Slashdot Mirror

There are more experienced techies who understand new technology than there are young ones who understand old technology. Or how their new technology works behind the scenes, for that matter.

And no, people aren't old at 40-50. With a normal work life lasting from 20-25 to 60-70, that's only halfway through, and is more likely to be near the peak of performance.

Actually, you could read that a different way. Many workers over 35 are no longer given access to the latest projects, docs, tools, etc. It's not that they don't understand new technology; it's that they aren't welcome.

The 50s were also the traditional peak earning years -- before bodyshopping.

I'd put the productive work-life from 25 to 75, based on some of the people with whom I've worked. Before 25, you're just an intern/apprentice, learning how to learn the ropes.

"The life of the peasant of the Middle Ages was short & nasty. The average life expectancy was 40 years." --- William B. Williams 1995 _Future Perfect_ pp 125-126

"Life expectancy in the 1690s was 32 years. For the poor, life was even shorter." --- Michael Rothschild 1992 _Bionomics_ pg 19

"The dire poverty of the early 19th century Irish may be indicated by their average life expectancy of 19 years -- compard to 36 years for contemporary American slaves..." --- Thomas Sowell 1998 _Conquests and Cultures_ pg65 (citing Oliver MacDonagh 1976 "The Irish Famine Emigration to the United States" _Perspectives in American History_ vol10 pg366; Eugene D. Genovese 1974 _Roll, Jordan Roll: The World the Slaves Made_ pp524-525; Robert W. Fogel & Stanley L. Engerman 1974 _Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery_ pg125; Carl Wittke 1967 _We Who Built America_ pg129)

In 1895, life expectancy at birth was 42, per Buckminster Fuller (quoted in Michael Toms & Justine Willis Toms 1998 _True Work_ pg 182)

"In 1930, average life expectancy at birth was 58 years for men, 61 years for women (& at age 65 life expectancy was an additional 12 years for men & 13 for women); by 1990, life expectancy was 71 years for men, 79 for women (& at age 65, an additional 15 years for men & 19 for women)." --- Robert J. Samuelson 1995 _The Good Life & Its Discontents_ pg 222 (referencing _1994 Green Book: OverView of Entitlement Programs_ table A.2)

"In 1940 people aged 65 & older in the US was only 6.8% of the total population, according to that year's census. Life expectancy at birth was calculated by the National Center for Health Statistics to be 63.6 years -- 61.4 years for men & 65.7 years for women... The hardy few who did make it to 65 could expect to live -- & draw benefits -- another dozen years (13.4 for women)." --- Marshall N. Carter & William G. Shipman 1996 _Promises to Keep_ pp 29-30

"In 1994 [the Socialist Insecurity abomination] calculated life expectancy at birth to be 72.6 years for men & 79.0 years for women. It projects life expectancy to rise by about 5 years over the next 75 years -- or by 8 months each decade. By the year 2065 the child born in 1996 should be a few years into retirement -- if there is still retirement..." --- Marshall N. Carter & William G. Shipman 1996 _Promises to Keep_ pg 26 (referencing socialist inecurity abmomination trustees 1995 annual report)

1997-07-29
Sanjoy Banerjee _Pacific News_
From a Life Expectancy of 28 to 60 -- Measuring India's Advances Over 50 Years of Independence
graph
Related link: "In India life expectancy has gone up from 20 years in the beginning of the 20th century to 62 years today." --- HelpAge India
The Indian Aging Scenario

2000
_India Child_

How can that person sleep at night?

Maybe you should ask Nguyet Anh Duong how she sleeps at night. She uses her technical expertise to design some pretty intense weapons. I watched a show some time ago about thermobaric bombs where they interviewed her. She was committed to making sure that the US has a clear advantage on the batttlefield.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguyet_Anh_Duong

http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=7b82c31eb1a725262fb0af787a6ceaaf

http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html ?article_id=eed74d9d44c30493706fe03f4c9b3a77

or

http://tinyurl.com/9aqnn

http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html ?article_id=eed74d9d44c30493706fe03f4c9b3a77

Coincidence ? I'm not normally part of the tinfoil brigade but now I calls it like I see's it.

http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html ?article_id=eed74d9d44c30493706fe03f4c9b3a77

Coincidence ? I'm not normally part of the tinfoil brigade but now I calls it like I see's it.

If you believe that this contingency contract for responding to emergencies is, as the author of the piece at your link puts it, another step down the Bush administration's road toward martial law, you can go here.

President Bush has as much chance of staying in power after the next presidential election as Nixon, Reagan, or Clinton had: none. Two terms, and that's it. The tiny fringe of people that actually believe that some sort of anti-Constitutional coup like this is about to be sprung dwarfs the practically non-existent fringe of people that support it.

Your post does leave me a little curious though, what is your thinking here? If the government prepares for displaced persons / disasters, it is evidence of incipient fascism, if they don't, it is incompetence? That sort of gets them coming and going, eh?

you can always comply with the wishes of authority...

Or you can go here.

Given that we have one time use credit cards, a banking system which has a lot of wire transfer traffic on it, and a thousand other things that give us virtual* money...why trouble yourself with creating the real-world equilivant? As pointed out in numerous other posts, there are several things which you can do wrong which can catch you. Not to mention what this and other articles itself talks about and imply.

The trouble to learn the bank's electronic transfer systems as well as gaining access cannot be any harder than getting the proper equipment to pull off a good, large scale counterfeiting scheme. Let's not even go into how all most all banks still are very, very quiet when someone does do an electronic break in. It took the feds, what? Three years to get that bank in NY to fess up that the Russian mob had used fake electronic transfers to help launder billions of dollars?

*[With a fait money system, such as the one used in the US, the money is never back with a material component such as gold, silver, or diamonds. In essense, all such money not backed in that way is virtual since you can't look at a physical object and say that the value of the money and the value of the object are the same.]

Here.
...and here.
(Off topic but on target :-)

woops... I got sources. forgot:

Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia

Energy Information Administration

Follow the Oil Trail--
Mess in Afghanistan Partly Our Government's Fault


if ya want more goto my website and email me.

A reader who is not online phoned me last night to get my take on the WTC attack. As with others who have contacted me, he wanted to see the possibility of something good coming from this calamity. As we talked on, I began to see that there is such a possibility--and it's entirely in our hands to bring it about. No one and nothing can prevent us from bringing it about--if we wish to.

We want to see an end to terrorism--on that we're agreed. To take aim at this goal, however, we must stand on the solid, level ground of truth, and this we're not doing as yet. Our leaders are not speaking the truth as they surely know it; they're posing (as they have consistently done for many decades). They're posing as knights in shining armor, as paragons of perfect virtue, as the champions of godliness and decency ready to smite evil-doers (as our enemies must be, by definition). We can find no firm footing in this pose, because it's false, and so our aim is going to be shaky.

The good we can bring about is to abandon this pose and to stand resolutely on the truth, which is that we can't pretend to bear no responsibility for the spread of terrorism and to have earned none of the hatred that drives it. (For more on this subject, see "Why a Military Response Won't Work -- Historic Roots of Mideast Grievances," by William O. Beeman, Pacific News Service, September 19, 2001.)

By saying this, I'm not in the least condoning terrorism. I'm just rejecting as useless the fiction that we are immaculate saints while our enemies are Satanic monsters. This kind of posing brings us no honor in the world community and does nothing to steady our aim against terrorism.

But where do we go from there?, my caller wanted to know. It seemed to him that the pose of righteousness gives us a clear program: Rage out into the world with our hands full of bombs to wreak vengeance on the tools of Satan. Yes, the pose of righteousness does give us that, whereas merely standing on the truth does not. You might say that standing in the pose of righteousness makes us lean toward wrath and violence, whereas standing on the truth merely puts us in balance. In this balanced state, we need to think about what to do. We need to listen to the wisdom of others and to understand what our enemies want--not to concede it to them but in order to defeat them. As Sun Tzu said in The Art of War, "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles."