During the same period, median female income almost doubled while male income remained flat.
Source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/histinctb.html
On interesting stuff in the world
Jacob Commencing from Matt Kuenzel on Vimeo.
Gilles DeleuzeObject-Oriented Ontology
Conference Presentation by Aden Evens, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Object-orientation is not only the latest paradigm in computer programming but underlies the operation of every program, archaic to cutting-edge. Computer programs are wholly determined by a spec, which measures success unequivocally in terms of determinate goals (objects). Thus, programs are driven by objects, and the job of the programmer seems plodding, churning out code governed by a preestablished aim. But something novel takes place when the object is lifted from the world and placed within the program. For an object in a program represents an additional dimension, a pleat or fold in the flat plane of the digital code. Objects allow computer programs to refer to themselves, to gain a (limited) sense of context. Structuring objects to manipulate a program's self-reference, programmers exceed their mundane charge to become creative. This paper analyzes objects as the site where human desire is folded into a computer program.
Rank Country Phys Per 1000 Pop
1 Cuba 66567 5.91
2 Belarus 45027 4.55
3 Belgium 46268 4.49
4 Greece 47944 4.38
5 Russian 609043 4.25
6 Italy 241000 4.20
7 Turkmenistan 20032 4.18
8 Georgia 20962 4.09
9 Lithuania 13682 3.97
10 Israel 24577 3.82
11 Uruguay 12384 3.65
12 Switzerland 25921 3.61
13 Armenia 10983 3.59
14 Bulgaria 28128 3.56
15 Azerbaijan 29687 3.55
16 Kazakhstan 54613 3.54
17 Czech Republic 35960 3.51
18 Portugal 34440 3.42
19 Austria 27413 3.38
20 Germany 277885 3.37
21 France 203487 3.37
22 Hungary 32877 3.33
23 Spain 135300 3.30
24 Dem Pple Korea 74597 3.29
25 Sweden 29122 3.28
26 Lebanon 11505 3.25
27 Slovakia 17172 3.18
28 Finland 16446 3.16
29 Netherlands 50854 3.15
30 Norway 14200 3.13
31 Argentina 108800 3.01
32 Ukraine 143202 2.95
33 Denmark 15653 2.93
34 Ireland 11141 2.79
35 Uzbekistan 71623 2.74
36 Moldova 11246 2.64
37 USA 730801 2.56
38 Kyrgyzstan 12902 2.51
39 Australia 47875 2.47
40 Poland 95272 2.47
41 Croatia 10820 2.44
42 United Kingdom 133641 2.30
43 Canada 66583 2.14
44 Serbia and Mont 21738 2.06
45 Tajikistan 12697 2.03
46 Jordan 11398 2.03
47 Mexico 195897 1.98
48 Japan 251889 1.98
49 Venezuela 48000 1.94
50 Romania 42538 1.90
51 Dominican Rep 15670 1.88
52 Korea 75045 1.57
53 Ecuador 18335 1.48
54 Syria 23742 1.40
55 Saudi Arabia 34261 1.37
56 Colombia 58761 1.35
57 Turkey 96000 1.35
58 Tunisia 13330 1.34
59 Bolivia 10329 1.22
60 Peru 29799 1.17
61 Brazil 198153 1.15
62 Algeria 35368 1.13
63 Chile 17250 1.09
64 China 1364000 1.06
65 South Africa 34829 0.77
66 Pakistan 116298 0.74
67 Malaysia 16146 0.70
68 Iraq 17022 0.66
69 India 645825 0.60
70 Philippines 44287 0.58
71 Sri Lanka 10479 0.55
72 Egypt 38485 0.54
73 Viet Nam 42327 0.53
74 Morocco 15991 0.51
75 Iran 31394 0.45
76 Thailand 22435 0.37
77 Myanmar 17791 0.36
78 Nigeria 34923 0.28
79 Bangladesh 38485 0.26
80 Indonesia 29499 0.13
METHOD 1
LOOP: [entities] compete
select best [entities]
increase best [entities]
diversify best [entities]
destroy remaining [entities]
go to LOOP
Observed Results
entities=
genes success
organisms success
species success
businesses success
ideas success
schools not tried
METHOD 2
experts design [entities]
LOOP: [entities] operate
experts identify problems with [entities]
experts make small changes to [entities]
go to LOOP
Observed Results
entities=
airplanes success
cars short-term success, long-term failure
businesses failure
economies failure
ideas failure
schools short-term success, long-term failure
In game theory terms, a free rider is an agent who draws benefits from a co-operative society without contributing. In a one-to-one situation, free riding can easily be discouraged by a tit-for-tat strategy. But in a larger-scale society, where contributions and benefits are pooled and shared, they can be incredibly difficult to shake off.
Imagine an elementary society of co-operative organisms. Co-operative agents interact with each other, each contributing resources and each drawing on the common good. Now imagine a rogue free rider, an agent who draws a favor ("you scratch my back") and later refuses to return it. The problem is that free riding is always going to be beneficial to individuals at cost to society. How can well-behaved co-operative agents avoid being cheated? Over many generations, one obvious solution is for co-operators to evolve the ability to spot potential free riders in advance and refuse to enter into reciprocal arrangements with them. Then, the canonical free rider response is to evolve a more convincing disguise, fooling co-operators into co-operating after all. This can lead to an evolutionary arms races, with ever-more-sophisticated disguises and ever-more-sophisticated detectors.
In this evolutionary arms race, how best might one convince comrades that one really is a genuine co-operator, not a free rider in disguise? One answer is by actually making oneself a genuine co-operator, by erecting psychological barriers to breaking promises, and by advertising this fact to everyone else. In other words, a good solution is for organisms to evolve things that everyone knows will force them to be co-operators - and to make it obvious that they've evolved these things. So evolution will produce organisms who are sincerely moral and who wear their hearts on their sleeves; in short, evolution will give rise to the phenomenon of conscience.
This theory, combined with ideas of kin selection and the one-to-one sharing of benefits, may explain how a blind and fundamentally selfish process can produce a genuinely non-cynical form of altruism that gives rise to the human conscience.