That is off for me . It does sync when not charging when I am on wifi and take a picture . <| sep |> Online Chess and porn . <| sep |> Think I ' ll just pull the trigger on the Samsung . Spend anymore and I ' ll be disgusted with myself for getting TN at that price . <| sep |> That ' s an excellent question , and I ' m not sure I know enough about how King tabulated his results to answer definitively . It is a bit of an ad hoc mess . Tldr is that King ' s method for estimating incomes doesn ' t even really touch on nonmoney incomes , he was inferringguessing at rather than measuring individual incomes , and the groups who probably most relied on nonmoney incomes were earning less than the 12 figure . To back up a bit There are two ways to estimate incomes for various social groups . One is microeconomic , or bottomup , estimating individuals ' various sources of earnings wages , land rents , selfprovisioning , capital appreciation , etc . and then extrapolating to the whole by taking your measured individuals as typical , and multiplying by the size of the group . The other is macro , or topdown , where you take large macroeconomic estimates of the whole product of the country , and then try and proportion it out to various groups based on their size , how much land they own , what taxes they pay , whether they receive alms , and so on . Then , you divide your total group incomes by your group size figures , and get income per person . In this case , your inferred incomes are sensitive to the estimates of total national income , the size of your groups , and your estimates of the relative distribution of that production among them . King had reliable data on none of these things . King appears to have been working largely in this second , macroeconomic mode , taking data from poll and hearth taxes , alms and poor relief , landownership , and so on , and supplementing this with educated guesses about quantities he couldn ' t measure . The important thing was to construct a selfconsistent table , a form of deduction of the specific details from the big picture , rather than accurately measure the inputs into each class ' income . Holmes via Arkell in this case suggests that King ' s numbers are far more the product of strained deduction , of mathematical juggling , or even plain guesswork , than of firmly grounded information especially when it comes to the lower groups on the social tables . Anything that didn ' t get measured in King ' s sources presumably does not get included . The English tax registers , poor relief system , and state statistical knowledge were among the most efficient in the world which is not saying much in 1688 , but surely a great deal must have escaped their grasp , no doubt including payments in kind and highly informal , temporary labour . However , it is also worth noting that there are people at the bottom end of the income distribution , including the sorts of vagrants , cottagers , landless labourers and so on who may have been paid mostly in kind , who would have earned less than 12 a year maybe 13 to 12 of that . I personally find it implausible that they could have subsisted on so little if their earnings were all in the money economy . Sources Tom Arkell Illuminations and Distortions Gregory King ' s Scheme Calculated for the Year 1688 and the Social Structure of Later Stuart England , The Economic History Review , New Series , Vol . 59 , No . 1 Feb . , 2006 , pp . 3269 .