citizenzen
Apr 16, 01:23 PM
It's spending on investment rather than spending on consumption.
This is a key point to the growing inequity of wealth in America. The rich have surplus funds that they are able to invest, while the poor, and a growing number of people are spending all of the income on consumption.
In 2007 Zhu Xiao Di wrote a report for the Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies title, Growing Wealth, Inequity, and Housing in the United States [PDF] (http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf)
Abstract
The rapid growth of household wealth in the United States has been accompanied by drastic growing inequality. This paper discusses both wealth and inequality growth, examines demographic factors behind the growth, and analyzes housing�s role in it, using the Survey of Consumer Finances data collected by the Federal Reserve Bank. While aggregate household net wealth grew from $25.9 trillion in 1995 to $50.1 trillion in 2004 (both in 2004 dollars), nearly 90 percent of the net gains occurred only among the top quartile of households in the wealth distribution. Although housing wealth (both home equity and housing value) was still more evenly distributed than other types of wealth, it largely served to widen the wealth gap rather than to narrow it during the last decade.
In this report, he clearly illustrates the difference between household net wealth and household income.
Wealth Inequality and Household Net Wealth Growth
It is well known that the distribution of household net wealth is even more unbalanced than that of household income. Net wealth is defined as all assets net out all debts. In the top quartile of the household net wealth distribution held the lion�s share�87 percent (or $43.6 trillion) while the bottom quartile of households had nothing. The upper and lower middle quartiles combined held $6.5 trillion, or 13 percent of total household net wealth (see Chart 1).
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/members/citizenzen-albums-album-picture1305-screen-shot-2011-04-16.png
As he says in the report, "In other words, the bottom 28 million of American households in 2004 had nothing once their debt is netted out ..."
The difference between inequalities in wealth and income is quite natural, as one is from a stock perspective and the other is from a flow perspective. Low income households have to spend most or all of their incomes on life necessities with little capability of saving and investment so they can hardly accumulate any household net wealth. Thus they often remain in the bottom distribution of household wealth with nothing; the exception is the group of low income senior households who recently fell into the low-income category due to retirement and the loss of income. In short, while the bottom quartile of income distribution still has income, the bottom quartile of wealth distribution does not have any wealth net of debt.
This is a key point to the growing inequity of wealth in America. The rich have surplus funds that they are able to invest, while the poor, and a growing number of people are spending all of the income on consumption.
In 2007 Zhu Xiao Di wrote a report for the Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies title, Growing Wealth, Inequity, and Housing in the United States [PDF] (http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf)
Abstract
The rapid growth of household wealth in the United States has been accompanied by drastic growing inequality. This paper discusses both wealth and inequality growth, examines demographic factors behind the growth, and analyzes housing�s role in it, using the Survey of Consumer Finances data collected by the Federal Reserve Bank. While aggregate household net wealth grew from $25.9 trillion in 1995 to $50.1 trillion in 2004 (both in 2004 dollars), nearly 90 percent of the net gains occurred only among the top quartile of households in the wealth distribution. Although housing wealth (both home equity and housing value) was still more evenly distributed than other types of wealth, it largely served to widen the wealth gap rather than to narrow it during the last decade.
In this report, he clearly illustrates the difference between household net wealth and household income.
Wealth Inequality and Household Net Wealth Growth
It is well known that the distribution of household net wealth is even more unbalanced than that of household income. Net wealth is defined as all assets net out all debts. In the top quartile of the household net wealth distribution held the lion�s share�87 percent (or $43.6 trillion) while the bottom quartile of households had nothing. The upper and lower middle quartiles combined held $6.5 trillion, or 13 percent of total household net wealth (see Chart 1).
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/members/citizenzen-albums-album-picture1305-screen-shot-2011-04-16.png
As he says in the report, "In other words, the bottom 28 million of American households in 2004 had nothing once their debt is netted out ..."
The difference between inequalities in wealth and income is quite natural, as one is from a stock perspective and the other is from a flow perspective. Low income households have to spend most or all of their incomes on life necessities with little capability of saving and investment so they can hardly accumulate any household net wealth. Thus they often remain in the bottom distribution of household wealth with nothing; the exception is the group of low income senior households who recently fell into the low-income category due to retirement and the loss of income. In short, while the bottom quartile of income distribution still has income, the bottom quartile of wealth distribution does not have any wealth net of debt.
netdog
Jul 30, 05:22 AM
Without even getting into new things, they could just do it well. Cell phones have interfaces like goats. Every single one of them.
David:cool:
I'm klnd of scared to ask how you interface with a goat Dave. I didn't know they allowed that kind of stuff in Canada.
David:cool:
I'm klnd of scared to ask how you interface with a goat Dave. I didn't know they allowed that kind of stuff in Canada.
TalonFlyer
Nov 20, 08:55 PM
It works, it's expensive and it's NOT a great value!!!
I have used my new car kit for a few days and I'm a little disappointed with a few aspects of the device. My iPhone snaps in fairly well and it's easy to rotate. The articulation of the mount is not as desirable as it appears in the advertisements. The rotating lock that suctions it to the window is fairly good. The over all feel and quality of the device seems fair to good, however it should be priced about $30-$40 less to be a good value.
The hands-free works, however it appears that it is not duplexed so road noise and vibrations seems to be causing the device to VOX (switch off the speaker when you are talking). I have mixed feelings with the few calls I have made so far. Looking like it may not be a good hands-free device.
It uses Bluetooth to connect the hands-free and not the GPS. I was hoping to be able to use the bluetooth to connect the GPS to other devices and apparently that is not possible. I was also hoping that I could use the hands-free if not docked. You can't, must dock to connect the bluetooth hands-free. Does not make any sense.
Also, they forgot about the voice control that can be activated with a bump of the answer button on most headsets. The volume button, if you push it, sometime brings up the voice control, however it is well behind the iPhone and not easy to hit while the phone is docked. Why is this not more accessible?
Would have been nice to have a button to start and stop music, like my 5 year old bluetooth headset. Maybe next to the other missing button.
When in horizontal mode the weight of the iPhone and the slightest bump in the road or touching the device will cause it to rotate almost vertical. This is because the swivel is not centered and the iPhone is side heavy. Seems that the resistance force of the swivel is a few ounces to light. You also must remove any cover you have as there is no room for anything except the iPhone itself.
They don't support the iPod touch and now they are coming out with a iPod specific mount, it has even less value because I can't use both devices on the same car kit.
Here is how I grade the Car Kit (1-10):
Mounting: 8
Rotation: 7
Articulation: 3
Hands-Free: 4 (Weak, speaker is facing away from you, VOX'ing problem)
GPS: 6 (Only very slightly better that the built in GPS)
Compatibility: 3 (Can't use iPod Touch)
Bluetooth: 2 (Phone will not pair until docked, can't pair with other devices)
Overall it's a $79.00 retail mount with a questionable hands-free, only a small incremental change in GPS accuracy and a useless bluetooth implementation. I'll give it a generous 5 out of 10 for now.
Cost: 119.00 plus Tax, $40 is a donation to the cause.
That's my 2 cents worth that cost me a Benjamin and then some.
Update: I tried the car kit in different vehicles and in different Major cities with the same result. After exchanging my car kit and found no improvement with the hands-free, I decided to return it for a full refund and wait for the Magellan and see if it is any better. I called TomTom and it took over an hour to get someone on the phone and they were no help at all.
The service rep said "Well it appears that your unit is still in warranty", after I stopped laughing I asked her if she was familiar with the product. This just shows that TomTom does not have it together at all for the US market and I am so glad I didn't waste a hundred bucks on the APP.
My new rating is a 3 because the iPhone looks great when mounted.
TomTom = RunRun!
I have used my new car kit for a few days and I'm a little disappointed with a few aspects of the device. My iPhone snaps in fairly well and it's easy to rotate. The articulation of the mount is not as desirable as it appears in the advertisements. The rotating lock that suctions it to the window is fairly good. The over all feel and quality of the device seems fair to good, however it should be priced about $30-$40 less to be a good value.
The hands-free works, however it appears that it is not duplexed so road noise and vibrations seems to be causing the device to VOX (switch off the speaker when you are talking). I have mixed feelings with the few calls I have made so far. Looking like it may not be a good hands-free device.
It uses Bluetooth to connect the hands-free and not the GPS. I was hoping to be able to use the bluetooth to connect the GPS to other devices and apparently that is not possible. I was also hoping that I could use the hands-free if not docked. You can't, must dock to connect the bluetooth hands-free. Does not make any sense.
Also, they forgot about the voice control that can be activated with a bump of the answer button on most headsets. The volume button, if you push it, sometime brings up the voice control, however it is well behind the iPhone and not easy to hit while the phone is docked. Why is this not more accessible?
Would have been nice to have a button to start and stop music, like my 5 year old bluetooth headset. Maybe next to the other missing button.
When in horizontal mode the weight of the iPhone and the slightest bump in the road or touching the device will cause it to rotate almost vertical. This is because the swivel is not centered and the iPhone is side heavy. Seems that the resistance force of the swivel is a few ounces to light. You also must remove any cover you have as there is no room for anything except the iPhone itself.
They don't support the iPod touch and now they are coming out with a iPod specific mount, it has even less value because I can't use both devices on the same car kit.
Here is how I grade the Car Kit (1-10):
Mounting: 8
Rotation: 7
Articulation: 3
Hands-Free: 4 (Weak, speaker is facing away from you, VOX'ing problem)
GPS: 6 (Only very slightly better that the built in GPS)
Compatibility: 3 (Can't use iPod Touch)
Bluetooth: 2 (Phone will not pair until docked, can't pair with other devices)
Overall it's a $79.00 retail mount with a questionable hands-free, only a small incremental change in GPS accuracy and a useless bluetooth implementation. I'll give it a generous 5 out of 10 for now.
Cost: 119.00 plus Tax, $40 is a donation to the cause.
That's my 2 cents worth that cost me a Benjamin and then some.
Update: I tried the car kit in different vehicles and in different Major cities with the same result. After exchanging my car kit and found no improvement with the hands-free, I decided to return it for a full refund and wait for the Magellan and see if it is any better. I called TomTom and it took over an hour to get someone on the phone and they were no help at all.
The service rep said "Well it appears that your unit is still in warranty", after I stopped laughing I asked her if she was familiar with the product. This just shows that TomTom does not have it together at all for the US market and I am so glad I didn't waste a hundred bucks on the APP.
My new rating is a 3 because the iPhone looks great when mounted.
TomTom = RunRun!
tekmoe
Sep 15, 06:36 PM
People should get automatically banned for having those 3 keywords in any post...
+1
+1
ehoui
May 5, 06:50 PM
Actually, the more I think about it... the more I've come 'round to your thinking. Living in a country that has (mostly) gone metric, the more children in the US that are taught a system that no-one else in the world uses makes a lot of economic sense - for us. So please, keep on giving your children hurdles to overcome should they wish to compete in the rest of the world. It's good for the rest of us. ;)
There is no hurdle. American students in Science and Engineering programs are able to do both without problems. Maybe being able to handle multiple systems give us a competitive edge....
There is no hurdle. American students in Science and Engineering programs are able to do both without problems. Maybe being able to handle multiple systems give us a competitive edge....
jsalzer
Jul 30, 04:26 PM
i think i'll buy a Macbook instead
Ah, but the new iPhone can be purchased as a part of the package with a MacBook Pro - as it will conveniently fit into the ExpressCard/34 slot. It can be pulled out and used as a stand-alone phone, or it can be left in the slot to allow the user a full iChatAV phone experience from anywhere on the road.
That slot had to be put there for a reason - and the remote doesn't fit. Right?
:)
OK, maybe not.
Ah, but the new iPhone can be purchased as a part of the package with a MacBook Pro - as it will conveniently fit into the ExpressCard/34 slot. It can be pulled out and used as a stand-alone phone, or it can be left in the slot to allow the user a full iChatAV phone experience from anywhere on the road.
That slot had to be put there for a reason - and the remote doesn't fit. Right?
:)
OK, maybe not.
petvas
May 4, 03:14 PM
Can you boot off the stuff in the DMG?
I havent tried that but you can create a bootable USB drive: http://www.blogchampion.com/blog/2011/3/12/how-to-create-a-bootable-mac-os-x-lion-usb-installer-from-ap.html
When I am back home I will try to burn the dmg file and see if it boots.
I havent tried that but you can create a bootable USB drive: http://www.blogchampion.com/blog/2011/3/12/how-to-create-a-bootable-mac-os-x-lion-usb-installer-from-ap.html
When I am back home I will try to burn the dmg file and see if it boots.
Tmelon
Mar 30, 08:50 PM
I still can't remove Launchpad on mine >.< Did you update via Software Update or reinstall the new build? I updated via Software Update to build 2.
Software update doesn't give you build two. It gives you the ability to download build two from a code in the App Store.
Developers have to redownload the whole OS so it wouldn't make much sense for it to be less than a megabyte... :rolleyes:
Software update doesn't give you build two. It gives you the ability to download build two from a code in the App Store.
Developers have to redownload the whole OS so it wouldn't make much sense for it to be less than a megabyte... :rolleyes:
SteveW928
Mar 26, 11:51 PM
I think the fall iPad 3 rumors are just bunk. I suppose by then there might be some processor bumps available and such, but I'm really doubting we'll see an update for a year. The whole 'Retina' display buzz for the iPad is just silly IMO. The biggest thing would be IF (and a big if) Apple were to make some kind of new material for the body to lighten things up even more... but again, I don't see that as such a big deal. Better cameras? I suppose that could be a reason for a new model... but why in the fall? Sorry, that rumor just doesn't make sense.
AppleMacFinder
Apr 10, 02:01 PM
The official Mac answer is: 2
We are at MacRumors! Finder says 2, that's why we should accept 2.
We are at MacRumors! Finder says 2, that's why we should accept 2.
hyperpasta
Jul 21, 01:53 PM
Niice. I would assume that they forgo using the 2.0 GHz chip though. Right now, their lineup is pretty solid using two different speeds. Unless the modify the structure of the lineup (as in lower prices), I think it would make sense.
wordoflife
Apr 9, 05:19 PM
I did parenthesis, then multiplication or division from left to right. That's how I was taught it.
I'm pretty sure doing PEMDAS left to right is the proper way to do it
48/2(9+3)
48/2(12)
24(12)
288
I'm pretty sure doing PEMDAS left to right is the proper way to do it
48/2(9+3)
48/2(12)
24(12)
288
DCJ001
May 6, 07:27 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
I was about to say, "What?! And lose the Windows compatibility they bragged on so much with the Intel transition? You're kidding me!", then I remembered that Windows 8 is also rumored (confirmed?) to run on ARM.
Yes, Windows 8 will have ARM support (http://windows8news.com/2011/01/05/windows-8-arm-press-release-microsoft/).
I don't buy this rumor, though. It's too crazy.
And Apple would never do anything crazy?
Think different.
I was about to say, "What?! And lose the Windows compatibility they bragged on so much with the Intel transition? You're kidding me!", then I remembered that Windows 8 is also rumored (confirmed?) to run on ARM.
Yes, Windows 8 will have ARM support (http://windows8news.com/2011/01/05/windows-8-arm-press-release-microsoft/).
I don't buy this rumor, though. It's too crazy.
And Apple would never do anything crazy?
Think different.
Eidorian
Aug 3, 12:08 PM
http://www.onedigitallife.com/2006/08/02/wwdc-2006-banner/
allegedly a banner from WWDC 2006...
oops! seen it another thread now, my bad.New thread for a new rumor? Page 1 or 2? :D
allegedly a banner from WWDC 2006...
oops! seen it another thread now, my bad.New thread for a new rumor? Page 1 or 2? :D
SactoGuy18
Apr 20, 07:04 AM
Let's see - the iPad 2 had a faster CPU and has the same/better battery life. So where is your logic?
And you know how Apple did it? By increasing the size of the battery pack itself.
As for the iPhone 5, I think in the end the device will most likely spec out like this:
1. Will look like a "thicker" 4G iPod touch but with a much-improved metal-band surround antenna that is not so susceptible to the "grip of death" antenna reception issues.
2. The backing will no longer use glass. Don't be surprised if the backing uses LiquidMetal (maybe carbon fiber if Apple can figure out a way to manufacture it at reasonable cost).
3. Display is now a full 4" IPS LCD touchscreen.
4. It will use A5 dual-core CPU/GPU.
5. It may get a RAM bump from 512 MB to 768 MB.
6. Flash memory storage options are still 16 and 32 GB, but in a smaller physical size for flash memory module.
7. Battery size will get bigger for longer battery life.
8. Will add Bluetooth 4.0 functionality.
9. Will likely add full near-field communications (NFC) functionality, including full compatibility with the Sony FeliCa system widely used in eastern Asia.
10. Will NOT add Thunderbolt I/O, since it would be overkill and few devices support the Thunderbolt I/O anyway.
And you know how Apple did it? By increasing the size of the battery pack itself.
As for the iPhone 5, I think in the end the device will most likely spec out like this:
1. Will look like a "thicker" 4G iPod touch but with a much-improved metal-band surround antenna that is not so susceptible to the "grip of death" antenna reception issues.
2. The backing will no longer use glass. Don't be surprised if the backing uses LiquidMetal (maybe carbon fiber if Apple can figure out a way to manufacture it at reasonable cost).
3. Display is now a full 4" IPS LCD touchscreen.
4. It will use A5 dual-core CPU/GPU.
5. It may get a RAM bump from 512 MB to 768 MB.
6. Flash memory storage options are still 16 and 32 GB, but in a smaller physical size for flash memory module.
7. Battery size will get bigger for longer battery life.
8. Will add Bluetooth 4.0 functionality.
9. Will likely add full near-field communications (NFC) functionality, including full compatibility with the Sony FeliCa system widely used in eastern Asia.
10. Will NOT add Thunderbolt I/O, since it would be overkill and few devices support the Thunderbolt I/O anyway.
Object-X
Aug 7, 02:03 PM
They updated the specs of the displays too along with lowering the price.
-aggie-
May 3, 03:28 PM
I'm still clueless. This should be interesting and I have a major role.
tny
Nov 26, 10:36 PM
This can be done quite cheaply, if Apple doesn't use off the shelf PC components - which is why current tablet PCs are so expensive. An Intel ULV processor is not cheap.
Huh? COTS components are *always* cheaper than custom components.
Shame that Apple moved away from the PowerPC really, when it comes to applications such as this [snip] a 30GB 1.8" hard drive (same as iPod)
Yes, it's a shame that they moved away from the PowerPC, but it was pretty clear that IBM was going to put all its consumer-level processor research on the Cell, and the Cell would have been a whole different kettle of fish for Apple. However, I've been told that using my iPod as a boot drive with any kind of regularity is a bad idea - that the 1.8 inch drives aren't sturdy enough for that kind of constant wear. For flash memory, you get all the reads you want, and the write limits are comparable to a hard drive. I also think that you'd want to use separate non-flash volatile RAM (integrated video would use the RAM as well as running applications), and not just use flash for working memory.
Huh? COTS components are *always* cheaper than custom components.
Shame that Apple moved away from the PowerPC really, when it comes to applications such as this [snip] a 30GB 1.8" hard drive (same as iPod)
Yes, it's a shame that they moved away from the PowerPC, but it was pretty clear that IBM was going to put all its consumer-level processor research on the Cell, and the Cell would have been a whole different kettle of fish for Apple. However, I've been told that using my iPod as a boot drive with any kind of regularity is a bad idea - that the 1.8 inch drives aren't sturdy enough for that kind of constant wear. For flash memory, you get all the reads you want, and the write limits are comparable to a hard drive. I also think that you'd want to use separate non-flash volatile RAM (integrated video would use the RAM as well as running applications), and not just use flash for working memory.
RichardBeer
Mar 30, 09:11 PM
Any word on the updated OpenGL support?
celticpride678
Mar 27, 12:40 AM
Is the Verizon iPhone going to be included this time?
srathi
Apr 26, 02:14 PM
Some will be bothered about IOS not being the most dominant. I personally don't care, I just want the best mobile OS.
Did you mean Android? :p
Did you mean Android? :p
RalfTheDog
Apr 7, 10:38 AM
Apple is one greedy corporation that just loves to attack.. typical of the coming corporate takeover of humanity.
How is this an attack? Apple can't make enough devices to match demand, while RIM will have a hard time selling the few units they do make. If RIM had people lining up every morning to get an rPad, they would have an issue.
You are not supply limited if you can't sell what you make.
How is this an attack? Apple can't make enough devices to match demand, while RIM will have a hard time selling the few units they do make. If RIM had people lining up every morning to get an rPad, they would have an issue.
You are not supply limited if you can't sell what you make.
msb3079
Apr 20, 02:03 PM
That's not "Calendar" summer, it is based on cycles of the sun, precisely, the solstices and equinoxes. ;)
It just so happens that the Fall equinox falls in mid-september while Summer solstice is on the 21st of June.
This is true the world over, it is not a "US thing".
I understand. And while most "go by" what you are saying... IMO, meteorological summer really matters the most. On September 15th... most people don't really think of it as still being summer. What I'm saying is, subconsciously (or maybe not) we tend to think in meteorological seasons as opposed to calendar seasons, even though we technically more follow calendar seasons.
That probably sounds confusing. Sorry.
It just so happens that the Fall equinox falls in mid-september while Summer solstice is on the 21st of June.
This is true the world over, it is not a "US thing".
I understand. And while most "go by" what you are saying... IMO, meteorological summer really matters the most. On September 15th... most people don't really think of it as still being summer. What I'm saying is, subconsciously (or maybe not) we tend to think in meteorological seasons as opposed to calendar seasons, even though we technically more follow calendar seasons.
That probably sounds confusing. Sorry.
dr_lha
Aug 11, 10:45 AM
The link that was posted was to a Conroe chip. mashinhead asked for third party upgrades for the the current Yonah based line here. #64 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2708950&postcount=64)
Conroe cannot fit into Merom's socket.
Which is exactly what I said in my post.
I'm totallly confused as to why you're saying I was wrong here. The chip linked was Conroe, I said:
There is no current Mac that this chip can "drop into", apart from maybe a Mac Pro, but going from a Woodcrest to a Conroe would be a downgrade in that case.
The Merom that should eventually go into the iMac, mini, MBP and MacBook are currently not on sale to the consumer.
Exactly what was wrong with this again, apart from your not reading it correctly?
Conroe cannot fit into Merom's socket.
Which is exactly what I said in my post.
I'm totallly confused as to why you're saying I was wrong here. The chip linked was Conroe, I said:
There is no current Mac that this chip can "drop into", apart from maybe a Mac Pro, but going from a Woodcrest to a Conroe would be a downgrade in that case.
The Merom that should eventually go into the iMac, mini, MBP and MacBook are currently not on sale to the consumer.
Exactly what was wrong with this again, apart from your not reading it correctly?
No comments:
Post a Comment