Sir william gates

[Blake 0]

Are MS employees now obliged to address him as 'milord' from now on?

'Milord, we shall crush those worms with our mighty security update!'

[Dauragon 0]

Are MS employees now obliged to address him as 'milord' from now on?

'Milord, we shall crush those worms with our mighty security update!'

Isn't it spelled My Lord? sorry but my english is bad and i get confused when people type in different ways

[Blake 0]

I think 'milord' is some kind of medieval way of saying it...

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]I think 'milord' is some kind of medieval way of saying it...

Yes, milord!

Quote[/b] ]It's not being inflated - those are US statistics. 12.7%, roughly 36 million people in the US live in severe poverty. It doesn't matter if they're students or not. You have a significant part of your citizens living in worse conditions than the average third world country.

In all likelihood they'll be earning a pretty good salary within a few years. Someone's potential for success is a very important factor, and ignoring it is just plain stupid. Our poor have much better available services than people in third world countries, and there are plenty of available jobs for them if they want to pursue them.

Quote[/b] ]you don't know what benefits the 36mil poor people could have for your country if they were not that poor.

If they are smart and can help the economy, then they can use those little things called "scholarships". The on-the-street poor can't just be integrated into society en masse, as a large percentage of them are either addicts or have mental problems. These people need to be placed into an appropriate mental clinic, not have cash thrown at them. As for our run-of-the-mill poor, an impressive percentage of them are fat (Considering all the "They're starving! They're all starving!" rhetoric ).

[bn880 5]

Quote[/b] ]you don't know what benefits the 36mil poor people could have for your country if they were not that poor.

If they are smart and can help the economy, then they can use those little things called "scholarships". The on-the-street poor can't just be integrated into society en masse, as a large percentage of them are either addicts or have mental problems. These people need to be placed into an appropriate mental clinic, not have cash thrown at them. As for our run-of-the-mill poor, an impressive percentage of them are fat (Considering all the "They're starving! They're all starving!" rhetoric ).

Boy, I think you are completely missing the point. Get scholarships when you grow up poor LOL. Ehhem, scholarships cover usually part of an education and are handed out at Hisghschool level, therefore if you do not manage to perform during last 2 years of HS, you are out on your own and likely won't afford a good education ever, if you are poor.

Student loans also are insufficient for you to pay rent and just study. Even in Canada you must work during your education with a loan to get by, unless you saved up money or have parents who assist. I seriously don't know where you get this idea that every smart person has a chance in your system, when most Universites don't even know smart from natural book worm. Besides that, even if someone is dumb/stupid, they still should be given the basics to start em off.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]therefore if you do not manage to perform during last 2 years of HS

Then think ahead. If you didn't have the foresight to do well in high school, you went ahead and fucked yourself up the ass.

Quote[/b] ] I seriously don't know where you get this idea that every smart person has a chance in your system

Every smart motivated person has a good chance. If you want to be a lazy ass, good for you. Just don't come crying for handouts.

Quote[/b] ]Besides that, even if someone is dumb/stupid, they still should be given the basics to start em off.

High school.

[denoir 0]

Every smart motivated person has a good chance. If you want to be a lazy ass, good for you. Just don't come crying for handouts.

Yes, that's standard dogma Americana, but not very realistic I'm afraid. If you are born in a ghetto as an accident between a drug dealer and a hooker, your brother goes by the name "Big Daddy" and you spent your childhood sorting drug money and 9mm bullets, then you don't stand much of a chance, no matter how motivated you are.

If your mother and father are both named "Billy-Bob", you live in a trailor park, think that raw possum is fine cuisine and all your siblings (also named Billy-Bob) have no teeth and play the banjo, then you don't stand a good chance.

A sytem of equal opportunities assumes that you have the same starting point, which people really don't. Do you think it's a coincidence that two Bushes, father and son have been presidents?

Wealth is propagated through generation, as is poverty. If you come from a poor family in the US, with a high probability you'll remain poor. Sure there are 'success stories' of people starting with nothing and becoming rich, but those are very rare exceptions. If you are an average person from a poor family, you don't stand a chance. And that's why nearly 13% of your population live in poverty worse than your average third world African country.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yes, that's standard dogma Americana, but not very realistic I'm afraid. If you are born in a ghetto as an accident between a drug dealer and a hooker, your brother goes by the name "Big Daddy" and you spent your childhood sorting drug money and 9mm bullets, then you don't stand much of a chance, no matter how motivated you are.

If your mother and father are both named "Billy-Bob", you live in a trailor park, think that raw possum is fine cuisine and all your siblings (also named Billy-Bob) have no teeth and play the banjo, then you don't stand a good chance.

Then genetically you don't have much of a chance of winning a Nobel prize for physics, do you ?

Quote[/b] ]Wealth is propagated through generation, as is poverty. If you come from a poor family in the US, with a high probability you'll remain poor. Sure there are 'success stories' of people starting with nothing and becoming rich, but those are very rare exceptions. If you are an average person from a poor family, you don't stand a chance. And that's why nearly 13% of your population live in poverty worse than your average third world African country.

It really comes down to motivation. If your family is terrible, then leave. Going from little to a billion is very rare, but going from little to a million is possible. As for us having "nearly 13% of our population live in poverty worse than your average third world African country.", you've kind of missed the fact that virtually everyone here is fairly well fed, which is better than a lot of Africans get.

[denoir 0]

Then genetically you don't have much of a chance of winning a Nobel prize for physics, do you ?

The Nobel prize in physics is not a human right, while the right to a decent life is.

Quote[/b] ]As for us having "nearly 13% of our population live in poverty worse than your average third world African country.", you've kind of missed the fact that virtually everyone here is fairly well fed, which is better than a lot of Africans get.

That's the point, they're not. [source ]

Quote[/b] ]Since 1999, the number of poor Americans suffering from "food insecurity" and hunger has increased by 3.9 million - 2.8 million adults and more than one million children. In 2002, 34.9 million people lived in households experiencing food insecurity - that is, not enough food for basic nourishment - compared to 33.6 million in 2001 and 31 million in 1999. (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Household Food Security in the United States, 2002, October 2003.)

And believe me $1 in Africa gets you more food than $1 in America. The poverty line is an absolute international standard.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]The Nobel prize in physics is not a human right, while the right to a decent life is.

Giving motivated people a chance is important. It's not a societal obligation to ensure that "Billy-bob", with his 85 IQ, goes to college.

Quote[/b] ]Since 1999, the number of poor Americans suffering from "food insecurity" and hunger has increased by 3.9 million - 2.8 million adults and more than one million children. In 2002, 34.9 million people lived in households experiencing food insecurity - that is, not enough food for basic nourishment - compared to 33.6 million in 2001 and 31 million in 1999. (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Household Food Security in the United States, 2002, October 2003.)

Soup kitchens plus welfare plus massive amounts of donations will go a long way.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]The Nobel prize in physics is not a human right, while the right to a decent life is.

Giving motivated people a chance is important. It's not a societal obligation to ensure that "Billy-bob", with his 85 IQ, goes to college.

Are you saying that poor people are genetically inferior?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Since 1999, the number of poor Americans suffering from "food insecurity" and hunger has increased by 3.9 million - 2.8 million adults and more than one million children. In 2002, 34.9 million people lived in households experiencing food insecurity - that is, not enough food for basic nourishment - compared to 33.6 million in 2001 and 31 million in 1999. (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Household Food Security in the United States, 2002, October 2003.)

Soup kitchens plus welfare plus massive amounts of donations will go a long way.

Obviously not as 34.9 million Americans don't have not enough food for basic nourishment.

Just as the state has a responsibility to defend you from military attacks, it has a responsibility of giving the prequisites of basic living to its citizens.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Are you saying that poor people are genetically inferior?

Who first said "Billy-Bob"? Oh, the hypocrisy ...

No, I never said that. However, if both of your parents are named Billy-bob, then you probably aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer . Actually, if there's been lots of inbreeding then you probably will be genetically inferior .

Quote[/b] ]Obviously not as 34.9 million Americans don't have not enough food for basic nourishment.

I don't believe that food kitchens are counted in that figure.

[Konyak-2 0]

Been following this with some interest.  No expert mind you, and aggree that some balance of social/capitalist government is the ticket.  But I'm afraid Denoir and Bn880 are both using seriously flawed statements to build an argument on.  

Denoir:  Have you even been to the USA?  I seriously doubt it, yet you love to hate it so.  These statements of poverty and starvation had warning bells go off all over.  I've been to 45 states and the situation you describe just didn't fit in.  

Quote[/b] ]And believe me $1 in Africa gets you more food than $1 in America. The poverty line is an absolute international standard.

Third world?  Africa?  Please Denoir, I must say you dissapoint me. I fear you are being hasty.  Here's how it works:

Poverty Definitions

And if you need your "statistics" translated to the real world, then this should be an interesting read for you:

"poor" Americans

The above is more to in tune with what I have seen in the USA.  I've spent some time in Alabama, in "Rocket City", where NASA co-exists literally with your stereotypical "Billy-Bob".  There I met a lot of young Americans that were completeing their Engineering degree on a scholarship they got for getting good grades in high school.  One girl was your "trailer trash" girl, who's boyfriend worked a belt sander so she could finish her education.  That's motivation, effort and hard work breaking the mold you clamp on them, as if they had no hope.

If you asked me if I'd rather live in Sweden or the USA though, I'd probably say Sweden, but only because it's culturally closer to me.  

M21Man and Wardogs defenses are pretty sound though.  

In the case of genetics, while certainly there are "Stupid" people resulting from inbreeding or simply alchohol consumption during pregnancy, let alone drugs, the main problem is their own mindset or attitude.  This is passed on between generations, so you could call it genetic.  

On Topic:  Nobody seems to raise the point that Gates´income is also based on his responsibility.  Or any "boss" for that matter..  I used to think like Bn880: Why should he get more than me, company car and all that, but I "work" harder than him?  Anyone who takes his job seriously, and is responsible for 10, 100, 1000 or 100 thousand people working for him, will have to make extremely hard decisions that effect those peoples future, their families.  Believe me, that's not for everyone and many people would rather work lower levels than carry that burden.

Konyak

[denoir 0]

Denoir:  Have you even been to the USA?  I seriously doubt it, yet you love to hate it so.  These statements of poverty and starvation had warning bells go off all over.  I've been to 45 states and the situation you describe just didn't fit in.  

Yes, I've been to California, Florida, Massachusetts and NY. You know personal experiences are no guarantee that they give you the correct picture. That's why general statistics are made.

And to say that I "love to hate USA", is not only insulting, but very wrong. I don't agree with its social structure, but I recognize that it's their choice to organize their society however they want. I do think however it is interesting discussing the different opinions that exist. Equating debating relative values of systems to "hate" is what dictatorships do and it has no place in a civilized discussion.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]And believe me $1 in Africa gets you more food than $1 in America. The poverty line is an absolute international standard.

Third world?  Africa?  Please Denoir, I must say you dissapoint me. I fear you are being hasty.  Here's how it works:

Poverty Definitions

And if you need your "statistics" translated to the real world, then this should be an interesting read for you:

"poor" Americans

LAMO dude, the Heritage Foundation is a neo-conservative right wing propaganda outlet. It's credibility is lower than an shaved aardvark claiming to be an elephant. You should read their Iraq articles. Their articles, statistics and conclusions are more fantasy than a Tolkien novel.

Here is the definition of poverty line:

Quote[/b] ]Poverty line: A level of income below which people are deemed poor. A global poverty line of $1 per person per day was suggested in 1990 (World Bank 1990). This line facilitates comparison of how many poor people there are in different countries. But, it is only a crude estimate because the line does not recognize differences in the buying power of money in different countries, and, more significantly, because it does not recognize other aspects of poverty than the material, or income poverty.

As used by the CIA World Factbook, which I have used for the statistics I've given.

Quote[/b] ]The above is more to in tune with what I have seen in the USA.  I've spent some time in Alabama, in "Rocket City", where NASA co-exists literally with your stereotypical "Billy-Bob".  There I met a lot of young Americans that were completeing their Engineering degree on a scholarship they got for getting good grades in high school.  One girl was your "trailer trash" girl, who's boyfriend worked a belt sander so she could finish her education.  That's motivation, effort and hard work breaking the mold you clamp on them, as if they had no hope.

Again, personal experiences have very little general relevance.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]* 38 percent of the persons whom the Census Bureau identifies as "poor" own their own homes with a median value of $39,200.

* 62 percent of "poor" households own a car; 14 percent own two or more cars.

* Nearly half of all "poor" households have air-conditioning; 31 percent have microwave ovens.

* Nationwide, some 22,000 "poor" households have heated swimming pools or Jacuzzis.

"Poor" Americans today are better housed, better fed, and own more property than did the average U.S. citizen throughout much of the 20th Century. In 1988, the per capita expenditures of the lowest income fifth of the U.S. population exceeded the per capita expenditures of the median American household in 1955, after adjusting for inflation.1

I doubt that many poor people in Africa have Jacuzzis .

Quote[/b] ]LAMO dude, the Heritage Foundation is a neo-conservative right wing propaganda outlet. It's credibility is lower than an shaved aardvark claiming to be an elephant. You should read their Iraq articles. Their articles, statistics and conclusions are more fantasy than a Tolkien novel.

Please, step right up and give hard evidence that contradicts these findings.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]* 38 percent of the persons whom the Census Bureau identifies as "poor" own their own homes with a median value of $39,200.

* 62 percent of "poor" households own a car; 14 percent own two or more cars.

* Nearly half of all "poor" households have air-conditioning; 31 percent have microwave ovens.

* Nationwide, some 22,000 "poor" households have heated swimming pools or Jacuzzis.

"Poor" Americans today are better housed, better fed, and own more property than did the average U.S. citizen throughout much of the 20th Century. In 1988, the per capita expenditures of the lowest income fifth of the U.S. population exceeded the per capita expenditures of the median American household in 1955, after adjusting for inflation.1

I doubt that many poor people in Africa have Jacuzzis .

Quote[/b] ]LAMO dude, the Heritage Foundation is a neo-conservative right wing propaganda outlet. It's credibility is lower than an shaved aardvark claiming to be an elephant. You should read their Iraq articles. Their articles, statistics and conclusions are more fantasy than a Tolkien novel.

Please, step right up and give hard evidence that contradicts these findings.

The definition of "poor" that they are using does not correspond to the "poverty line". Those are two different things.

Here are the hard facts that contradict the claims in the article, from another source, if you don't trust the CIA World Factbook:

http://www.usccb.org/cchd/povertyusa/povfacts.htm

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]I doubt that many poor people in Africa have Jacuzzis

22 000 out of a total of 31 000 000 is diddly squat. So, not many poor people in America have jacuzzis either, its actually a quite small figure, in comparison.

[Konyak-2 0]

From the CIA site you pointed out as your source:

Quote[/b] ]National estimates of the percentage of the population lying below the poverty line are based on surveys of sub-groups, with the results weighted by the number of people in each group. Definitions of poverty vary considerably among nations. For example, rich nations generally employ more generous standards of poverty than poor nations.

Sounds similar to the sites I referred to.  If you want to debunk those statistics, be they from the Heritage Foundation, or any other source, you'll have to do better than just dismiss it as a conservative site and therefor totally untrustworthy.

Did a quick search on whatever sources you are getting your info from, apart from site above and found this :

Help poor Americans

Sorry, couldn't resist  

To dismiss my personal experience so completely shows arrogance.  My point was based on a fact that is real, and your "Billy-Bob" sterotype was a made up generalization.  The girl I spoke of is relevant because she is one of those poor people who are, according to you, not supposed to be able to become rich, that it is a myth.

Quote[/b] ]Here are the hard facts that contradict the claims in the article, from another source, if you don't trust the CIA World Factbook:

http://www.usccb.org/cchd/povertyusa/povfacts.htm

LMAOROFL! *THAT's* your source?? OMG, guys I think I'm gonna rupture a spleen.. He´s quoting the CCHD.

Well, that takes care of that! Consider this over on my behalf, big waste of time.

Konyak

[denoir 0]

To dismiss my personal experience so completely shows arrogance.  My point was based on a fact that is real, and your "Billy-Bob" sterotype was a made up generalization.  The girl I spoke of is relevant because she is one of those poor people who are, according to you, not supposed to be able to become rich, that it is a myth.

It boggles me that in this day and age people still subscribe to methodology that was dismissed after the dark ages. The notion of scientific measurements are still a complete mystery to some people.  To you, Konyak, the Renaissance was just something that happened to other people, wasn't it?

OK, let me give you a crash course in modern statistical methodology. First of all, taking measurements on all individuals is impossible for practical reasons. So you need to define a model. This can be done in two ways, through deduction or induction. With deduction you define a model by stating a hypothesis based on previously verified models. Then you test it against data and see if it gives correct predictions.

The inductive approach is that you look at data, formulate a model that you think fits the data and then test its predictive capabilities on new data.

There is a statistical theorem that states that the sum of a large number of independent observations from the same distribution has, under certain general conditions, an approximate normal distribution.

In our case it means that the distribution of the population for any selected variable (such as the income of people named "Billy Bob") looks similar to this (a normal distribution). Income statistice are usually skewed normal distributions, but the same principles apply. This is a typical normal distribution:

On the horizontal axis, marked with "M" is the mean value - the average for Billy Bobs' incomes. Now suppose that we form a hypotesis that with 95% confidence that "M" represents a low income. Depending on the confidence that we desire and the size of the overall population, we have to take a minimum number of samples to make a statistically sound model.

If we wish to determine where M lies with a 95% confidence interval and a 99% confidence level (meaning that we want the final model to put 99% of the measurements in the right range) then for 32,000,000 people, you would have to poll 9601 people (I'll spare you the fairly trivial math). You must know the sitation of 9601 people before you can say anything about the population. You knowing one girl means nothing. I know a Canadian guy named Bob, but that doesn't mean that all Canadians, or even a lot of them are called Bob, now does it?

Look here's a millionare Billy-Bob. That does not not mean that he is a statistically representative example. If I had polled 9601 people, I'd still just be in a 95% confidence, meaning still that 1.6 million people would not fit the model. And you claim, by knowing one or two people that you can have a good model based on experience!   And this is the best case scenario of a nice symmetrical normal distributions. Income distributions are actually skewed, which means that you need even more data.

What's next, alchemy?

[denoir 0]

Ok, now for part deux. You wanted reasons why this article is rubbish.

I'll give you a few samples.

Quote[/b] ]* 38 percent of the persons whom the Census Bureau identifies as "poor" own their own homes with a median value of $39,200

This is typical misuse of statistics. Note that it's the median not the average or mean. There is a big difference. Median is the value in the middle between the highest and the lowest individual in the population. In a skewed distribution, it's not at all equal to the mean value.

Illustration:

Quote[/b] ]* Nationwide, some 22,000 "poor" households have heated swimming pools or Jacuzzis.

22,000/32,000,000= 0.07%

Quote[/b] ]

Better Off Than Europeans, Japanese

The average "poor" American lives in a larger house or apartment than does the average West European (This is the average West European, not poor West Europeans). Poor Americans eat far more meat, are more likely to own cars and dishwashers, and are more likely to have basic modern amenities such as indoor toilets than is the general West European population.

This is so moronoic, I even hesitate to comment it. The EU GDP/Capita (2002) in today's exchange rate is $36,000

The US GDP/Capita (2002) is $34,000. So to claim that America's poor are better off than the average western European, is the same thing as to claim that poor Americans are better off than average Americans.

[Blake 0]

I think the statistics won't change even if you throw everything from Jacuzzis to Kitchen sinks at them  

One thing I would add is that while GDP seems higher for Europe one has to take into account that consumer goods in Europe generally are a bit more expensive than in the US as are cars. So if you relate GDP to prices things get more even. Norway for example has high GDP but very expensive goods and purchasing power isn't that big you'd think at the first glance.