing the '67 and the '73 war.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't let her go. I'm serious. Marry her in a small ceremony, and wait until you get your I-131. This is experience talking.
So let's say that there are three people in China. One is making 1200 dollars a year, one is making 300 dollars a year, and one is making 100 dollars a year. The median income is 300 dollars. The average income is somewhere near 800 dollars.
China isn't the world's second largest economy. Supposedly, Japan and Germany are both higher. (Maybe. China doesn't like to give out accurate economic data.) Anyway, if you have 1.3 billion people making an average income of 1,300 dollars, of course you're going to have a tremendous economy. But remember, unless you know what numbers you're looking for, you're not going to find the proper answer.
The thing about China is that most of the folks in the cities are doing okay. They're making several thousand dollars a year. But the 90% of people in China, the peasants, are making next to nothing. They're the ones that really define how China is doing. (And they're the ones that are beginning to grouse that the revolution needs to be reformed. Scary....)
You are wrong. Marx specifically refers to a period when the proletariat is unable to govern itself. This would be the period immediately following the revolution. That period, according to Marx, would require a benevolent dictatorship, until the proletariat could govern itself.. Except that as history has taught us that dictatorships do not give up power so easily. Ask the Chinese what they thought of Mao, or the Russians Stalin, or the Cambodians Pol Pot.
1. China is running its working class over with trains when they protest. There are no civil liberties in China. If you protest, not only do you die, your family is economically ruined, if not just tossed in jail. There are no rights in China. None.
2. The median annual income for Chinese is somewhere around 300 dollars. Meanwhile, children of Communist officials are making millions of dollars from running state owned enterprises.
3. China barely keeps its population fed. And when it hasn't, it did not face revolt.
China is not Communist. They have adopted capitalist features to better squeeze money out of its people. What do we call such countries? Fascist.
The upshot for the Communists is that by maintaining a relatively unsophisticated population, they can publish this crap. But I would suggest that most people here are not reading this correctly.
Substitute the word library for Internet cafe and the word intellectual for young people. Tell me if you like what you get. And then tell me the difference.
What do the Chinese Communist and the Imperial Japanese Army have in common? They like to kill Chinese peasants.
Marx himself thought that he would be the one leading the people. Communism is fundamentally flawed because its creator was fundamentally flawed. Marx wanted to benefit from the world wide revolution, so he created a system that was designed to be manipulated.
You certainly did extract :) . I was commenting on Galileo's durability, not necessarily its scientific contributions. There were problems with its antenna, and programming as well (iirc). But imagine if the rovers can hang on for another six months or more. Who knows. Maybe they can turn up fossilize life or something equally cool.
Unmanned missions are great. Humans can run out of food and air, and get tired and homesick. Robots can run basically forever, until something breaks or they run out of juice. If these things prove 1/50 as durable as Galileo did, they'll provide science more than we ever could have hoped for.
(I will admit that an inordinate amount of my money goes to buying BBC shows on DVD, but then again, I am a geek.)
TV has to make itself more relevant if it is to survive. Sure, the Simpsons and 70s Show makes me laugh, and I might occasionally tune in, but otherwise I'll just flip it off and listen to some tunes. So basically, there's nothing good on.
So what does television need to do? Experiment. I want to see stuff on television I haven't seen before, not some dumbass sitcom that's revolutionary because it has a gay person. Real life is far more interesting. Until television takes risks that might let it fail and produces the amazing goods that result, we're not going to bother watching.
Because Google is providing a search engine. Microsoft is providing parts of the firewall and sniffer technology used to trap and jail (or eliminate) people like Stainless Steel Mouse.
Chairman Mao and his cronies killed more Chinese peasants than the Russians killed Russians, the Japanese killed Chinese, and the Germans killed Jews and other races combined.
And in other news, the United States Air force came under attack today from a group of hackers known as Slashdot. For over five hours, a "denial of service" attack was conducted against an Air Force webserver. Tom Ridge, head of the Department of Homeland Security, said he is looking into the matter, and that he is expects arrests will be made shortly.
IT'S CALLED A MULE YOU DUMBASSES!!! You've been using them for hundreds of years.
Their, you fool, their!
Besides, the SCO might get somewhere. After all, they've got Sen. Orrin Hatch (R. Utah) looking out after them. He's got to keep his son employed somehow.
It's always been easier to say I'm sorry than to ask for permission. Besides, I said avoid censure in the UN. Israel wanted the best possible UN brokered peace treaty. That couldn't have happened with US opposition.
The reason Israel was so sucessful is that it caught Nasser with his pants down.
Nasser wasn't expecting a fight. Israel attacked unnecessarily. It's a fairly obvious conclusion.
He [Nasser] learned his lesson by the time '73 came around.
Nope, check your facts. Nasser was dead. Sadat led Egypt in '73.
Israel still retains parts of the West Bank. Israel controls all of Jerusalem. Israel has the Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip. They gave back Sinai, which is just a desert. Israel still retains the important and useful pieces of land from the '67 war. The war was a landgrab.
1.) The attack on the Liberty took place to avoid a premature US censure of Israel in the United Nations.
2.) Egypt was withdrawing. It's a fact. It's one of the reasons why Israel was so successful in the Sinai.
3.) Israel attacked first. Israel began the war. The war was not justified. It was justified earlier in the year, but not when it took place. The timing of the war made it clear that it was a calculated landgrab.
Whenever someone speaks in less than glowing terms of Israel, people beging shouting about Anti-Semitism. This is nonsense. A serious discussion must be had about Israel without name-calling. The cry of Anti-Semitism has too long been a cover that Israel and her advocates uses for illegal and immoral actions.
Israel is a nation stated founded on and using the principles of terrorism. Israel continues to use terrorism to achieve its goals. US support for Israel must end. This has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with mass thievery and terrorism.
The attack on the Liberty was a deliberate attempt to cover troop movements in preparation for an assault on the Golan Heights. Israel had very good reasons for keeping that attack secret, mainly that they did not want American interference in the United Nations during the final offensive. They thought they could get away with it, and they did.
Israel did not need to attack in '67. Egypt was withdrawing and other countries in the region were standing down. There was no need for war. (In '73, Meir was so much an obstinate fool that she forced unpreparedness for the obviously impending attack.) Instead, Israel chose to attack because it was a point before Egypt and her neighbors could get any stronger.
Israel attacked Egypt in 1967. This is was the action. Israel committed the Middle East to war, not Egypt. Nasser was in the process of removing his troops from Egypt when Israel attacked. There was no excuse for Israel's belligerence.
Egypt controls one side of the canal. And the other. The canal is internal to Egypt. To say otherwise would be like saying the Mississippi River should be considered an international and free-for-all waterway.
Israel was on the offensive since 1948. It was a state founded on terrorism, and has not given up the use of terrorism since.
Israel attacked Egypt. That's all that happened. They attacked Egypt in '56 and they attacked Egypt in '67. Egypt attacked Israel in '72.
Israel has not offered the Palestinians a state, they have offered the Palestinians the right to starve.
The airliner shot down was not over the Indian Ocean, it was over the Persian Gulf. And the Iranian Pilot was attempting to goad the US ship. It was his bad luck it was shot down.
Michael Oren is pro-Israel. Look for something else.
Current Palestinian land through which a wall is being built is controlled by Palestinians.
The legitimate "Cassus Belli" is nonsense. An internal issue of one nation is not cause for war. The treaty of Westfallia decided that.
They dropped napalm on the ship and shot it with 50 caliber machine guns. How do they miss the giant American flag, or the 6 foot western lettering on the stern at that range? And Israel paid less than 15 million dollars for a ship worth twice that. Not hundreds of millions.
And of course, the Golan Heights were used by Israel to shell Damascus in the '73 war.
If you're going to try and correct me, at least have the right war. In 1967 Israel conducted a preemptive strike against Egypt and her neighbors. You're confusing the '67 and the '73 war.