I don't think those charts dispute the assertion that productivity isn't distributed equally across all workers. It will take a showing of productivity gains broken down by income bracket.

The educated reader would realize that productivity increases aren't distributed equally across the workforce. Your neighborhood barber doesn't service any more people today than in 1950. Your typical fast food employee as well. On the other hand your electrical engineer is likely able to produce higher quality/more complex products because of advancements in technology.

Go read Nancy Kress's Beggars in Spain, Beggars and Choosers and Beggars Ride trilogy. Much better than Judge Dredd wrt disparities in human productivity and capability.

My first instinct was sarcasm:

Dear Google,

Oh please oh please oh please take this argument to court. Though it would probably be wise of you to remove your "Save page as..." menu item from Chrome.

Sincerely,
The hundreds thousands of web page creators who think their page is just the niftiest thing on the web.

Then I remembered that 99.9999....% of the videos on Youtube are not Google's IP and so Google has no standing to claim any copyright infringement.

Both responses are applicable.

The difference is that in this case it's Google who is paying for the infrastructure that serves the content.

WTF? They're not blocking anything. You do know that the ads aren't part of the video stream right? Microsoft made a client that contacts Google's servers and sends a properly formed request saying "Hey send me that video of the two cats fucking on the stove" and Google's server then sends a video of two cats fucking on the stove to the client which displays it to the end user. Google's complaint is that the client isn't also asking for ads.

If people want to talk karma they should be remembering Google's mass copyright violations wrt. Google's book scanning project, or the news agencies' complaints about Google's news aggregation project that strips away the ad revenue from the actual content producers, or Google's video streaming site (I mean youtube in this case) that hosts tremendous amounts of copyright material -- and Google's response is "The mallets are over there, have fun playing whack-a-mole." Or Perfect 10's complaint that Google facilitates copyright violators stealing P10's pictures.

No, the car analogy would be Google suing Ford because a person who bought a Ford used it to take a short cut through one of Google's parking lots.

Only problem with your, and many others posting in these stories, is that Microsoft isn't accessing Youtube. Your position, translated to different parties, would allow me to sue Linus Torvalds because someone using a Linux based system cracked my wireless network. Or Microsoft to sue Jeremy Allison because someone used Samba with a Windows client.

I'm the guy who finds your posts to demonstrate stupidity and enjoys pointing out your bullshit. And you came through in classic form. See you took one of the few actual statistics, in what was just a narrative (i.e. not a study or scientific paper but merely the opinions of a man who writes for a living), that said:

[O]nly 1.3% of those born into the poorest 10% managing to “struggle upward” into the top 10%, while nearly one third of those born into the top 10% are able to hold on to their class position.

And apparently read it as "only 1.3% of the top 10% got there due to hard work." It's not a difficult statement to understand and yet you completely and totally failed to grasp the idea presented. Just like you don't understand the ramifications that the best predictor of a child's future economic status is the parent's economic status. Which in addition to not leading to the result you think it does, isn't even that overwhelming a predictor (see fig. 7 on page 11 for data about sons or fig. 11 on page 15 for data about families) for the middle three quintiles (30% or less) and 41% for the ends.

And then you proceed to redefine your terms. Perhaps in your world view hard work is strictly physical labor, in which case your narrow perspective guarantees that you will never succeed and you will forever be a bitter whiner who blames his self selected failure on someone else. Here's a hint, which I suspect is going to fall on a deaf ears: physical labor isn't hard. It's the easiest thing out there, everyone is capable of doing it. Hard is doing something that takes years of dedicated effort to learn, hard is risking your future in order to found a business, hard is working 16 hours a day most every day of the week year after year, hard is knowing that you have to make trade offs today in order to have success tomorrow.

I'm going to guess that your next desperate attempt to wiggle out from under the feces flowing from your mouth will be to redefine "nearly no one" as being any amount less than 100%, but just in case you aren't too terrified of facing the naked the truth about how full of shit you are, here's a a profile of the 112th US Congress which happens to describe their prior occupations. Of note:

81 educators
17 doctors
2 veterinarians
2 psychologists
an optometrist
an ophthalmologist
6 nurses
3 sheriffs
2 deputy sheriffs
2 FBI agents
a border patrol agent
a firefighter
a physicist
a chemist
6 engineers
a microbiologist
9 accountants
4 pilots
an astronaut
2 pro football players
17 farmers
11 ranchers
9 social workers
9 national guard members
10 judges
26 prosecutors

There's more, but I figure 226 (out of 541) congressional members having held non-political jobs far exceeds any normal definition of "nearly none".

Never heard of chain of custody? So a child pornographer broke into my house and stole my laptop and then got caught and decided to blame me. At least that's the point I'd expect any rational attorney to make.

As long as the actions are lawful, then no, there is no difference.

I'm curious, when you fill out your taxes how many exemptions do you claim? Yourself? Your wife? Your children? Do you take the standard deduction? Do you deduct half your state income tax obligation from your income for the purpose of calculating your AGI? Do you take the mortgage deduction? Deduct student loan interest? Do you fail to pay use taxes on your mail order and online purchases? Take the earned income credits? If you do any of that, why don't you want to support the society you live in? Do you keep any of your income at all? Because there's nothing different between only paying whatever portion of your income is determined by your tax rate than paying whatever your tax obligation is after properly documenting your financial choices. Unless there is law breaking going on you have no basis to criticize whatever choices they make.

I'm going to call bullshit on your entire post unless you can provide citations for each of your specific points:

1 - less than 1% of the 1% work hard to achieve their prosperity
2 - that it's something other than parents raising a child that result in that child being successful
3 - that nearly no one in American government has ever worked for a living

I doubt you'll be able to provide any supporting information for your claims, mainly because you've posted this crap before and when challenged you were incapable of understanding the math behind that statistics and what the statistics actually mean.

The actual numbers vary and vast majority is certainly wrong. However, according to this and this the percentage of solved murders nationally has gone from 90% in the 1960s to less than 65% in 2008. In certain large cities, such as Chicago only 30% are solved, or (according to the article in the Times Record News link above) New Orleans it's only 22% solved and Detroit is 21%. California's solved rate is 55%, with Los Angeles particularly only solving 39%.

By contrast Sweden's solved violent crime rate is 5%, of course very few of those are murders. Canada solves 60% of murders.

They weren't investigating their current status. These groups were applying for tax exempt status and the IRS was putting substantial hurdles in the way of select groups and demanding excessive information about said groups. And it had real and meaningful effects on their ability to operate. For example, during the application period the groups had to operate as if they were tax exempt and were thus prevented from engaging in certain kinds of advocacy and speech while in the mean time having to pay taxes. If in the end they were denied tax exempt status then they had just lost months of opportunity to participate in the political process. Additionally, having their application process extended interfered with their ability to raise funds. Several groups dropped out of the process because of the chilling effects of the information demanded by the IRS. Those groups had their ability to get their message out impaired as compared with competing organizations because on a donated dollar-for-dollar basis their non-exempt status cost them around 20% in total operating funds even though they fully qualified to be tax exempt.