Those stats are from a single the year 2000 when zero astonots died. If you want to look at overall risk per year over ~20 years the numbers are closer to: 1666 / 20 = 83.3 / 100,000 / year.
Assuming you want to compare the same things if you compared the 15 seconds of being close to a falling tree with the average time spent in motion in a shuttle the risks are going to look a little different.
You forget how little rich people spend on goods vs services. Having an accountant is still spending even if it's not taxed. But if that same accountant writes a book and sells it to the poor then they pay sales tax on his time plus the cost of the book's materials.
What about the maid/layers/accountants/travel etc. It's still spending but it's not directly taxed. So, the rich spend less of the money they spend on sales tax than the poor (and a lot less than their total income).
The President can pardon someone before trial. Gerald Ford, issued a controversial pardon for any federal crimes Nixon may have committed while in office Which is just scary when you think about it.
The real limitation on a CPU/GPU hybrid is memory bandwidth. A GPU is happy with.5 to 1 GB of FAST RAM but CPU running vista works best with 4-8GB of CHEEP ram and a large L2 cash. Think of it this way a GPU needs to access every bit of ram 60+ times per second but a CPU tends to work with a small section of a much larger pool of ram which is why L2 cash size/speed is so important.
Now at the low end there is little need for a GPU but as soon as you want to start 3D gaming and working with Photoshop on the same system you are going to want both video and normal ram.
PS: This is also why people don't use DDR3 memory for system RAM it's just not worth the cost for a 1-2% increase over cheep DDR2 ram.
Electric car fuel cost is ~1/2 that of a gas powered car.
So using your numbers:
IC: Total average maint. costs: $5000.00 US Electric: Total average maint. costs: $5500.00 - $8750.00 (Assuming 30MPG and 3$ a gallon gas) That works out to: (8750-5000)/(3MPG/(30$/g)) = 37,500Miles in 5 years.
Assuming light driving @ 12k miles per year your saving 2250$ on fule.
PS: Golf carts use electric because it's cheaper and with better batteries so would normal cars.
On the off chance you posted AC by mistake and might otherwise miss this post.
Yes, actually, under several of the policies YOU DO. On this point YOU ARE WRONG. [citation needed]
Every form of US government assistance provides the option to pay more and seek other options. EX: Veterans Affairs, Medicade, Medicare, Tricare, etc. There are no options on the table that would restrict our ability to provide elective care at a higher cost. There are no bill in discussion that and world wide the vast majority of government sponsor healthcare provides options for private insurgence and private medical facilities.
PS: At this point you have provided zero evidence to support your claims so I can only assume you concede the argument.
FYI: I have a great PPO but it still costs me 2x as much as an HMO with similar levels of coverage. They also pay more money for the same services. So I agree it's more like HMO = x and other options go up to 4x. EX: HSA are government subsidized healthcare which reduce the cost to you with government money. HAS's are a classic example of mixing public and private healthcare without providing a basic safety net or any form of accountability which IMO is the worst of all possible worlds.
[citation needed] Japan (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/08/bloomberg/bxmed.php) granted we could mimic the Canadian system (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/16/1661) where your comment would have some merit, but that's not the only option. So can we please skip the strawman arguments and actually talk about the real issues.
Anyway, we already have publicly funded healthcare for everyone, because we mandated hospitals to take care of the sick without any form of compensation. The problem with this is it forces the poor to utilize the most expensive treatment option for basic healthcare. And it forces everyone else to pay for this care though extreme premiums on hospital stays. IMO we can let hospitals reject patents or subsidies healthcare, but it's pointless to try and avoid both.
The price per GB in competitive markets is around 6c/GB so their 40g plain should cost 30 *.06 = 1.80$ more than the 10GB plain. If they implemented this FIOS could start advertising 100GB, 200GB, and 400GB plain for the same price. Which would cause most people with the option to quickly switch.
So I know they want to do this but my guess is they are afraid to do it without:
A: Losing customers in competitive markets. B: Becoming regulated in non competitive markets.
I was only defining my terms. Basicly most people talk about weath in terms of income with around 350k+ being weathly. Anyway, William Thompson & Joseph Hickey, 2005 uses: Upper class 1% Upper middle class (15%) Lower middle class (32%) Which are almost the same numbers but the middle class takes up an extra 2% of the population.
Leonard Beeghley, 2004 is talking about wealth in terms of assets and includes Households with net worth of $1 million or more; largely in the form of home equity as "rich" even home equity basically keeps up with inflation and so it does not represent much in the way of income. Most people consider a 32 year old doctor with 150k of dept and 1 million a year in income as "rich" where an 65 year old with a million dollars in stock is only pulling in 60k after inflation.
PS: I could link to graphs etc but my point is how you frame the tax question and what you leave out tends to color the picture.
No the rich are the top 1% (~350,000+), the middle class are the next 45% of the population (35,000 to 350,000), with the lower classes taking the other 57%.
Now if you look at social security / Medicare it's a ~15% tax on your wages under 100k/year so it's the middle class pays most of this. Add in income taxes, property taxes, etc and some parts of the middle ends up paying over 50% of their income in taxes vs. ~25% or less for the rich. IMO this is a really sick way to run the system.
Also note: If you invest 100million in stock and it goes up to 200million in 5 years you only pay 15% when you sell because it's "Capital Gains" vs. income. So if you only sell 10 mill you only pay.75mill and you get to keep compounding interest on the rest of your gains. Income tax numbers don't represent the same think for the rich vs. working slobs.
Taking the numbers from wikipida the middle class is 45% of the population is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_middle_class)
Capitalist class (1%) aka rich = 348,000+ Upper middle class (15%) = $75,000 to 348,000 Lower middle class (30%) = $35,000 to $75,000 Working class (30%) = 16,000 to $30,000 Working poor (13%) = 16,000 and under. Underclass (12%)= Those who occupy poorly paid positions or rely on government transfers.
Middle class = 45% of the population and they pay more into SS, Medicare, Income Tax, Property Taxes than there income or percentage of the population would suggest.
No the information was in the light. "There's all kinds of infromation locked in this data." Finding out what that information is like decoding an encrypted transmission the information is still there but finding out what it is still takes effort.
There are year's worth of data from this object that's in the form of light that will one day reach the earth but is still in space for now. A specific picture they create may or may not accurately reflect the information stored in the light but at some level it's still an approximation of that information.
I like how he used Income Taxes implying that that's where the US government gets most of its revenue. Note: Social Security at $544 billion / year is not part of the IRS's Income tax numbers and it's mostly paid by those making 100k or less each year.
The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of wage earners rose to 34.27% from 33.71% in 2002. Their income share (not just wages) rose from 16.12% to 16.77%. However, their average tax rate actually dropped from 27.25% down to 24.31%
So the rich 1% pay 34.27% the middle class pay ~96.54% - 34.27% = 62.27% of income taxes and the middle class also pays 500 billion for Social Security and most property, excise and sales taxes.
So yes if you look at all the numbers the middle class is paying most of the taxes.
Around 50% of all drugs prescribed in the United States provide zero net benefit. Think antibiotics given to people with a viral infection etc. So while the new drug might seem to be helping your grandfather it's hard to say. Is he getting better or is he on it because it sounds good?
In any case just because you seem to get some benefit does not mean it's worth it. My father was on a lot of expensive drugs which did little for him. Sure they lowered his blood pressure, and they gave him some great antibiotics; just before he died from a pulmonary embolism. Bad diagnosis > bad treatment > death at age 63.
Anyway, when you do cost benefit analysis you need to look beyond 'is this somewhat better' to 'is this the best way to spend our limited resources.' US life expectancy's are not keeping up. (life expectancy at birth in Canada is 79.8 years, versus 77.3 in the U.S.)
Why should the US subsidize the cost of new drugs for the rest of the world? I don't think the US is getting more value from new drugs over the last five years than we are paying fore existing drugs.
IMO: The increase drug cost simply promotes advertising drugs which has little net value.
If you want to get someone 50 feet into the air you can fire them out of a cannon or send them up in an aircraft. The problem with using a cannon is people fall back down within seconds. The is about the same gap between reaching space for a few minuets and falling down vs. reaching orbit and staying up for months.
This gap is huge as reaching space takes 1/10th the energy of reaching orbit and you need to fit all that extra fuel onto your space ship and enough fuel to lift that fuel etc. You also need to slow you ship from orbit which puts 10x the thermal load on you ship etc.
Basically space ship two is about as close to reaching orbit is my Acura is from breaking Mack 2. Now it's not bad as a 100,000$ rollercoaster but idea it's vaguely related to an orbital craft is silly.
PS: Your 100kg rocket would need save around 15% of it's fuel to orbit by launching from space ship one vs the ground. Yea they really are that far from orbit.
There are just too many risks of ever outing a covert agent.
What about 1000 years after the fact? or 500? IMO 200 is a safe bet as everyone involved will be dead as will their children. Less than that might be risky but the idea you need to keep X's identiy secret to the end of time seems silly.
OK, I am fine with NASA keeping the CCD patent that made cheep digital camera's possible. Or skipping that step and letting our tax on that product pay for NASA indirectly. But saying NASA does not pay for it's self and at the same time preventing it from filing patents is silly.
NASA and roads both pay for them selves by helping the economy which is then taxed. If you want to go after government programs like that bridge to nowhere that provide close to zero value that's one thing but saying NASA or the Federal Highway Administration don't pay for them selves is silly.
Slashdot Mirror
Those stats are from a single the year 2000 when zero astonots died. If you want to look at overall risk per year over ~20 years the numbers are closer to: 1666 / 20 = 83.3 / 100,000 / year.
Assuming you want to compare the same things if you compared the 15 seconds of being close to a falling tree with the average time spent in motion in a shuttle the risks are going to look a little different.
If your tax curve works like this: Poor: 0% Middle class: 5% Rich: 2% You don't have a progressive tax system.
You forget how little rich people spend on goods vs services. Having an accountant is still spending even if it's not taxed. But if that same accountant writes a book and sells it to the poor then they pay sales tax on his time plus the cost of the book's materials.
What about the maid/layers/accountants/travel etc. It's still spending but it's not directly taxed. So, the rich spend less of the money they spend on sales tax than the poor (and a lot less than their total income).
Spending on maid/layers/accountants/travel are outside of the sales tax arena so it's still regressive when you look at in terms of total spending.
The President can pardon someone before trial. Gerald Ford, issued a controversial pardon for any federal crimes Nixon may have committed while in office Which is just scary when you think about it.
The real limitation on a CPU/GPU hybrid is memory bandwidth. A GPU is happy with .5 to 1 GB of FAST RAM but CPU running vista works best with 4-8GB of CHEEP ram and a large L2 cash. Think of it this way a GPU needs to access every bit of ram 60+ times per second but a CPU tends to work with a small section of a much larger pool of ram which is why L2 cash size/speed is so important.
Now at the low end there is little need for a GPU but as soon as you want to start 3D gaming and working with Photoshop on the same system you are going to want both video and normal ram.
PS: This is also why people don't use DDR3 memory for system RAM it's just not worth the cost for a 1-2% increase over cheep DDR2 ram.
Electric car fuel cost is ~1/2 that of a gas powered car.
So using your numbers:
IC: Total average maint. costs: $5000.00 US
Electric: Total average maint. costs: $5500.00 - $8750.00
(Assuming 30MPG and 3$ a gallon gas)
That works out to:
(8750-5000)/(3MPG/(30$/g)) = 37,500Miles in 5 years.
Assuming light driving @ 12k miles per year your saving 2250$ on fule.
PS: Golf carts use electric because it's cheaper and with better batteries so would normal cars.
That depends on the rate of increase and the rate of turn over.
Start with 100 people av. 10 years exp.
Over 1 year 4 people that average 10 years exp leave and 10 people with 0exp join. And the 96 people that stayed gained one year of experience.
New average is (96 * 11)/105 = 10.06 years exp which is slight increase with a 5% annual growth rate.
On the off chance you posted AC by mistake and might otherwise miss this post.
Yes, actually, under several of the policies YOU DO. On this point YOU ARE WRONG. [citation needed]
Every form of US government assistance provides the option to pay more and seek other options. EX: Veterans Affairs, Medicade, Medicare, Tricare, etc. There are no options on the table that would restrict our ability to provide elective care at a higher cost. There are no bill in discussion that and world wide the vast majority of government sponsor healthcare provides options for private insurgence and private medical facilities.
PS: At this point you have provided zero evidence to support your claims so I can only assume you concede the argument.
FYI: I have a great PPO but it still costs me 2x as much as an HMO with similar levels of coverage. They also pay more money for the same services. So I agree it's more like HMO = x and other options go up to 4x. EX: HSA are government subsidized healthcare which reduce the cost to you with government money. HAS's are a classic example of mixing public and private healthcare without providing a basic safety net or any form of accountability which IMO is the worst of all possible worlds.
[citation needed] Japan (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/08/bloomberg/bxmed.php) granted we could mimic the Canadian system (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/16/1661) where your comment would have some merit, but that's not the only option. So can we please skip the strawman arguments and actually talk about the real issues.
Anyway, we already have publicly funded healthcare for everyone, because we mandated hospitals to take care of the sick without any form of compensation. The problem with this is it forces the poor to utilize the most expensive treatment option for basic healthcare. And it forces everyone else to pay for this care though extreme premiums on hospital stays. IMO we can let hospitals reject patents or subsidies healthcare, but it's pointless to try and avoid both.
And you don't have to use government sponsored healthcare.
And your "points" evaporate into nothingness.
PS: If you skip HMO's you will pay 4x as much for basic healthcare. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5290172/)
The price per GB in competitive markets is around 6c/GB so their 40g plain should cost 30 *.06 = 1.80$ more than the 10GB plain. If they implemented this FIOS could start advertising 100GB, 200GB, and 400GB plain for the same price. Which would cause most people with the option to quickly switch.
So I know they want to do this but my guess is they are afraid to do it without:
A: Losing customers in competitive markets.
B: Becoming regulated in non competitive markets.
That's an interesting analysis, let's put it to a test.
Would you take a strait up 1000$ bet that John McCain is the next President of the US? AKA he is an you get 1k if he fails your out 1k.
I was only defining my terms. Basicly most people talk about weath in terms of income with around 350k+ being weathly. Anyway, William Thompson & Joseph Hickey, 2005 uses:
Upper class 1%
Upper middle class (15%)
Lower middle class (32%)
Which are almost the same numbers but the middle class takes up an extra 2% of the population.
Leonard Beeghley, 2004 is talking about wealth in terms of assets and includes Households with net worth of $1 million or more; largely in the form of home equity as "rich" even home equity basically keeps up with inflation and so it does not represent much in the way of income. Most people consider a 32 year old doctor with 150k of dept and 1 million a year in income as "rich" where an 65 year old with a million dollars in stock is only pulling in 60k after inflation.
PS: I could link to graphs etc but my point is how you frame the tax question and what you leave out tends to color the picture.
OPS, that 7 was a typo with the lower classes taking the other 54%. sorry I was using the number pad and 7 is directly over the 4.
No the rich are the top 1% (~350,000+), the middle class are the next 45% of the population (35,000 to 350,000), with the lower classes taking the other 57%.
.75mill and you get to keep compounding interest on the rest of your gains. Income tax numbers don't represent the same think for the rich vs. working slobs.
Now if you look at social security / Medicare it's a ~15% tax on your wages under 100k/year so it's the middle class pays most of this. Add in income taxes, property taxes, etc and some parts of the middle ends up paying over 50% of their income in taxes vs. ~25% or less for the rich. IMO this is a really sick way to run the system.
Also note: If you invest 100million in stock and it goes up to 200million in 5 years you only pay 15% when you sell because it's "Capital Gains" vs. income. So if you only sell 10 mill you only pay
PS: It's rich, middle, working, lower, poor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_middle_class)
Taking the numbers from wikipida the middle class is 45% of the population is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_middle_class)
Capitalist class (1%) aka rich = 348,000+
Upper middle class (15%) = $75,000 to 348,000
Lower middle class (30%) = $35,000 to $75,000
Working class (30%) = 16,000 to $30,000
Working poor (13%) = 16,000 and under.
Underclass (12%)= Those who occupy poorly paid positions or rely on government transfers.
Middle class = 45% of the population and they pay more into SS, Medicare, Income Tax, Property Taxes than there income or percentage of the population would suggest.
No the information was in the light. "There's all kinds of infromation locked in this data." Finding out what that information is like decoding an encrypted transmission the information is still there but finding out what it is still takes effort.
There are year's worth of data from this object that's in the form of light that will one day reach the earth but is still in space for now. A specific picture they create may or may not accurately reflect the information stored in the light but at some level it's still an approximation of that information.
I like how he used Income Taxes implying that that's where the US government gets most of its revenue. Note: Social Security at $544 billion / year is not part of the IRS's Income tax numbers and it's mostly paid by those making 100k or less each year.
The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of wage earners rose to 34.27% from 33.71% in 2002. Their income share (not just wages) rose from 16.12% to 16.77%. However, their average tax rate actually dropped from 27.25% down to 24.31%
So the rich 1% pay 34.27% the middle class pay ~96.54% - 34.27% = 62.27% of income taxes and the middle class also pays 500 billion for Social Security and most property, excise and sales taxes.
So yes if you look at all the numbers the middle class is paying most of the taxes.
Around 50% of all drugs prescribed in the United States provide zero net benefit. Think antibiotics given to people with a viral infection etc. So while the new drug might seem to be helping your grandfather it's hard to say. Is he getting better or is he on it because it sounds good?
In any case just because you seem to get some benefit does not mean it's worth it. My father was on a lot of expensive drugs which did little for him. Sure they lowered his blood pressure, and they gave him some great antibiotics; just before he died from a pulmonary embolism. Bad diagnosis > bad treatment > death at age 63.
Anyway, when you do cost benefit analysis you need to look beyond 'is this somewhat better' to 'is this the best way to spend our limited resources.' US life expectancy's are not keeping up. (life expectancy at birth in Canada is 79.8 years, versus 77.3 in the U.S.)
Why should the US subsidize the cost of new drugs for the rest of the world? I don't think the US is getting more value from new drugs over the last five years than we are paying fore existing drugs.
IMO: The increase drug cost simply promotes advertising drugs which has little net value.
If you want to get someone 50 feet into the air you can fire them out of a cannon or send them up in an aircraft. The problem with using a cannon is people fall back down within seconds. The is about the same gap between reaching space for a few minuets and falling down vs. reaching orbit and staying up for months.
This gap is huge as reaching space takes 1/10th the energy of reaching orbit and you need to fit all that extra fuel onto your space ship and enough fuel to lift that fuel etc. You also need to slow you ship from orbit which puts 10x the thermal load on you ship etc.
Basically space ship two is about as close to reaching orbit is my Acura is from breaking Mack 2. Now it's not bad as a 100,000$ rollercoaster but idea it's vaguely related to an orbital craft is silly.
PS: Your 100kg rocket would need save around 15% of it's fuel to orbit by launching from space ship one vs the ground. Yea they really are that far from orbit.
There are just too many risks of ever outing a covert agent.
What about 1000 years after the fact? or 500? IMO 200 is a safe bet as everyone involved will be dead as will their children. Less than that might be risky but the idea you need to keep X's identiy secret to the end of time seems silly.
OK, I am fine with NASA keeping the CCD patent that made cheep digital camera's possible. Or skipping that step and letting our tax on that product pay for NASA indirectly. But saying NASA does not pay for it's self and at the same time preventing it from filing patents is silly.
NASA and roads both pay for them selves by helping the economy which is then taxed. If you want to go after government programs like that bridge to nowhere that provide close to zero value that's one thing but saying NASA or the Federal Highway Administration don't pay for them selves is silly.