Here is a rather good article on ODA by country. You'll see USA has the stingiest "1st world" government offering with only 0.14% of GDP.
And, once again, that figure only counts money/aid given. It does not count military humanitarian expenditures, of which the US does a ton of, and most importantly it does not cover private donations, most of which are not in the form of large donations from Gates (which gain the most headlines), but in small, individual donations, which carry no crazy conspiratorial connections.
The fact is, with private donations which total over 200% of what the government gives, the US is extremely charitable. We are the most charitable per capita in private donations. It's a fact. If you want to get hung up over the low public funding, that's fine, and there would be a problem with it if there wasn't the massive amount of private giving that takes place.
The European total absolutely dwarfs the USA total and is a fairer comparison for populations.
European population: 729,966,641 Even if you take out Russia you're still at about 600,000,000, roughly twice that of the US. With that taken into account Europe puts out roughly $42 billion in public funding, the US puts out roughly $16 billion (or 38% of Europe's total, with 48% of the population - and this is with Russia removed). Now, if you compare the European public funding with American private funding, some other numbers appear. American private funding is roughly $28-$30 billion which is about 70% of the European funding with the US again only have about 48% of the population.
American's, on average, donate 2% of their income to charity (both domestic and international), or roughly ~$800 per person. The figures for 2003 are at roughly $236 billion.
Some EU examples: UK: ~$150 per person Germany: $50 per person Netherlands: $251 per person
So, take those numbers, add them to the number for per capita giving by their respective governments, and the US is clearly on top. By a large amount. I would like to be able to split all of the above data into international and domestic giving per capita, but I don't have the data for the UK, Germany, or the Netherlands. For the US it would be ~$150 a person, or a little under 20%.
An anonymous coward claiming to have a half-million dollar income is now a fact? Get real! I think the odds are rather good that was simply an anonymous liar.
I was referring to your "typical american" line. Who knows if he actually donated that money...
I provided the facts and figures earlier. Which were old, dated, and just plain wrong.
The US donates less per person than France, and significantly less in total than just the Scandanavian countries.
Here are the highlights, maybe you'll read it this time -------------- Noticeably absent from the anti-american salon article are numbers for private charitable giving (which dwarf any country no matter how you slice - Hell, between 1992 and 1998 the US sent almost $2.9 billion in PRIVATE AID to CUBA!) and US military expenditures (no, we're not discussing Iraq) that are solely for humanitarian purposes.
We're moving a f'en carrier group into the region for support and search and rescue, you think that's cheap?
With 300 million people you donated ODA $6.9 billion in foreign aid in 1997.
http://www.usaid.gov/fani/ch06/privateaid.htm The actual total of official development assistance and private giving was $44.5 billion, or 0.45 percent of U.S. gross national income - and that still doesn't account for military humanitarian spending
LOL: In 2000 U.S. universities and colleges gave more to developing countries in foreign scholarships than Australia, Belgium, Norway, Spain, and Switzerland each gave in ODA.
What were you saying again?
And, btw, the current numbers for ODA funding are: Australia - $1.2 Billion [oecd.org] France - $7.3 Billion [oecd.org] US - $16.2 Billion [oecd.org] (a 23% increase over last year under the evil Bushilter!) --------------
That's the reason they're so high on the list. The government simply pockets the money, has absolutely nothing to do with it, so instead of giving it to it's citizenry (like it should) it just gives it away.
The current number for the US is $16.2 Billion, btw. Strangely during the end of the Clinton numbers the funding dropped significantly.
When you are attacked, you defend. When attacked by someone who is clearly an idiot, facts and numbers sometime help.
Another note: the US donated 40% of the funds, worldwide, for relief from natural disasters (and no, that number does not include funding for our domestic natural disasters).
I donate, but I don't feel the need to let everybody know how much. It stops being charity for OTHERS and starts being all about YOU.
So, what is it when you bitch about how much you ignorantly though others donate? What is that exactly?
Awww... poor little eurotrash. You seem to think that the only organization fit to distribute funds are governmental orgs and that the only funds that count are ones that are gathered through coercion (taxes).
Noticeably absent from the anti-american salon article are numbers for private charitable giving (which dwarf any country no matter how you slice - Hell, between 1992 and 1998 the US sent almost $2.9 billion in PRIVATE AID to CUBA!) and US military expenditures (no, we're not discussing Iraq) that are solely for humanitarian purposes.
We're moving a f'en carrier group into the region for support and search and rescue, you think that's cheap?
With 300 million people you donated ODA $6.9 billion in foreign aid in 1997.
http://www.usaid.gov/fani/ch06/privateaid.htm The actual total of official development assistance and private giving was $44.5 billion, or 0.45 percent of U.S. gross national income - and that still doesn't account for military humanitarian spending
LOL: In 2000 U.S. universities and colleges gave more to developing countries in foreign scholarships than Australia, Belgium, Norway, Spain, and Switzerland each gave in ODA.
Why bother quoting an article from Salon.com? Of course it's going to have a strong anti-american slant.
Those numbers are for government funding only. Private US donations, by which a country should truly be judged as they are not coerced in the form of taxes, dwarf any country by any measurement.
Private US donations for this recent tragedy were ahead of the whole EU, and still may be.
Those numbers also do not count other forms of aid (food, shelter, water) that our military provides all over the world that gets absolutely no coverage at all. You know who provides needed goods to most of the poor in rural Central America? The US via the US military.
But how will all those poor Scientific journals continue to make money off of publically funded research?
(yes - the answer is that they'll be publishing the highest quality research results and providing a service to their readers by sifting throught the garbage, but still, how long will it take for HighQualityPublicResearch.com to come along?)
Well, it's not a P4M (that's a Pentium 4 Mobile, which is different), but anyways...
We're deploying some new Linux based embedded systems and we're moving towards a small form factor system with a Pentium M board. We've been testing it for about 2-3 weeks now it's exceeded our expectations. We currently use Pentiums, Pentium 2s, and Pentium 3s for some of our other embedded systems, but none of these offered the power we needed (as a side note, we also use FreeDOS and WinXP Embedded, our linux distribution of choice is currently Redhat Enterprise). We're a company that's going to be paying for Linux, so three cheers for us... or something.
Due to the size of the unit and the installation location where much of the hardware will be located the Pentium 4 and AMD/AMD 64 chips were just too hot.
I second that. We regularly have to sight 1.2M dishes and it is frequently a huge pain in the ass. Granted, we're trying to point at a single satellite, but our dish is much larger the DirecTV dishes, has a higher power output, and is comprised of much higher quality equipment.
$10-$15 for 24 hours of access (which many times is the minimum amount available) seems to be the going rate at airports, and who spends 24 hours at an airport? (well, other than this past weekend)
It highlights the area that is being lasso'd. Think of the crop tool (where it greys out the area to be cropped), but in reverse. This gives the selected area a light blue color while you're drawing with the lasso. It's very nice.
I'm beginning to think that there are a bunch of people out there who just like to spout off without engaging their brain
Yes, I agree as well. Maybe you should read my whole post, perhaps, before you go and "spout off"? The lasso tool by itself is nothing special. The way it is implemented in Paint.Net is quite nice and wouldn't be suprised to see it in the next version of Photoshop, etc.
Re:Way to go NBA. It's about time you didn't mess
on
NBA Rejects EA Deal
·
· Score: 1
Now if only the NBA would stop fining Mark Cuban for being a cool coach.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is a rather good article on ODA by country. You'll see USA has the stingiest "1st world" government offering with only 0.14% of GDP.
And, once again, that figure only counts money/aid given. It does not count military humanitarian expenditures, of which the US does a ton of, and most importantly it does not cover private donations, most of which are not in the form of large donations from Gates (which gain the most headlines), but in small, individual donations, which carry no crazy conspiratorial connections.
The fact is, with private donations which total over 200% of what the government gives, the US is extremely charitable. We are the most charitable per capita in private donations. It's a fact. If you want to get hung up over the low public funding, that's fine, and there would be a problem with it if there wasn't the massive amount of private giving that takes place.
The European total absolutely dwarfs the USA total and is a fairer comparison for populations.
European population: 729,966,641
Even if you take out Russia you're still at about 600,000,000, roughly twice that of the US. With that taken into account Europe puts out roughly $42 billion in public funding, the US puts out roughly $16 billion (or 38% of Europe's total, with 48% of the population - and this is with Russia removed). Now, if you compare the European public funding with American private funding, some other numbers appear. American private funding is roughly $28-$30 billion which is about 70% of the European funding with the US again only have about 48% of the population.
American's, on average, donate 2% of their income to charity (both domestic and international), or roughly ~$800 per person. The figures for 2003 are at roughly $236 billion.
Some EU examples:
UK: ~$150 per person
Germany: $50 per person
Netherlands: $251 per person
So, take those numbers, add them to the number for per capita giving by their respective governments, and the US is clearly on top. By a large amount. I would like to be able to split all of the above data into international and domestic giving per capita, but I don't have the data for the UK, Germany, or the Netherlands. For the US it would be ~$150 a person, or a little under 20%.
based on: Private Donations for International Development and Europe Population
If you want to continue harping on low public funding, you can, but then we might as well just be done.
ughh... responded to the wrong post - see here
An anonymous coward claiming to have a half-million dollar income is now a fact? Get real! I think the odds are rather good that was simply an anonymous liar.
I was referring to your "typical american" line. Who knows if he actually donated that money...
I provided the facts and figures earlier.
Which were old, dated, and just plain wrong.
The US donates less per person than France, and significantly less in total than just the Scandanavian countries.
Incorrect.
Clearly you haven't read my other post
Here are the highlights, maybe you'll read it this time
--------------
Noticeably absent from the anti-american salon article are numbers for private charitable giving (which dwarf any country no matter how you slice - Hell, between 1992 and 1998 the US sent almost $2.9 billion in PRIVATE AID to CUBA!) and US military expenditures (no, we're not discussing Iraq) that are solely for humanitarian purposes.
We're moving a f'en carrier group into the region for support and search and rescue, you think that's cheap?
With 300 million people you donated ODA $6.9 billion in foreign aid in 1997.
http://www.usaid.gov/fani/ch06/privateaid.htm
The actual total of official development assistance and private giving was $44.5 billion, or 0.45 percent of U.S. gross national income - and that still doesn't account for military humanitarian spending
LOL: In 2000 U.S. universities and colleges gave more to developing countries in foreign scholarships than Australia, Belgium, Norway, Spain, and Switzerland each gave in ODA.
What were you saying again?
And, btw, the current numbers for ODA funding are:
Australia - $1.2 Billion [oecd.org]
France - $7.3 Billion [oecd.org]
US - $16.2 Billion [oecd.org] (a 23% increase over last year under the evil Bushilter!)
--------------
That's the reason they're so high on the list. The government simply pockets the money, has absolutely nothing to do with it, so instead of giving it to it's citizenry (like it should) it just gives it away.
The current number for the US is $16.2 Billion, btw. Strangely during the end of the Clinton numbers the funding dropped significantly.
When you are attacked, you defend. When attacked by someone who is clearly an idiot, facts and numbers sometime help.
Another note: the US donated 40% of the funds, worldwide, for relief from natural disasters (and no, that number does not include funding for our domestic natural disasters).
I donate, but I don't feel the need to let everybody know how much. It stops being charity for OTHERS and starts being all about YOU.
So, what is it when you bitch about how much you ignorantly though others donate? What is that exactly?
Not to examine your analogy too deeply, but
an efficient ass rape would be quick
an inefficient one would not be
no kidding
wtf do all the acronyms mean?
Awww... poor little eurotrash. You seem to think that the only organization fit to distribute funds are governmental orgs and that the only funds that count are ones that are gathered through coercion (taxes).
Noticeably absent from the anti-american salon article are numbers for private charitable giving (which dwarf any country no matter how you slice - Hell, between 1992 and 1998 the US sent almost $2.9 billion in PRIVATE AID to CUBA!) and US military expenditures (no, we're not discussing Iraq) that are solely for humanitarian purposes.
We're moving a f'en carrier group into the region for support and search and rescue, you think that's cheap?
With 300 million people you donated ODA $6.9 billion in foreign aid in 1997.
http://www.usaid.gov/fani/ch06/privateaid.htm
The actual total of official development assistance and private giving was $44.5 billion, or 0.45 percent of U.S. gross national income - and that still doesn't account for military humanitarian spending
LOL: In 2000 U.S. universities and colleges gave more to developing countries in foreign scholarships than Australia, Belgium, Norway, Spain, and Switzerland each gave in ODA.
What were you saying again?
And, btw, the current numbers for ODA funding are:
Australia - $1.2 Billion
France - $7.3 Billion
US - $16.2 Billion (a 23% increase over last year under the evil Bushilter!)
Why bother quoting an article from Salon.com? Of course it's going to have a strong anti-american slant.
Those numbers are for government funding only. Private US donations, by which a country should truly be judged as they are not coerced in the form of taxes, dwarf any country by any measurement.
Private US donations for this recent tragedy were ahead of the whole EU, and still may be.
Those numbers also do not count other forms of aid (food, shelter, water) that our military provides all over the world that gets absolutely no coverage at all. You know who provides needed goods to most of the poor in rural Central America? The US via the US military.
I'm not making fun of the "cause". I'm just pointing out the huge outpouring of genorisity from the supposedly "stingy" Americans.
It's always acceptable to make fun of the idiots in the UN.
But how will all those poor Scientific journals continue to make money off of publically funded research?
(yes - the answer is that they'll be publishing the highest quality research results and providing a service to their readers by sifting throught the garbage, but still, how long will it take for HighQualityPublicResearch.com to come along?)
F'en stingy Americans! How dare you raise millions and millions of dollars privately!?! Clearly your taxes are too low!
Well, it's not a P4M (that's a Pentium 4 Mobile, which is different), but anyways...
We're deploying some new Linux based embedded systems and we're moving towards a small form factor system with a Pentium M board. We've been testing it for about 2-3 weeks now it's exceeded our expectations. We currently use Pentiums, Pentium 2s, and Pentium 3s for some of our other embedded systems, but none of these offered the power we needed (as a side note, we also use FreeDOS and WinXP Embedded, our linux distribution of choice is currently Redhat Enterprise). We're a company that's going to be paying for Linux, so three cheers for us... or something.
Due to the size of the unit and the installation location where much of the hardware will be located the Pentium 4 and AMD/AMD 64 chips were just too hot.
I would have to say that most of the things that *NIX did poorly have been rectified with OS X
I would imagine that the question pertains more to use as a server OS than a easy to use, pretty widgets OS.
or, something along the lines of "The more we retreat, the more we retreat."
Terrorist!
I'm calling the DHS!
I second that. We regularly have to sight 1.2M dishes and it is frequently a huge pain in the ass. Granted, we're trying to point at a single satellite, but our dish is much larger the DirecTV dishes, has a higher power output, and is comprised of much higher quality equipment.
$10-$15 for 24 hours of access (which many times is the minimum amount available) seems to be the going rate at airports, and who spends 24 hours at an airport? (well, other than this past weekend)
SUPRISE! there's static electricity on Mars too
maybe it'll help them control bad math:
China Closes 1,129 Web Sites
"The related departments have closed 1,278 illegal web sites and 114 sites
I may be a little rusty, but 1278 + 114 != 1129.
really? That's almost my exact same setup (Win2k Pro, SP4, .net 1.1)
.net 2.0 beta also installed, and the .net beta SDK. Wonder if that did it?
Hmm.. that's right, I have the
It highlights the area that is being lasso'd. Think of the crop tool (where it greys out the area to be cropped), but in reverse. This gives the selected area a light blue color while you're drawing with the lasso. It's very nice.
I'm beginning to think that there are a bunch of people out there who just like to spout off without engaging their brain
Yes, I agree as well. Maybe you should read my whole post, perhaps, before you go and "spout off"? The lasso tool by itself is nothing special. The way it is implemented in Paint.Net is quite nice and wouldn't be suprised to see it in the next version of Photoshop, etc.
Now if only the NBA would stop fining Mark Cuban for being a cool coach.
You follow the NBA _really_ closely, don't you?
Yes it was. No, you're not confusing it, Microsoft confused you (and most everyone) with their, seemingly arbitrary, .NET naming scheme.
.NET framework != the passport login scheme (although you can use the passport login scheme with the .NET framework).
The