Started a car manufacturing company producing high-tech electric vehicles that make anything produced in Detroit these days look like a Model T.
At the risk of being nit-picky: Musk only invested in Tesla, not started it. The investment was significant and included the right for Musk to call himself co-founder IIRC.
Apple managed to secure virtually the entire output of 1.8" hard drives from Toshiba (the only manufacturer of such drives at the time).
Many players at that time already had 1" hard drives, so 1.8" doesn't sound very impressive (1.8" drives were introduced in 1993 BTW).
The iPhone was the first capacitive touchscreen phone.
No, the LG Prada was the first one. Look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada
I think the idea that scepticism comes from humanities rather than science is a joke, and shows a complete misunderstanding of falsifiability and Karl Popper's work on the philosophy of science.
You are aware that Popper was a professor at a humanist department, right? That whole "philosophy of science" thing could have been a hint...
Scientists should take courses on Rational Thinking.
That's what the OP said. "Rational Thinking" usually gets taught in a course called logics, which is a subdomain of philosophy, to be found in *drumroll* the humanities department.
Humanist misunderstands what Science and the Scientific method are
Amusingly, the Humanities are the realm where Science and the Scientific method have been invented, where the shortcomings of positivism where highlighted and critical rationalism (="you can't prove a scientific model, only falsify it") got created to solve that problem. Guess you should have taken one of those courses
I'll do you better than that: an interactive tool which shows the data [philanthropy.com]. There's a link on that page detailing how the data was compiled. (Note that IRS data only includes people earning over $50,000 a year.)
... which handily debunks your own claims. GP said: "And proselytizing expenditures and church heating bills don't count." - while your source lumps them together with real charity:
Religion has a big influence on giving patterns. Regions of the country that are deeply religious are more generous than those that are not. Two of the top nine statesâ"Utah and Idahoâ"have high numbers of Mormon residents, who have a tradition of tithing at least 10 percent of their income to the church. The remaining states in the top nine are all in the Bible Belt.
When religious giving isn't counted, the geography of giving is very different. Some states in the Northeast jump into the top 10 when secular gifts alone are counted. New York would vault from No. 18 to No. 2, and Pennsylvania would climb from No. 40 to No. 4.
(emph. mine, source.)
TL;DR: atheists give to charity, christs give to the church.
Correct. For instance, the Nazis actually did great things for Germany's economy and national pride.
Except they didn't do great things for Germany's economy. Neither in workers wages nor in GDP.
The second is that you have proposed no measurable way to determine if the students have learned anything. Standardized tests are bad, in the same way democracies are bad. There just hasn't been any better way demonstrated. I'd love to ditch the stress of standardized testing. However, I've got nothing else to measure, in any objective way, student learning. Essays? Standardized tests that measure vocabulary (parental income) and attention span. Orals? Not at all objective. Give me something to use.
Please be aware that this is mostly a US-only problem and has been solved better in other education systems. The solution is pretty simple: Measure individual learning progress, not knowledge relative to other classmates.
Suppose we have two kids entering school, the class has a really passionate and able teacher. Their performance (let's say their reading ability) gets measured. The average in the class is 100%. Now, the low income kid really only starts with a performance level of say 50%, while the high income kid already has 150%.
Now a year later the class gets grades on their reading performance. 100% is rated F, because relative to the average on day one it means zero progress. 150% means grade A, a big improvement compared to day one.
The low income kid really learned hard, the passionate teacher gave special training to the kid etc. The kid managed a phenomenal progress up to 100%, 50% increase!. The teacher in the current US system: "Awesome! But still Grade F, sorry.". The high income kid gets a A without needing to do anything.
The end result: _Both_ loose their motivation to do anything in school.
I'm not sure I see wages in that wikipedia quote.
So, what other metrics do you see reflected in that quote?
Also, I sure as hell do not understand why you are bringing up 2012 unemployment rates.
You can adjust all linked graphs to show the curves starting in 1980, look above the chart.
but you do realize that the countries you picked also lowered corporate taxes to
Nope, I included Sweden on purpose. Sweden is socialist in the U.S. definition of the word, and that reflects in their corporate taxes.