Tax receipts in 1957, per capita:
... about $3900... Tax receipts in 2013, per capita: $8754. Or a bit more than double that 1957 per-capita after you adjust for inflation
Yeah, but you have to take into account the fact that the reason that people are paying more taxes is because people are earning more today than they did in 1950. If the average income of a person in 2014 is twice what it was in 1950, then that "double the taxes" thing simply disappears because it means people are still paying the same *percentage* of their income to the federal government. The way you state your argument, you make it sound like people are paying twice as much money (as a percentage of their income) in 2014 as they did in 1950, which is simply not true. Here's a graph of the average incomes in the US over the past 100 years. The dollar amounts have been adjusted to 2006-dollars, and you'll note that the average income has roughly doubled (from around $25,000/year in 1950 to $50,000/year in 2004): http://visualizingeconomics.co...
Given that being in Congress [rollcall.com] makes one quite wealthy [opensecrets.org], perhaps a lot of that redistribution is strictly for the benefit of those IN Government. It's still a Federal Government by the people and of the people, but increasingly FOR Government, not for the people.
That may be true that people in government can become quite wealthy, but to say that the redistribution is strictly for the benefit of those in government is missing a sense of scale. The amount of wealth gained by government officials is a drop in the bucket compared to tax revenue or the US economy in general. First of all, you're comparing the net worth of members of congress (i.e. most of them were millionaires *before* they gained office). In order for your argument to work, you need to track the amount of money gained by members of congress as a result of being in congress. Saying that (as the articles claim) the combined net worth of those members of congress is over a billion dollars is mostly irrelevant. Saying that members of congress earned a billion dollars a year as a result of being in congress is much more relevant (but that's not what the articles claim). Keep in mind that the US government is bringing in a tax revenue of 3.0 trillion dollars in 2014. Even if we (falsely) claimed that members of congress were pulling in an addition 1 billion dollars in income each year as a result of being in government (which they clearly are not, certainly not in a single year), it would still mean that their additional income would be 1 billion compared to 3,000 billion in taxes. That works out to 0.03% of the federal tax revenue. The argument that some large share of the tax revenue is simply going to enrich members of congress just doesn't make sense.
You're right, 6' tall is a bit taller than median, but well within the fat part of the bell curve. I am somewhat tall, but not particularly.
If you don't believe that your son has ever unintentionally seen down a woman's shirt, you are simply incorrect. Either that or he has never spoken to a woman shorter than about 5'6" wearing a low(ish) cut shirt. It just happens.
As to my being a pervert who can't get dates... I don't have that particular problem, and while many members of society dislike me for a variety of reasons, I have no evidence to suggest that undesired ogling is one of them.
Good luck with the bizarre moralism you've cultivated, I hope it serves you well.
"Dogs read our emotions by looking at our facial expressions and other body language. They can then associate those with the words we use. It might seem like the dog understands what we say, but it's just Pavlov up to his old tricks. "
You know that is exactly how humans do it as well, right? The only difference is that we have a larger vocal recognition center and possess human vocal chords.
Look at the graph "Government Receipts and Expenditures as a Fraction of GDP", it's the second chart on this webpage: Source: http://www.deptofnumbers.com/m...
Cathedral and the bazaar isn't RMS' idea, that comes from Eric S. Raymond. And it's not about real world vs. theory -- they are both real world and exist in real working popular products.
And, crucially, RMS' work was used as an example of the cathedral. Linux was, of course, the bazaar.
The TLDP is a collection of some of the most outdated info out there. I'd never point a new Linux user there. Some of those HOWTO's are seriously out of date...check the listing of HOWTO's by modification date.
Walking to work is fantastic. New York doesn't have a lock on that. I walk to work. I kind of hate driving.
I'll grant some of these other cities have problems with that.
I know, most of you can't do that, but would that be a misdemeanor?
Why does Canonical keep fixing things that aren't broken, things that everybody's happy with? Ubuntu doesn't want to be Apple, nor does it want to be Windows. Ubuntu wants to be Ubuntu.
Everybody knew computers could never beat humans at chess. Now they do. In much the same way, computers will beat us at every single intellectual task, at some point in time. Technology revolutions go faster every time one occurs. From 10k years for the agricultural revolution to two years for the internet and mobile phones. I see no reason why computers can't outsmart us in 2025.
He probably means Unix Graybeards, some of whom were probably amongst the early contributors to Linux (and the FSF, BSD, etc etc) No Vim without vi and Bill Joy isn't a spring chicken. No GCC without a C and Bill Kernighan is 72. You get gist of it.
Considering that in time past, it was Red Hat that was considered the distro for noobs.
If Grandma doesn't need to run Hallmark Greeting Card Creator
After all these years, there is no easy to use "Hallmark Greeting Card" or "Broderbund Print Shop" type applications for Linux.
yes there's Scribus and I suppose you could do this sort of thing in OO too, but there's no easy to set up and use: "I want to make a card" or "I want to make a Happy Birthday Banner" or "I want to make a family letterhead" type application.