If You Didn't Need Money, What Would You Do?

permaculture had this simple but philosophical query to run by you all, today: "I was once asked this question: 'If you didn't have to work for money, what would you do with your time?' I've put that question to many people since I first heard it, and got a lot of different answers. It seems to me that the answer to this question is what you should be aiming for even though you do have to spend most of your time earning a crust."

Comments

Easy

[quintessent]

Slashdot 24x7, baby!

Work.

[jdclucidly]

I would continue to work to satisfy the basic human need to feel worth something.

Re:Work.

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

The need to WORK in order to satisfy that need, if not the need itself, is most certainly CULTURAL (and probably a product of Puritan-thinking America), not a basic characteristic of human instinct.

Re:Work.

[PD]

I'd do a lot of open source software. Work isn't really good unless it's fun.

Re:Work.

[matzim]

The need to WORK in order to satisfy that need, if not the need itself, is most certainly CULTURAL (and probably a product of Puritan-thinking America), not a basic characteristic of human instinct.

What's your definition of work? Are you saying that if you had all the money you need you'd spend the rest of your days in your underwear eating Cheetos? Maybe "work" isn't the right word-- but I would think that most intelligent, creative people, IRREGARDLESS of culture, would want to exercise whatever talents or skills they have.

Re:Work.

[Oculus Habent]

I know several people who were born into substantially wealthy families. The important things they learned/were taught is that having money doesn't mean spending money, and the privilege you have of being here deserves your contribution.

You wouldn't know they were rich when you met them, nor when you saw the cars they drive, nor their houses. Their children do not have every toy they ever wanted.

If I didn't have to worry about money, I would still work, but I doubt that I would be as committed, or as financially savvy.

I think I would start a company, and work on the ideas and dreams I have. I think the dangerous thing for people who "come into money" is the ability to follow through on flights of fancy, where most people sort out their priorities and make goals of those dreams they have.

Re:Work.

[BitGeek]

Of course its a basic characteristic of humanity. Its not a cultural product.

The idea that work is bad-- that's a cultural idea. It goes with the idea that people are bad, money is bad, and all that other puritan thinking.

IF you're not creating, you're doing nothing worthwhile.

Re:Work.

[pthisis]

I think the dangerous thing for people who "come into money" is the ability to follow through on flights of fancy

Dude, that's also the thing that makes people like Howard Hughes so compelling. He was nuts, did crazy stuff, and it kicked butt. Built the biggest plane ever and flew it once. Built a ship with a 2-mile long claw to raise a submarine off the seabed. Had an army of people spread across the US to find him the most, um, pneumatic woman, then cast her in the Outlaw, then called up preachers and conservative groups telling them how immoral it was so they'd protest and give it free publicity (thereby making Jane Rusell a star).

And all those billionaires who want to parachute out of a balloon at over 15000 feet just to beat (google for "Project Excelsior" for a description of the original).

Sure, it's not _useful_. But it's entertaining as hell.

Sumner

Re:Work.

[Clover_Kicker]

Have you read Pekka Himanen's The Hacker Ethic ?

He talks extensively about the "work ethic".

You seem to have strong opinions about the topic. I predict you'll either really enjoy the book or else totally hate it :)

Re:Work.

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Are you saying that if you had all the money you need you'd spend the rest of your days in your underwear eating Cheetos?

I might. Or I might wander through the wilderness in quiet contemplation. Or analyze great tomes of philosophy in the Library. Journey across the world. Talk to interesting people. I

It strikes me as sad that so many (perhaps not yourself) wouldn't be able to find something to do without asking some company or government for a job...

Re:Work.

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Of course its a basic characteristic of humanity. Its not a cultural product. The idea that work is bad-- that's a cultural idea

Two sides of the same coin--if thinking that work is bad is a cultural idea, then thinking it is good must be as well. I don't think it's bad either--I just don't think it's a goal in and of itself. You might enjoy your work, if so, go to it. You might need to work to do what you enjoy, if so, again, go to it.

But to believe that life wouldn't be worthwhile without work--to not see the value of life and existance outside of work, even outside of creation--well, I feel very sorry for anyone who could put such a simplistic worldview into practice.

Re:Work.

[Orthanc_duo]

Work in this context is not necessarily work for a company. It is achieving some goal. That goal could well be to "analyze great tomes of philosophy" or to find the meaning of life ("Talk to interesting people").

Orthanc

Re:Work.

[chocolatei]

Work is not a basic characteristic of humanity. I haven't worked for years.

Re:Work.

[BitGeek]

If it was written recently, I haven't read it. I read a bunch of books like that awhile back, but I suspect that was not one of them.

Can you give me a short summation as to what he means by the work ethic?

While this work is what I would choose, other work, say for a non-profit, or purely for the sake of art-- fits my ethic as well. As long as you are striving the be the most excellent person you can be... which is a standard that will naturally will be different for everyone.

Re:Work.

[BitGeek]

You misunderstand. Whatever form your highest ideal takes it will take *work* to get there... even if its is *work* to make a sculpture, or help cure a disease, or build a bridge somewhere, or remodel your house, or raise your kids.

For me, its the act of creating software for profit.

Re:Work.

[BitGeek]

If that's truely the case, then you haven't been human for years.

But somehow I doubt it. I suspect you have been working on something.

Or you've been wasting your life... whatever you do that is worthwhile enough to make "wasting your life" and inaccurate characterization, it takes work.

Re:Work.

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

I submit that one need not and should not consult the highest ideal and form a goal of the ideal universe, then dedicate your entire life to making it so. The world is a beautiful place, and should be enjoyed as it is, rather than shaped into a warped reflection of human desire. Watch the world carefully, and it will probably present you a world even better than your highest ideal.

Re:Work.

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

The things I mentioned weren't for the purpose of achieving some goal. They were to be enjoyed as they were being done.

Re:Work.

[ScuzzMonkey]

Which, perhaps, is the goal. ;)

Re:Work.

[Clover_Kicker]

If it was written recently, I haven't read it. I read a bunch of books like that awhile back, but I suspect that was not one of them.

Fairly new, first out in hardcover Jan 2001.

Can you give me a short summation as to what he means by the work ethic?

Urk. It's a fairly deep book by a Ph.D. in philosophy...

He talks a lot about Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, and compares the "Protestant Work Ethic" to the "Hacker Work Ethic".

Protestant Ethic

• I identify strongly with my work (Hi, I'm Bob, I'm a sysadmin). Work is a duty, not just a job.
• Life rotates around work, and everything else is stuffed into evenings and weekends
• If I'm not working (get laid off etc), I feel lost, uprooted, useless

Hacker ethic:

• sort of like the above, but one takes more joy in one's work, to the point where the line between work and play blur.

I'm afraid the above is not a very good summary. I hope it's enough to pique your curiousity and get you to read the book :)

BTW, here's a Slashdot book review and discussion.

Re:Work.

[BitGeek]

The irony is thick since my philosophy is grounded in direct observation of the world around you, and yours in the denial of it existence-- Yet you tell me to watch the world carefully. Maybe I should ask you to at least open your eyes. (Oh, and if you hate being human so much, the exit door is easily found.)

Re:Work.

[BitGeek]

Ah, I think I've already got it.

I'll keep an eye out for the book, but as I said in another post, some of my most productive work time occured north of the arctic circle in isolation while on "vacation". No bells or schedules and the ever-present sun throwing my clock off so much that I never slept the same time s two days in a row. The entire purpose of that trip was to escape work, and not think about it at all, but by the time I crossed the circle, I was working on a new product idea... its natural.

Re:Work.

[BluBrick]

Hacker ethic:

• sort of like the above, but one takes more joy in one's work, to the point where the line between work and play blur.

Well, I never really considered myself a hacker, but it seems that I am... I just happen to be employed as a sysadmin.

Re:Work.

[BluBrick]

BZZZZZZT!

Thanks for playing. But it takes endeavour to get there. If you consider it work, you are a slave, otherwise, you are free.

Re:Work.

[BitGeek]

Sure, if you choose to redefine work to suit your agenda (whatever that is.)

The first definition of work from dictionary.com fits my usage of it:
"Physical or mental effort or activity directed toward the production or accomplishment of something."

Therefore, to say I'm wrong in my usage is stupid.

Endeavor, used as a verb means: "To work with a set or specified goal or purpose"

So your distinction is only in your mind.

Good day.

Re:Work.

[chocolatei]

No, I've done nothing useful. Nothing to earn money. No charity work. No secret projects. Nothing. Nothing I can think of. I watch TV. Sit about a bit. Read a book. Stare out the window. Go for a walk. Get pissed(=drunk) and fall over. Surf a bit(like now) Chat to friends. Eat a chocolate bar. Look at the grass and wonder why no-one is cutting it. Go shopping.

I'd be

[rodentia]

tanning with implants, baby.

Troll Slashdot

[wdr1]

EOF

Does this mean I have all the money I need?

[roachmotel3]

If I had functionally endless money, I'd do the following:

I'd give lots and lots to charity -- I don't want to leave any money to my kids -- they need to earn whatever they get in the world

I'd buy a farm -- 1000 acres or more, build a sweet house, build barns and outbuildings, raise horses, and grow and harvest my own hay.

Yeah, that's about it.

Re:Does this mean I have all the money I need?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your missing the point

Re:Does this mean I have all the money I need?

[roachmotel3]

It depends on the question, right?

Essentially, what I'm saying is that I'd love to be a rancher, or some other such thing -- but I don't have that desire unless I can fully provide for myself and my family -- it would lose the mystique and enjoyability for me if I were doing it to survive and living on a subsistence level income. I want to be a gentleman farmer, I have no desire to do the ranching gig unless I was financially independent.

If I wasn't financially independent, which, incidentally, I'm not -- I'd keep doing what I am doing. Which I am ;) And I'm happy about it -- the problem with the question is that it assumes money isn't important in life or the world, which it is -- otherwise we'd have great teachers, honest police officers, and a lot of other great public service positions being filled to their ideal skill level and commitment level. But, instead, those who can't, teach, etc.

Re:Does this mean I have all the money I need?

[trentfoley]

and grow and harvest my own hay

Call it whatever you want. We know what you mean :)

what would you do?

[sideone]

i would advertise my site 24x7 on slasher.

sideone
ITBitch.com - Your reason for leaving work!

You mean besides 2 chicks at once?

[smalloy]

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

I'd do what I'm doing now...

[blackcoot]

... which is something I guess many people can't say. Of course, I'll eventually grow out of the student phase, but I'm hoping that I'll have my tenure by then ;-)

Re:I'd do what I'm doing now...

[roachmotel3]

Gah -- I hated being a student that last year at college -- I couldn't wait to get out and be a productive member of society, pay taxes and whatnot, blah blah blah

Now, I'm married, own a house, have a stable 9-5 job, and am compensated handsomely. And I want to go back to school ;) The grass is always greener on the other side!

Police Officer

[Anonymous Coward]

If money wasn't an issue, I'd join the force tomorrow. Unfortunately, you can't afford a Suzuki GSX-R1000 and a Westminster apartment on the salary that this lot pay.

But, you can't have it all!

two chicks at once

[Satai]

Peter Gibbons: What would you do if you had a million dollars?
Lawrence: I'll tell you what I'd do, man, two chicks at the same time, man.
Peter Gibbons: That's it? If you had a million dollars, you'd do two chicks at the same time?
Lawrence: Damn straight. I always wanted to do that, man. And I think if I had a million dollars I could hook that up, cause chicks dig a dude with money.
Peter Gibbons: Well, not all chicks.
Lawrence: Well the kind of chicks that'd double up on me do.
Peter Gibbons: Good point.
Lawrence: What about you, what would you do?
Peter Gibbons: Besides two chicks at the same time?
Lawrence: Well yeah.
Peter Gibbons: Nothing.
Lawrence: Nothing, huh?
Peter Gibbons: I'd relax, sit on my ass all day, I would do nothing.
Lawrence: Well you don't need a million dollars to do nothing, man. Just take a look at my cousin, he's broke, don't do shit.

Re:two chicks at once

[RedWolves2]

Ah Office Space!

A precise look into the world we live in on a daily basis. Except for the superman hack of course.

Re:two chicks at once

[AyeRoxor!]

"
"I never appologies, I'm sorry that's just the way it is." - Homer Simpson "

Good fucking heavens, man. Where the fuck did you learn to spell?

Oh, and slashdot moderators are THE COOLEST PEOPLE ON THE ENTIRE PLANET!! WOW! LOVE THEM MODS!

Perhaps,

[psicE]

We should rephrase the question a tad bit.

The question is not (or at least, should not be), what would you do with infinite money? Rather, it's, if you could earn your current salary doing anything at all, what would it be? What would you rather be doing from 9 to 5 (or before, or after)?

In my mind, that's a very important distinction. I don't care if you'd buy a Beowulf cluster of Xserves. I don't care if you'd buy enough food to feed the world. I don't care if you'd buy Australia. All I care about is, if you received the same amount of money you do now, but you didn't have to work for it, what would you do?

Re:Perhaps,

[Dausha]

You mean Austrailia's up for sale?! Deal me in . . .

If I could make my current salary doing whatever, then I would say that I'm where I want to be. I enjoy the challenge of tackling new challenges through programming and teaching mundanes about computers.

Re:Perhaps,

[ip_vjl]

I think the honest answer for a lot of us would be "... the same thing I do now, just less of it."

I think a lot of us like what we do (otherwise we'd be in a different profession already.) What gets to be a drag about any job is the fact you do it whether or not you feel like doing it on any given day.

There are things I do on the side that I do for enjoyment, but if I switched careers to do those things full-time, then they would become tedious too. Doing things when you WANT to do them is fun ... doing things when you HAVE to do them is work.

Re:Perhaps,

[RedWolves2]

If I could get paid for my current salary doing nothing I would ask for a raise.

Re:Perhaps,

[psicE]

You and Dashua are on the right track. It would be great if everyone could say the same as you, that the thing they're doing now is what they'd most like to do for 8 hours a day.

Sadly, not everyone can say that. Many people are forced into doing a job that they dislike, or truly hate, just because they need the money and they have no options. Maybe no one's hiring in their field, or they don't like the particular job they have though they like the field, or maybe their field just doesn't lead to a specific line of work. Either way, it happens, and those people are who the question's directed at.

Re:Perhaps,

[bellus quies]

Ahh, this question is the stuff of daydreams...

I would open a store that would be one part herbal tea (and coffee to, I guess) shop, one part studio space for local artisans and craftsman to sell their work, one part work space for painting/ceramics/glass-work/metal-work/etc.

Sounds fun, maybe I'll try this someday soon.

Re:Perhaps,

[Telastyn]

I concur. Though I would likely shift my job to somewhere "more risky". Like computer gaming or programming. Sure people already do this for a living, but what I do now isn't so bad, and more importantly it is more likely to be here.

(ironically I was just released via merger, and have enough of a payout from said merger to not work for a few years if I chose to. I will likely look for a similar job, and use said cash for a house elsewhere.)

Re:Perhaps,

[BitGeek]

Nobody is forced into a job, unless you were drafted into an army.

If you compromised your principles and took a job you didn't like then that was your choice-- note, choice, not force.

Yes, its true, far too many people choose jobs that are illsuited for them or for idiotic people and they do so out of FEAR of being without a job.

Which is pointless and silly when there are so many good jobs out there, and in the end you don't even need a job-- freelance work is not impossible and there are few professions where you can't do it.

What's that you say? You're an automotive assembly line person? You can't do that freelance because you don't have a billion dollar factory?

Forget it, I say-- you don't need the factory. Start building kit cars for people. Or do electric conversions for people. There are lots of people who would like to have a kit car or an electric conversion but don't have the time to do it. Start in your spare time, keeping your job and build it up until you have a profitable enterprise and can dump the job you hate. Will it take work? Of course! IS it hard? Of course.

But nobody owes you a "living wage" or happiness.. only you are responsible for it.

Note, I just tried to think of something that required a big factory, and even auto workers could do custom work for people... there are very few jobs you can't do alone, and most of them you could join with your coworkers and do some version on the side and eventually become independent of the company you hate.

Look at it this way-- MOST of the reason companies suck is because people don't leave when they are treated poorly. IF people left when mistreated, no company would be poorly managed-- every company is needs employees to function. But so many people sell their souls by staying in these poor jobs because they don't have the backbone to stand up for themselves and they only make it worse on others by saying "Yes, I'll take this treatement, slap me around some more" until virtual slapping is just part of the corporate cutlure.

Hate your job? Get another one. Bad economy? Pfooi. There is opportunity everywhere, you just have to look for it.

Re:Perhaps,

[psicE]

Uh, thanks for your political rant, but you did an excellent job at missing the point.

The question has nothing to do with politics. It is not, should everyone receive a living wage without working, or should everyone be given a living wage while they're finding work, or anything like that. It's a philosophical question: *If you didn't have to work, what would you do?*

Anything about politics is missing the point (unless, of course, you'd go into politics with your free time). Anything about money is also missing the point; that's why I put in the bit about assuming not infinite money, but the same amount of money you make now.

Whatever you may wish to be true, the fact is there are many people who take whatever job they can get, because they need a reliable source of income, and those people would much rather be doing a different job. And there are other people who simply can't find a line of work the enjoy. So the question is directed at those people: *What would you rather be doing?*

Re:Perhaps,

[BitGeek]

I gave a philosophical response. You wanna call it a political rant, fine.

You miss the point.

People aren't forced into jobs they hate. They settle for jobs they shouldn't settle for.

Wishing it werent' so, doesn't make it so. Maybe you hate your job and want to believe you didn't have a choice. Fine.... but you'd be happier if you went and made the correct choice.

Re:Perhaps,

[psicE]

Look at it this way-- MOST of the reason companies suck is because people don't leave when they are treated poorly. IF people left when mistreated, no company would be poorly managed-- every company is needs employees to function. But so many people sell their souls by staying in these poor jobs because they don't have the backbone to stand up for themselves and they only make it worse on others by saying "Yes, I'll take this treatement, slap me around some more" until virtual slapping is just part of the corporate cutlure.

Yessum, that's a good piece of philosophy there.

Now, I could say just the opposite - *if* people had a guaranteed source of income, that they received whether they made $2 bil, didn't have a job, or anything in between, then perhaps you'd gain that additional flexibility?

Many people are already working well over 40-hour weeks, and they still barely make enough to feed their family; do you expect those people to start a business? No, though you occasionally hear "success stories" where people are catapulted from poverty to upper-class, most entrepreneurship comes from people who can work on it full-time.

Read my other post to this article, and give me one good reason why that would be a bad idea. We're talking philosophy here :), so ignore feasibility.

Re:Perhaps,

[BitGeek]

Many people are already working well over 40-hour weeks, and they still barely make enough to feed their family;

Actually this is a common notion but its false. The reason most people don't have enough money to invest much of it is that they took on way too much debt and rather than pay it off, they continue to live beyond their means. But also, those who choose to have so many children that they can barely support them have also CHOSEN to be in this situation-- they didn't have the job forced on them, they choose to have too many children. Did they think children were cheap?

But excluding those with lots of kids, the average family is short on cash only because they are carrying way too much bad debt, often at %18.

do you expect those people to start a business?

Hell yes. How else are they going to get out of the quagmire. There is no other way. Pay off your debts, cut up your credit cards. Then start putting all that money that was sucked away into the cards into a prudent investment for your future. A side business is an excellent one, or if you like your job and want to keep working there, put it into stocks and other investments. Hell, many people have gotten wealthy by buying real estate for investment-- I'm not talking the peopel you see on Tv, I'm talking my friend the CPA-- the tenants pay the mortgage, and you have to deal with toilets. For me, the toilets aren't worth it, but the leverage you can get with real estate loans is huge and this makes the bar for entry to this kind of business rather low, if you want to do it. And you could do something like that on the weekends. AFter all, if you have a duplex you're renting out they aren't going to have 4 breakdowns a month! So, most of your weekends would be free.

No, though you occasionally hear "success stories" where people are catapulted from poverty to upper-class, most entrepreneurship comes from people who can work on it full-time.

Wrong. This is quite factually wrong. Most entrepreneurship is done part time. Eventually it becomes full time, but for every startup business with venture capital there are 10 or a hundred small side businesses done by housewives in their part time, or people who are moonlighting.

As to people escaping poverty-- I have first hand experience with this. All it takes is working, even at a minimum wage job, and managing your money carefully while getting the job skills to get better jobs. The opportunity is there for anyone who wants to take it. In the US at least, being in poverty is a choice.

Hell, you talked about working over 40 hours a week just to put food on the table-- I know its a common expression, but literally it is wrong. There are many agencies that will provide enough food for free that you never have to buy food to live. In this state someone who gets minimum wage with a full time job has $852 a month after taxes. With free food and a $300 apartment, a $100 bus pass, that leaves $452 a month to put into something useful that improves ones situation. If there are two of your, then your apartment costs are cut in half. If you have 6 children, well you chose to have them... but at least you can feed them for free.

You don't have to work full time to start a side business. Most people who do, do it part time. And the vast majority of people who chose not to are doing so to their own detriment... its not like they are being prevented.

There is plenty of opportunity.

Re:Perhaps,

[psicE]

A social Darwinist, eh?

It seems that your beliefs can pretty much be summed up in one sentence: It is possible, with extreme amounts of work and self-discipline, to pull oneself out of any situation into success, therefore anybody who doesn't do that deserves their place in life.

While that is valid philosophy, I personally find it morally repulsive. Give me one good reason why we, as a society, should not consider it our obligation to ensure that every member has as high a quality of life as possible, even if for some reason they are unable to do work. I don't mean that people should be paying for other people to have Mercedes-es, just that it's an outrage that in one company, you have one person whose job it is to pass down management decisions from a higher-level manager to a lower-level manager, and he gets paid about 100x what the janitor does.

Your arguments also assume that society bears no blame in people's misfortunes. Maybe people have so much debt because credit cards are so agressively marketed? Studies have shown that the human brain is wired to cooperate; you can derive from that that, unless taught otherwise, people are naturally gullible, and thus will believe a credit card company's ads. People from better backgrounds, in addition to being able to pay off debt, generally know better than to fall prey to those cards.

Also, what about illegal immigrants? They sneak into the US, attempting to find whatever job they can get; there's a house-cleaning service around where I live, staffed by Portuguese immigrants - though I have no evidence to back it up, I'd be surprised if a single one was legal. And these immigrants provide many services that US upper-class citizens enjoy, that very few non-recent-immigrant US residents want to do. Yet, because they don't want to get deported, these residents are unable to qualify for any benefits - so they really are working huge weeks to put food on the table.

Here's my point. In a "perfect world" (though such a world isn't perfect in my mind), what you're saying would be true; the amount of success people get would be directly proportional to the amount of work they put in, and people would be able to get a job doing whatever they want. In the real world, opportunity is not as widely available, and many factors can mean that certain people are unable to achieve success on the scale you describe, even if they worked 150 hours a week (ignoring the fact that they would die after about a month of working such a schedule, from lack of sleep). A civilized society cannot rightly ignore such factors, and should insure, at the least, that nobody starves.

Re:Perhaps,

[GryMor]

Be uterly and completly screwed as I'm not currently getting any money :)

But yah, the "If you could do anything at all, what would you do?" my answer was, "Conquor the galaxy by force of arms." it always got rather dumbfounded looks so they add qualifiers, "Uhm, limited to our current tech base" and of course the obviouse response is, "Hire someone to build a fleet of Orion class ships and go colonize the asteroid belt. If that turns out well get a really big distributed array to look for some habitable planets and try slowboating it in a really big asteroid habitat." it eventually gets down to the one you posed, at which point it's "Well, if I'm not going to be getting anything for it and don't actually have any extra resources... Uhm, well, that describes my current situation perfectly, so, given the barriars present what do you think I'd like to be doing?" which is to say, "What I'm doing right now."

Re:Perhaps,

[linzeal]

People from better backgrounds, in addition to being able to pay off debt, generally know better than to fall prey to those cards.

To paraphrase; "Wealth confers wisdom.", huh?

If you meant education or some sort of inate/synthetic set of rules that are exclusive to the "upper" echelons of modern society I may still hold some grudges against your line of reasoning even if I could see more validity. Could you clarify, thanks/.

Re:Perhaps,

[BitGeek]

Well, as I pointed out, nobody starves in this society. At least nobody with enough sense to go to the local food bank.

This idea that I am responsible for your well being is an absurd one, created by those who want to get rich off of my sense of guilt. IT has nothing to do with helping the poor- I do that, I and I do that of my own free will. IT is completely about forcing me, and others, at gunpoint to help the "poor" baurocrats who take our money.

Charities answer that need you speak of. And charities do not require the violation of human rights that you so easily advocate.

If my sister's farm is failing and I need to help her out, who are you to show up with a gun and take my moeny from me -- money that would go to her, but instead goes to fraud, waste and abuse in the guise of "helping others". Taxes are exactly this kind of robbery.

You say I should not be allowed to help my sister becuase your "cause" is more important.

I say, "begone thief!"

Re:Perhaps,

[Buck2]

It seems that your beliefs can pretty much be summed up in one sentence: It is possible, with extreme amounts of work and self-discipline, to pull oneself out of any situation into success, therefore anybody who doesn't do that deserves their place in life.

Imagine, please, that our society was still back in a nomadic period. Now, in that society, how much charity do you think existed to help out those who were unable, at any given time, to pull their own weight? Assuredly it was low. Tribal members that were incapable of any given task were burdens and required special accomodation. It would be only through the development of personal relations that these individuals could possibly withstand the wrath of the bulk of the rest of the tribe in periods of hardship.

Fast-forward to our current (in the US) society. There is no such thing as direct tribal wrath. A person can be a hermit and still collect the same welfare check as a diligent worker who happens to be on hard times. There is a vast net there to catch and enable all of those who haven't "found their place" at the moment. This, IMO, is because we have developed enough wealth to accomodate those persons who MAY be able to contribute something in the future. When all is said and done, it is worth the possible loss of resources in order to rehabilitate someone (in the sense of giving them a job, food, whatever) on the off-chance that they might actually BE rehabilitated and contribute back to society. In an economical sense, when one marginalizes over time, the cost of welfare is paid back and more.

BitKeeper's point, if I may put words in his/her mouth, is that people who leech off the system, or who permanently accept a minimum wage (one-rung up from leeching) job as their career-path are already receiving more than ever before in history. It is not up to BitKeeper, you, or I to continue to provide for these people (and BitKeeper and I probably assume that minimum wage is inflated) just because they happen to be here. Ergo, they "deserve that place in life".

While that is valid philosophy, I personally find it morally repulsive. Give me one good reason why we, as a society, should not consider it our obligation to ensure that every member has as high a quality of life as possible, even if for some reason they are unable to do work.

Regardless of whether you find this perspective morally repulsive, it does not change the fact that those who have this viewpoint generally believe very strongly in the human capability to achieve. A reason, and I think it is a good one, for not attempting to provide for every single person on the planet is that there are many people that will not THINK about what they are requiring of others in order to survive. If you, psicE, can think of one person who expects welfare or any other government-supplied aid not because of their investment in it, but because it's always there, then you already know someone who does not truly recognize the sacrifice made by others to provide that system for them.

BitKeeper would probably like to minimize those instances. He, and I, would like to build a system that rewards those who work hard and properly chastizes those who simply take and take without realizing (or especially if they do) the consequences.

Also, what about illegal immigrants? They sneak into the US, attempting to find whatever job they can get; there's a house-cleaning service around where I live, staffed by Portuguese immigrants - though I have no evidence to back it up, I'd be surprised if a single one was legal. And these immigrants provide many services that US upper-class citizens enjoy, that very few non-recent-immigrant US residents want to do. Yet, because they don't want to get deported, these residents are unable to qualify for any benefits - so they really are working huge weeks to put food on the table.

I have a fairly interesting background for this sort of discussion. My father is Mexican. I was born and raised in San Diego. No one in my gigantic, huge, enormous family (that counts) is NOT a hard worker. We have massive sympathy for the staggering number of illegals that come into where we live looking for work. My nuclear family has dealt with many local initiatives spawned either from purely racist, neighborhood [upkeep in the sense of market-value] conservatist (which is not necessarily bad), and/or good-meaning intentions (in a humanitarian sense). The only consistent aspect of these dealings is the illegal aliens just want a job. They have braved many adventures to get where they are. They don't really care that much about dental plans or life insurance. Schooling is a non-issue. These people do the SHIT jobs that no one else wants to do because those jobs still need to be done. They know, and they are correct, that the SHIT work that they do here in the States will pay better than the non-work that they may or may not have back in Tijuana or the outskirts where they might live.

I would like to see THESE people rewarded for their efforts. The problem is that they are not citizens of the U.S. I, Buck2, because of the way the current system is setup, have to pay for these individuals whenever they get hurt. I have to pay for the policing of those individuals who come here just to make noise. I have to pay for the problems that happen in another country, basically. I don't think that anyone who is against taxes/(accomodation for the unfit) is generally also against humans, they merely want those social organizations (Mexico, Puerto Rico, etc) to take care of their own in a similar fashion as what we do for ourselves.

A civilized society cannot rightly ignore such factors, and should insure, at the least, that nobody starves.

I think that many would agree with you. My aunt is living with an invalid, though. he cannot get out of his wheelchair. He has not paid his bills in months, the bank which gave them the mortgage for his home wants to repossess the home and move on with their business. Are you going to stand there and tell me that everyone in the USA should pledge a dollar to save this guy's ass because he's crippled and can't make any money?

My parents, both with no more than a mid-sixties high school education, have busted their asses, made wise investments, and are just those sorts of middle-class targets to leech off of to pay for my aunt's love. Taxes are providing for this person, as well as my family's love for my aunt (which translates into dollars).

I think that BitKeeper, and I, are well within our rights to say, "I don't CARE about that guy. He's affecting my parents, he's affecting my friends, he's affecting me. It's my money, it's my work, it's my LIFE! Let me choose who I want to support and draw the line there."

Re:Perhaps,

[Buck2]

Shouldn't you credit Ayn Rand with this? Otherwise you're verging on plagiarism.

I don't mean this in a bad way (like you're crazy or stealing), I just mean that this sounds SO like one of her rants that perhaps you might just make mention of the fact that she has been a bit influential in your life.

Please see my other response in this thread. I hope you find it interesting.

Re:Perhaps,

[BitGeek]

Sure I was quoting her. What relevance does it have that it was her I was quoting?

Re:Perhaps,

[BitGeek]

When all is said and done, it is worth the possible loss of resources in order to rehabilitate someone (in the sense of giving them a job, food, whatever) on the off-chance that they might actually BE rehabilitated and contribute back to society.

This may be true in theory, but since you are representing my opinion here, I want to be a clearer on what I think--- I think that welfare should be abolished. I think that the tax money wasted on it would be better spent invested in private charities. My SO grew up on welfare and when I met her had never had a job in her life, I've seen her become a productive member of society. I have first hand experience with this stuff (having been homeless myself for a brief period and penniless a couple times. Something people who know of my current wealth assume never did, or could, happen.) First off the money put into that system is lost to graft and waste, and whats left is mismanaged. Instead of encouraging people to become productive members of society, it actually encourages people to breed more children, which deepens their hole, and makes it less likely that they will ever be financially solvent.

Not that it isn't their choice-- they have the right to have too many children. They just don't have the right to depend on me for support- and sPiCe doesn't have the right to demand at gunpoint that I pay it.

immigration

I love that on one hand SPice is complaining about how people who don't want to work don't get paid enough money, and on the other hand he's complaining about all these "illegals". Such contempt for humanity.

Anyone who sneaks into this country to find a better job is welcome to work for me. I'd much rather have someone who has shown initiative in finding work than someone who thinks life should be handed to them on a silver platter. You go out into the wild and expect the forest to give you food? You got another thing coming... the bear that kills you doesn't care that you don't have as nice a set of teeth and claws as he does. Civilisation is not about turning productive people into unproductive ones (as welfare does).

Its about providing laws to protect human rights-- and THATS IT. Nothing more.

Forced redistribution of wealth is a violation of human rights.

All this whining about immigrants is really racism, plain and simple. They dont' say it outright-- but in their mind you know they're thinking "Dirty mexicans" or "damn indians". Lets not forget that they pay taxes too.

If someone halfway around the world can do your job better than you with a language barrier and time zone issue to over come, that reflects on you, not on them. And I say, more power too them.

I was a liberal because I thought liberals believed in human rights. Now that I actually do, I see liberalism as very anti-human rights. They just don't realize it. But the right of free association is not to be infringed upon.

And when you look at it, most of this "charity" type work that they do is just a scam. The only reason liberalism still exists in this country is that the government work force is so huge, and between them, the contractors that do business with the government and the mafia/unions, they represent half the population.

Its in their personal financial interest to keep big government and high taxes.

So when this guy whines about people starving, what he's really talking about is his own paycheck, and he wants more. Either that, or he's a fool who thinks these people really mean what they say, despite all the evidence of reality, and about a hundred years of history showing the constant failure of socialism.

Re:Perhaps,

[Buck2]

Well, she wrote it originally. By writing it again yourself, without attributing it, you are effectively claiming that it's a first work.

If I were to then say, "That's DYNOMITE! I'm going to quote that!" and attribute it to BitKeeper then someone is going to kick my ass later by pointing out that Ayn Rand wrote it first.

Your misattribution will affect me and others.

Re:Perhaps,

[Buck2]

You are very angry.

I think I understand exactly where you are coming from, though, and I'm sorry if you feel that I misrepresented you in any fashion. I would put together a long and involved response at the moment, but I am going to need time to do so and I don't have it right now.

Cheerio, BitKeeper, I'll write something up early tomorrow or late tomorrow night. I just hope that this stupid web system keeps it ontopic for a sufficient period of time for you and anyone else who cares to notice.

Re:Perhaps,

[psicE]

I have two things to say here.

Immigration: I find it interesting that you misinterpreted me so...strangely. Isn't it clear from my earlier piece that I'm on the side of the immigrants? I believe that citizenship should be abolished, and laws should be made around residency instead; if you currently live in the US, then you vote in US elections, qualify for US benefits, and pay US taxes, regardless of where you came from.

I fully support free trade, as long as there's no human rights abuses going on in developing countries by companies that take advantage of NAFTA or similar agreements (I'm pretty sure that there's no human-rights abuses going on at the car factories in Michigan :D). I fully support the rights of immigrants to come over to the US by any means they want, and to stay here for as long as they want, and I think they should become citizens as soon as they cross the border. But the fact remains, they don't - and many of them really are working 40+ hour weeks just to put food on the table, contrary to what you were saying.

Call me a socialist fool, but I know better. The system I advocate has been used successfully in many places around the world - including Alaska, not exactly a leftist paradise. The goverrnment of Alaska, quite simply, collects 12.5% of all oil revenues in the state, and pays every citizen an equal share of the money. No means-testing, no bureaucracy, no qualifying; everyone gets a check, simple as that. No person in Alaska is destitute (unlike every other state), because of that system. A similar system exists in Alberta, Canada, about as right-wing as Texas.

Suppose such a system was expanded to include other monopolies. Mining, local telephone service, electricity, you name it. A huge portion of revenues from monopolies was collected by the states, and distributed in even proportions to all residents, rich and poor. That system could theoretically provide an income large enough that flexibility in the labor market could be dramatically expanded, so that unemployment insurance and similar programs were made redundant. (Read my reply to the reply to "Full disclosure", a top-level comment.)

So I'm not just waiting for a successful implementation of my theory to be used. It's been done many times, and people love it.

Re:Perhaps,

[BitGeek]

BZZT. Nice try. You know, I grew up in Louisiana. I know poor. I know poor real well. Alaska is the only state of the 49 I've been to that reminds me of Louisiana more than Mississippi.

Nobody is destitute in alaska? Are you that ignorant, or are you deliberately lying? They payout-- which, by the way, you have to meet strict qualifications to get, contrary to your statement-- is only around $6,000. I'm sure its gone up in the past two years, but even $8,000 in alaska doesn't buy nearly as much as $8,000 in California-- and california isn't exactly a cheap state. And the weeks that it occurs, every car dealership in the state is offering to "double it" if you sign over your payment check.

Yeah, there are billions in that fund, but it isn't exactly social security--- and Alaska is a poor state. A poor state with a very high cost of living.

Unlike you apparently, I have BEEN to alaska, I've travelled the length of the state and been to many of the towns there. Its a great state, but it is not without poor people, as you claim.

There are not many jobs, there are a lot of people out of work, and the economic situation isn't ideal. Sure, the oil money has helped (and its absurd the way that resource as been mismanaged-- an example of why government DOESN'T work, not one of why it does.)

You are living in a dream world where Communist russia was a paradise and people in Alaska have their needs met by oil money. But reality is quite different.

But then, I knew this going it-- its just nice to have you prove it for anyone else reading this. You believe your little fantasy about alaska, and about how glorious russia was, but everyone knows the reality. Objective fact is, you're wrong. Alaska's oil payout doesn't come close to covering a single person's financial needs, let alone a family. Most of the money goes into a fund, or to state programs, some of which are good, but there is no "direct payout" as you claimed. What people do get is a small cut of the interest of a huge fund that is collected...

You're either ignorant, or a liar, or both. Shame on you. And what makes you think you can say such a frankly bald faced falsehood? Oh, that's right, you had no way of knowing I'd been to alaska and know people who live there.... well, you're caught red handed.

Just another socialist swindler. Moral high ground my ass. You should go live in one of these socialist paradises -- preferable Russia. You deserve to live in the aftermath of what you advocate. But if not there, go to canada. You deserve what you would force on others.

Re:Perhaps,

[BitGeek]

It was a mistake. When I copied the quote, I didn't include the name. It wasn't deliberate, and when I noticed it, I didn't think people would care that much.

After all, it was in quotes, and I did say that I was providing a quote that I had heard.

Re:Perhaps,

[BitGeek]

Not angry at you, Buck2. I misunderstood your first comment on the quote, and this response was mostly directed at the other guy, not you.

But I am angry that the feds take %50 of my gross income and people walk around talking about how I should be giving more, and should have my human rights violated.

I'm angry that I grew up believing this liberal ideology, only to discover it was a lie, and that I was a fool to believe those people cared at all about human rights.

But mostly, I'm angry that it seems that the vast majority of the population is too stupid or too comfortable to use their brains and actually think things thru-- that I didn't think things thru for many years-- and that we have a country that could be great but is ruled by two parties-- neither of which respect human rights and both argue back and forth over exactly how they are going to spend the money they steal...

But what really makes me angry are self righteous little shits (and I'm not talking about you) who claim that it is the moral high ground to advocate violence, brutality, and thievery.

That people vote for little shits like that makes me very sad-- I don't want to believe that people are idiots and deserve the misery they bring upon themselves-- but it is hard not to given the evidence we see every day.

Airport security sucks because the local governments are in control? Lets federalize it so the federal government is in control... what happnens? The quality of airport security goes down. And every person who does not protest this stupidity deserves what they get.

There's a scene in Atlas Shrugged where a train tunnel collapses killing all the poeple on the train... I'd thought those people were innocent and found that scene really offensive when I first read the book... but now I understand. How many of the people who died in 9/11 voted for the measures that ended up killing them? How many of those people deserved to die? Since the WTC was what came down, its probably a smaller percentage of the population than a random one, as WTC occupents are more likely to be free market, free choice supporters.... But when the obvious rational solution (putting airlines in charge of their own security, they have more vested interest in keeping their planes safe than anyone else.) is ignored and instead we go for complete disarmament (making us more vulnerable to any thug who comes by, as Ms. Rand pointed out many years ago.) .. eventually I'm going to have to decide that flying is not worth it.

The airlines are the rails of today, and the parallels to the decay of the rail system in Atlas are impressive.

Yes, I have a weakness. Stupidity makes me angry. I wish it didn't, but I cannot just not care.

Re:Perhaps,

[Anonymous Coward]

Skimming money from monopolies?? Dude, what about the poor people who own these companies?

Shareholders have families too, y'know.

School.

[AnalogBoy]

I'd go and take classes in whatever interested me. Possibly become a doctor of something. Then dedicate my life to helping others*.

(Note: Getting revenge on those that bother me, such as religous fundies, classifies under "helping others".)

Re:School.

[Anonymous Coward]

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier...just as long as I'm the dictator..." --Dubya, 12.18.00

Ahh, if only it were true. That's President-for-life George H. W. Bush to you, gulag worker #374734.

Re:School.

[gadfium]

I'd go and take classes in whatever interested me. Possibly become a doctor of something. Then dedicate my life to helping others.

That's exactly what I'm doing. I've spent too long as a commercial programmer, so in my "retirement" I'm going to university for the first time in my life, and I'm working on a science degree which I hope to steer towards nanotechnology.

I don't have the free money as yet, so I'm doing the university part time while working full time, and at some point I'll cut the work hours and increase the university hours. In the meantime, it's the learning which keeps me sane.

Non-Prophet Organization

[Dausha]

Hmm, I have a feeling that my response may stand out a bit here. If money were no object, there are two things I would do. One is ensure that life was real cushy--automated house, yada, yada; by investing in real estate. Second, I would form a non-profit (or non-prophet?) organization dedicated to providing quality web hosting for Protestant churches here in the US--low cost or no cost depending on their ability to pay. Web hosting would also include web development and in the right markets, ISP.

Losses from the .org endeavors would offset gains made in investments I would otherwise make in real estate.

We've had this discussion a few times at work

[GregWebb]

Last I recall, two musicians and a fisherman.

Speaking personally, I love performing. I love jamming music, I love writing music, I love listening to music. I even enjoy the physical act of playing (I'm a trumpeter). The idea of being able to dedicate myself to that properly is immensely tempting. Heck, when writing music I've got many challenges similar to writing software.

I'll probably always write a little software for personal amusement but it's not exactly a relaxing discipline, as I'm showing by posting this from the office in the UK and I've been here at or around this time for most of the last week.

If I wasn't a musician, I'd teach. Infant or lower primary, so probably the under 8-9s. I do a bit of voluntary work with that age group in my spare time and it's immensely rewarding, but quite frustrating in that you just don't get to see that much of the kids' development.

Equally, I know that there's a strong theory going round in the UK now that says part of the reason we have significantly lower educational attainment in boys than girls is that most primary school teachers are female. The girls have teachers to look up to - the boys have footballers, TV presenters, parents (who, statistically speaking, aren't likely to be models of educational attainment) ... and so tend to gravitate towards a culture of success in sport being good and in class being bad, almost social death. Not good. If I could help turn that around for just a few kids...

(Yes, I know teaching's hard work and it wouldn't be an easy ride after software!)

actually "live" for once

[C4-GodH8sMe]

Maybe I wouldn't need to watch Fight Club at least once a day to keep my sanity. Well, since I was beaten to the mandatory "Nothing. I would do absolutley nothing" post, I guess I better fess up a real answer. I, as would most of you, probably get around to the million projects I have on my to-do list. *Weekly streamed radio show *Free, open, project of some sort *Create a game with some close friends *Read (for pleasure) more *That thing called "sleep" I hear so much about *Get to know my elders *Attend cons *Fish *Smile once in awhile *Contribute more to things I believe in We would all probably live a lot longer.

Re:actually "live" for once

[schmink182]

In case you missed the title, I believe the "nothing" post to which you refer mentioned two women at once, so that was still an option :)

I would...

[RedWolves2]

Aquire a Sail boat and sail around the carribiean island hopping.

Aquire a small plane and fly around the world.

Play Hockey alot more.

Those are just a few of my dreams for when I retire so I guess I could get a head start on them.

Re:I would...

[BitGeek]

Aquire a Sail boat

IF you live near water, I say, start now. I've gone down this path. This is my retirement dream.

You can get a small old sailboat for $2,000 to learn on and get used to sailing, and then get a bigger better one when you retire.

The years of sailing on the weekends will come in handy when you're island hopping and will make you happier in the interim than you would be otherwise.

Sailing isn't somethign you stop work one day and go do the next... so start early.

There are those who say "if your dream is to sail around the world, just do it. You don't need money, you don't need nothing. I did it, I get by on odd jobs". And they are right. I'm not "just doing it" in part because I want more sailing experience and to get my lovers up to speed so that they can sail well too... but if you want to sail around, mostly hitting third world countries to dock (Say the pacific, the carribian, south america, etc.) you can do it very cheaply.

Say, $5,000 a year. And a little work getting a skill can make it free-- one couple knows how to repair sails and goes to antigua for regatta week-- spends the whole week repairing blown out sails working 24x7 and then has enough money to fund the rest of their year!

Don't dream it, be it. :-)

Re:I would...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cruising around the world is also my retirement plan. The problem is that I live in (former socialist) landlocked country, about 700 km to the nearest sea shore. Right now I'm trying to raise as much many as possible to retire in my early forties. (I'm 31). Honestly, I think that serious liveaboard must be something between 35-42 feets. All-steeler ideally. And seaworthy steel yachts in this range aren't cheap. Nor are the sails, rigging, fuel, mooring fees etc. So I have to make some money first...

me?

[DonFinch]

Be a policeman and have lots of kids.

Ph.D.

[LordNimon]

I'd get my Ph.D. in Comp Sci and then become a professor. In my spare time, I'd write whatever software came to mind and release it under the GPL.

A few simple things

[tdelaney]

1. Get a personal trainer who will help me lose weight.

2. Build a house with all the stuff I want in it.

3. Take the time to see my friends and meet other people.

4. Open source development - probably starting with Python.

Re:A few simple things

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Get a personal trainer who will help me lose weight.

Easy. Eat less, exercise more, fat-ass. Start running *every other morning* - a little more each day. Eat less. Start doing crunches, free-weight lifts, and pushups on the days you don't run. Eat less.

The equation isn't mystical: if you expend more calories than you consume, you lose weight. If you consume more than you expend, you gain weight. Thasshow it works, charlie.

Re:A few simple things

[Anonymous Coward]

Insensitive Clod.

It's not that simple. That's not the way it works for everyone. And not everyone has the motivation to do something like this on their own. Sometimes help from a trainer or someone to keep you on track really makes the difference.

And a lot of people would exercise more if they didn't have to work.

Re:A few simple things

[schon]

4. Open source development - probably starting with Python.

Dude, hate to break it to you, but someone already started Python

Re:A few simple things

[tdelaney]

Dude, hate to break it to you, but there's a lot still going on in Python development ...

http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev

Re:A few simple things

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not eat less, it's eat right. The best quote I've ever heard was "You never see any fat vegatarians." If you cut back on the wheat, flour and sugar intake, and increase protein and fruit/veggies, You will be fine, eat as much as you want. The other thing is water only, H20, the clear liquid. None of these nutra-sweet diet pop, coffee, or milkshakes.

All you have to do is suffer for a while, but the rewards are worth it in the end. If you are really crazy and need modivation, just pretend that you joined the Army and are in 12 months of boot camp. Crazy workouts, 7 days a week, drill instructors yelling at you. Anyone can lose the weight if they put their mind to it.

Do some real research into biology, nutrition, and how your own body works. It amazes me the number of people that don't know their own body.

Re:A few simple things

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Get a personal trainer who will help me lose weight.

At some point you've got to realize that you are in power in your body. You have the power to change it and you life, you don't need a personal trainer to do this, but if he or she helps you realize self empowerment, then that's ok too. But #1 can be done today.

Books books books!

[matzim]

Anybody else have about umpteen thousand books on their to-be-read list?

First thing - read until my eyes hurt!

(And then go to the optometrist.)

Re:Books books books!

[RedWolves2]

Man that wouldn't last long for me.

My eyes hurt after reading the two sentences you just wrote! ;-)

Re:Books books books!

[matzim]

If I'm on your reading list I think you need to revise it. :)

Re:Books books books!

[RedWolves2]

Slashdot is on my reading list!! Is it not on yours? ;-)

Re:Books books books!

[Servo5678]

Finally, time enough at last!

(glasses break)

What? No, it's not fair! It's not fair! It's not faaaaaair!

hobbies

[voisine]

Spend my time persuing my many hobbies. Auto racing,
skating, skiing, rock climbing, traveling, sky
diving, open source projects, computer games,
movies (good ones), books, etc...

Forward Engineer Life as Toys

[airuck]

As a biologist, I have spent a lot of time reverse engineering life. If I had the time and funding, I would pursue my hobby of forward engineering life. A lot of subsumptive architecture theory in the field of robotics focuses on emulating insects. I figured I just use insects as the platform to begin with. I am experimenting with bees right now, but would like to start working with other insects. It would be heaven to hack at it full time.

Re:Forward Engineer Life as Toys

[DJPenguin]

Bees? How about Dogs? Or dogs that shoot bees out of their mouths?

Re:Forward Engineer Life as Toys

[airuck]

A friend of mine is a biologist and dog trainer. She also suggested working with dogs. I suppose if I had the time, then yes, I would like to work with dogs. Who remembers Frank Herbert's chairdogs? I first read Dune in the seventh grade. My father and I have been joking about chairdogs ever since.

travel

[JofCoRe]

I would see the world.

Travel from place to place, experiencing it all... and eventually, I'd probably find a place that I would be happy with, and settle there. Live a simpler life. Spend time on my hobbies. Spend time with my wife and friends...

FIRST POSTS!!!! All day long!!

[Unknown Poltroon]

This isn't a first post, is a legit answer to the question.

Go ahead and mod me down, or do you have a sense of humor?

No, That question is bogus anyway

[Monokeros]

Otherwise there'd be no janitors because noone would want to clean up sh!t for a living.

Start now...

[Da VinMan]

You may not (probably will not) be able to do those things when you retire. If your body isn't shot by then, you'll be among the lucky few. I bet you could get a very serious start on all of those items, except for maybe the first item.

If you wait to do these things, you may never get to do them. Besides, when you retire, do you think you'll still be interested in those things?

We're all here for a very limited period of time, so chop chop!

Oh, and stop stressing out about death. You don't remember the time before you were born do you? I didn't think so. So don't sweat it. What will be, will be.

So just be.

Re:Start now...

[RedWolves2]

You don't remember the time before you were born do you?

Actually I have a vivid memory of being a WWII fighter pilot. I always thought I was a airforce pilot in the war in a previous life. I can't tell you what country I flew for so I don't want to think about it to much in case it was for the wrong country.

Re:Start now...

[Da VinMan]

I think all of us have "memories" that we can't account for. The real question is whether those were somehow borne out of experience, or if those memories are the result of meaningful connections in the brain.

There's probably a ton of research on this stuff going either way in the debate. We'll probably never get to the point where we can demonstrate it definitively for the average person.

Which pretty much leaves us where we started...

If it were up to me...

[j-turkey]

If I didn't have to show up at work, and I still got paid, I would do the following

• Sleep later
• Get a part time job (or contract) to supplement my income
• Probably smoke alot more pot
• Get serious about my music...learn to play better and put a real band together
• Read
• Chill with my friends
• Devote more time to amateur auto racing
• Watch more TV & movies
• Do more fun computer stuff (ie, not the stuff I do all day at work)
• More sex
• Masturbate
• Ski
• Write angry letters to politicians
• Excercise more
• Work on old cars
• Possibly experiment with some new (to me) psychoactive/hallucinogenic drugs -- such as DMT and peyote
• Cook better food
• Start a business
• Maybe get married and start making babies
• Basically, do all of the shit that I fantasize about while I'm at work all day

Why are you asking? Are you looking for the best answer and then giving that person a stipend to quite their job? If you are...I can come up with fifty other things I'd rather do.

--Turkey

Re:If it were up to me...

[LazyBoy]

# Probably smoke alot more pot

Probably smoke better pot.

compassion for suffering humanity

[aminorex]

I'd make a beeline for henan and start a group home
for the orphaned children of AIDS victims.

Re:compassion for suffering humanity

[sql*kitten]

I'd make a beeline for henan and start a group home for the orphaned children of AIDS victims.

Yeah, and I'd buy puppies for orphans. No, really.

Re:compassion for suffering humanity

[aminorex]

One of the main reasons why I would be eager to devote much of my life to serving these children is that I would like to see their genome swamp yours. You are a cretin and a f*ckhead of such a low order, that the extinction of your phenotype is of surpassing importance to me.

Go outside

[aoteoroa]

There are 196 lakes within 2 hours north, and east of my home. Getting out into nature is my idea fun. Rafting, camping, hiking, kyaking, even just rollerblading 'round the neighbourhood.

Sketching with graphite, charcoal, and chalk pastel is another good way to relax and loose track of time.

Now that you have brought up the topic I have to ask myself, "why I am sitting in a dark room posting platitudes to slashdot while the sun is shining outside?" I'm logging off, see y'all tommorow.

Raising a family

[trentfoley]

I'm not certain that I would have necessarily chosen this path, but it happened. And, I really like it. About two years ago, I got fed up with cubicle life. After 20+ years of "hacking for the man", I was burned out. Fortunately, my wife's law practice was doing well, so I quit my job and began to look for a career change. I have two (4 and 7 yrs old) boys. I ended up pulling my kids out of day care and have not looked back. I have had one of my best summers ever. My 7 yr old just stated back to school (2nd grade) and I've been teaching my youngest his letters and numbers in preparation for Kindergarten next year.

But, the number one reason I enjoy it so much: I get to play with Lego's every day!

Re:Raising a family

[BitGeek]

Hey- and there's nothing to stop you from working while you take care of the kids.

Become a freelance programmer.

Make a product you like and sell it.

you have the perfect opportunity-- what you save in daycare will more than cover the costs of funding a one man software development house.

And in my experience, when you go this route you find there are others who are doing similar things who can use the business to help you out in areas you're not good at (designing the icons for your application, maybe?)

Taking a couple years and just spending them on the kids-- no problem. But when you start wanting more challenge for yourself-- at least try going into business for yourself.

There's nothing like being a self employed programmer-- my boss works me hard, never forces bad technology decisions on me, does put a lot of pressure on me, but I do get all the financial rewards. ITs a great life.

While my previous company was a wonderful one to work for, a team of engineers is always going to involve compromise. With modern tools, I've found that one person can get an amazing amount of development done and a one-person product done in a couple months that is worth paying for is totally possible.

Re:Raising a family

[ealar dlanvuli]

Taking a couple years and just spending them on the kids-- no problem

Actually I would recomend against doing *nothing* but caring for the kids. Be sure to do some community service or volunteer work that will count as "experience" to a future employer. My father did this for 10 years after my brother and I were born, he spent almost 5 years after reentering the workplace to get a reasonable job, and the first 2 years were actually as a telemarketer because he couldn't find a better job.

If nothing else, offer to be a jr. coder for a larger non-profit group (volunteer). Explain your situation clearly, and say that your family currently comes first in your life. You will find in the long run it's far more productive to volunteer 15hr/week (or whatever) than to play catch up in a few years.

Re:Raising a family

[trentfoley]

I've been thinking about just that. Since I haven't been "working" on computers for a while, the joy has returned.

Here's my dilema:

Good: I have a good idea for a web application

Bad: I don't like the business model for web services. I don't see a way to measure your sales pipeline to be able to accurately forcast.

Good: I have a marketable idea for a business automation application.

Bad: I'm not a salesman and don't know how to sell it.

Bad: If I became successful, I'd be too busy to play with Lego's everyday.

...actually, CyberKnex have been a lot of fun lately

Re:Raising a family

[BitGeek]

Yeah, I have some web business ideas too. One with a bad business model, one with a good one... but it was inferior to the idea I eventually went with.

You don't have to sell software one at a time. you can sell the application wholesale to a company that then sells it to its customers. Don't forget that.

This type of sales is more like an interview combined wiht a demo than the typical salesman's selling on the road bit (I've actually done that and learned a lot.)

You have a leg up in that you know a lawyer too.

But the other thing I've found is that learning the technology and doign the work in creating this stuff is rewarding, but also gives new ideas for new products, and eventually one of them will be right. I spent about a year working down paths of ideas that ended up being non-workable (Bad business models, for instance) Before I hit something that I think is really workable...

Good luck...

Re:Raising a family

[Russ Nelson]

Consider home-schooling them. It's what you've been doing so far!
-russ

R1

[BigBir3d]

that is too easy. buy an R1, and big chunk of land in a semi-hilly region, build a F1 spec race course, and ride ride ride. then, when i get bored, promote as many races as possible, of all types (car, truck, bike, go-cart, tank, snowmobile, lawnmower etc), on that very track.

likelihood: zero

*sigh*

Here is what I want...

Re:R1

[BitGeek]

Now that's an excellent example of turning the dream into a business.

If you built your track in a wise location, you could end up making more from it than you did working.

I'd chase my hobbies...

[mfarah]

If I earned the money I have now, without working, I'd chase my hobbies full time: I'd read all the books in my "read pending" list; I'd dedicate mornings to photography; I'd listen to the music I like. I'd code. I'd play Civilization II/Freeciv all the time and

Oh, my... my last wish has just blown up my time. I'd play Civ II/Freeciv all the time, do nothing else and THEN I'd complain of lack of time.

OTOH, if I had infinite money to spend, I'd mount my own FM radio and play the music I like (which you can't hear on radio anymore), free of commercials, free of "radio friendly format" and all that.

Learning stuff

[chrismear]

I've never really understood people who say "But what would you do if you won the lottery; wouldn't you be really bored?" Perhaps it's because I don't automatically come from the perspective that says 'work is my life, and anything I do outside of that is frivolous entertainment'. I find it's more like 'work is something I do to survive, and unfortunately it takes up a lot of time that I would rather spend doing things I enjoy'.

I would love to have all the time in the world to study and learn about all the subjects I'm really interested in, but don't have time to get deeply into because of real life. I'd read into academic subjects, like genetics, neuroscience, philosophy, pure maths; I'd spend much more time practising the piano, improving my technique and increasing my repertoire; I'd read lots of novels; I'd learn all the programming languages and other techie stuff that I never have time to devote to.

Basically, without the pressure of having to focus my attention on skills that will make me attractive in the job market (or at least in the able-to-make-money market), then I don't think I'd ever run out of interesting things with which to occupy my mind!

Work on my farm

[jsimon12]

Probably work on my farm, tinker with various electronics projects, read more, and generally spend time enjoying my family and life and the outdoors. Rather then being an Engineer cooped up in a 60 degree datacenter all the time ;)

my essay

[drDugan]

I wrote an essay on this a while back. never had much time to update it after it was written...

see my sig

Grad students already do this....

[James McTavish]

Presonally, I would be going to school for the rest of my life. I'd be taking anything and everything that sounds interesting, from theoretical physics, to conversional german. If I get a degree, that's a bonus, but I just want to take the interesting courses.

Don't belive me? I'm a grad student right now wrapping up my masters in electrical engineering. For the last two years I've been making slightly less than $20k, while several people from my graduating class are making around or over $80k now. I can testify that every grad student I know is not doing it because they thought they would make more money (in fact they know that it is costing them far more than the tuition that they have to pay), they're doing it because they want to further their minds.

Grad students are the perfect example of people who don't work for money. They need money, and get paid a small ammount, but they don't work for it.

-James

WANTED: One interesting .signature file. Must be short, concise and not too offensive. Apply within.

What I would Do

[dvicci]

I've been unemployed for the better part of a year now, thanks (in part) to the market. I would do exactly what I've been doing, minus the job-hunt and independant contracting parts...

• Get up early, say... sometime around 7 or 7:30am.
• Shower, eat breakfast and have my morning coffee.
• Spend a couple hours browsing around the web, hitting the computer gaming (mainly rpg) and pool/billiards sites and newsgroups.
• Watch a little television (The Practice... 10:00 CST on FX) while I eat an early lunch.
• Spend the afternoon on my personal sites, and any chores around the house that need to be done, or reading any of the various books on my list. Alternatively, I'd spend the afternoon at the local pool halls.
• Have dinner with my girlfriend
• Hit the local pool halls around 6:30-7:00pm and play until they close.

I'm already fairly single-minded when it comes to pool and billiards, but if I didn't have to worry about income, I'd sink into full-on obsession. Thing is, I'd still maintain a certain structure to my days. I'd have a couple things that I *always* tried to do at the same time (such as The Practice at 10:00am, and dishes at 4:30). I find for me, and think it's generally true, that a completely unstructured life is a wasteful one.

Lots and lots of puppies!

[Rude Turnip]

I would run some sort of long-term animal shelter for cats and dogs.

And I'd hire two chicks to help me run it!

Re:Lots and lots of puppies!

[linzeal]

I'd run a short term animal shelter for tasty animals.

I would hire robotic machines to help me slaughter them, yummy.

Re:Lots and lots of puppies!

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had mod points, you'd certainly be getting marked down. Talk about tasteless.

Photography

[schwap]

That's what I would do--real photography, film. As if I don't do a lot of it already. I would do what I have always wanted to do: No computers, no phones, no gatgets, just a dark room and some chemistry. I would travel the world and take pictures.

Start A business.

[BitGeek]

I'd start another business.

Somehow people got this idea that working was dirty and only necessary for money. But if I had a million bucks (About twice the amount necessary to retire and never work again) I'd start a business.

Sure, I'd spend a couple years travelling the world, but that would be the early, formative years where I was working out the idea, methods and execution of the business plan. There's nothing, for getting creative juices flowing that I've found better than being in an extremely remote place, chile, north of the arctic circle in alaska, ... yeah, travel. But I'd be working on a business.

Working isn't what we have to do rather than what we really want to do-- that's the recipe for an unhappy life and its no suprise so many are unhappy. Working is the expression of our highest human self. The most noble and heroic thing any person can do is start a business. Not only is it the most fun, but it brings to your core the challenges, self realization and self understanding necessary.

I know there are lots of people who will say self indulgent things like "I'd go feed poor people" or "two chicks at once" --- hey if that's all your life is worth, fine. (BTW, two chicks at once is a lot of fun, I do recommend it.) But these things will only entertain you for awhile.

Eventually, you'll be at a crossroads and you'll have to choose between two courses- on one hand you can be a lazy person just doing nothing but spending money (this goes for both the "feed the poor" and the "party every night" types) and on the other hand you can pursue a challenge that brings out the best in you.

Challenge isn't hardship-- its opportunity to excel. Butsiness isn't about money, its about personal expression. Sure, money is involved.. but if you're only interested in money you won't get much of it and you won't be happy. If, instead, you're pursuing your personal best, both money and happiness are easy to come by.

Its unfortunate, though, that there are so many who tell you that you don't have a right to be happy, and they give you the recipe for unhappiness to insure it. Don't fall for it.

Since many people will probably post in response to this that they'll do something that involves sacrificing their lives so that others can be better, I've got a little quote for you. I'll leave out for now the proof that this activity actually damages the people you try to help, more often than not... but I provide rebuttal for the many voices insisting that EVERYONE should be sacrificing themselves:

"...just listen to anyprophet and if you hear him speak of sacrifice-- run. Run faster than from the plague. It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where' there's service, there's someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master. But if ever you hear a man telling you that you must be happy, that its your natural right, that your first duty is to yourself-- that will be the man who's not after your soul. That will be the man who has nothing to gain from you. But let him come and you'll scream your empty heads off, howling that he's a selfish monster. So the racket is safe for many, many centuries."

I know some people who are amazon wealthy, and do a person they are not out challenging themselves. They are being lazy, pointless people. And they are not happy.

If you find yourself in this position-- rise to your highest, most noble calling. Start a company, or pursue an invention. Create.

Re:Start A business.

[khodsden]

Ayn Rand. Haven't read her books in a long time. Time to dig them out. Thanks for the nudge.

Re:Start A business.

[BitGeek]

I was certain she was full of it and I'd hate it and had to be dragged kicking and screaming into reading Atlas Shrugged, but after I did I realized I was wrong.

Hopefully you enjoy them... I find the re-readability to be high as well.

Mods have no sense of humor

[PrinceGrammarTroll]

gee, and what a serious question it was.

besides two chicks at the same time?

[cpex]

Seriously I would enjoy eternal school and spending time with the wife and kids. I am still working on my BSCE but i could see myslef in school for a lot more, then maybe become a seeminly absent minded prof and confuse students all day long and then go and play with my "LASER" (in a dr. evil voice). yes i know that my subject line has been used but i couldnt pass it up

Minor League Baseball Team

[FatRatBastard]

I'd want to help run a minor league team. Do everything from serve hot dogs to marketing to raking the infield between innings. That's my idea of heaven.

That, and own a pinball shop.

Full disclosure:

[psicE]

(I'm being a hypocrite, as I criticized somebody else for giving a politicized rant, whereas that's exactly what I'm about to do. This one's different, though, but I apologize in advance.)

Right now, the government uses welfare and other means-tested programs. They very strongly encourage people to get to work. They also make it very hard for anyone without hordes of money to be an entrepreneur.

Now, suppose that the government eliminated welfare and all other means-tested programs, and replaced them with a single program, providing every citizen a guaranteed income; say also that that guaranteed income was the same as the federal poverty limit.

I personally think that instituting such a plan would do wonders for... well, everything. Companies would be free to hire and fire workers at will, without notice or severance, because they wouldn't be denying anyone a livelihood; and likewise, employees would be free to leave a company at any time, because they wouldn't be leaving their family stranded. And many people might choose to eschew a proper job, or work part-time, and become an entrepreneur.

As far as I'm concerned, the only thing missing is the money.

Re:Full disclosure:

[maxpug]

**** Feel free to ignore upcoming political tirade ****

ARE YOU NUTS!!

Exactly why should I pay you to sit around doing whatever you want to do while I stuck in a cubicle busting my hump. Maybe I didn't get "lucky" enough to get laid-off and put on the Federal Guaranteed Income.

Have you ever seen what welfare does to people!
I have. Not from the outside, from the inside. I grew up poor. I mean dirt poor. My father died when I was twelve, my mom had three part time jobs, and I worked to help make ends meet. But there were the Welfare folks. Calling us and asking us to go on Welfare. "You can have more time for your kids", etc. My mom refused. She showed us that hard work can be rewarded if you set a goal. She decided to get a teaching credential and got her BS at the age of 54. The other poor kids I knew on welfare are still dirt poor. The system won't let you win, the system is designed to perpetuate the system.

Any Federal Guaranteed Income program would be set up by bureaucrats, run by bureaucrats, and designed to perpetuate and create jobs for more bureaucrats.

You also assume that everyone is basically honorable and will not take advantage of a system. They're not. Look around, that's what a lot of people spend all their time doing. What do we need lawyers and CPAs for if not to find out how to take advantange of THE SYSTEM.

Summary: Good intentions. Bad idea.
**** End Rant ****

To answer the original question:
1. I'd spend more time with my kids
2. I'd continue to work at what I love, if only as an example to my kids
3. I'd continue to try to improve myself as a person, cause this is my only shot at this life.
4. I'd teach/coach others to learn the values I hold dear.

Cheers,
Ed

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day,
Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

Re:Full disclosure:

[psicE]

(feel free to ignore my upcoming insult)

HOW STUPID ARE YOU!! CAN'T YOU READ!! DON'T YOU KNOW THE DEFINITION OF "GUARANTEED" AND "MEANS-TESTED"!!

The program that I want to institute has been used successfully around the world, including in Alaska. Every resident of Alaska, whether they make $2 trillion/yr, nothing, or anywhere in between, receives a check; Alaska collects 12.5% of all oil revenues in the state, which nets each citizen about $1,000/yr. The program's popular in right-wing Alaska; a referendum sponsored by the oil companies tried to remove the program, but that measure failed by an overwhelming margin.

Here's the part you missed. You can't lose your benefit! Everybody qualifies. There is no means-testing, no bureaucracy deciding who qualifies; everybody with a Social Security # (in other words, everybody) receives a check. If you're stuck in a cubicle busting your rump, you still qualify. If you get promoted to the CEO of your company, you still qualify. Everybody receives an equal share, just by being alive.

Because every single person qualifies, there is absolutely zero incentive not to take a job. In Japan, I think it is, you're financially better off not working than working minimum wage; in the US, you only gain on average 50% of minimum wage if you were on welfare and you go off of it. With a system like this, because the income is guaranteed, you wouldn't lose a penny of it if you started to work - so why not work?

In fact, I believe this system would be a huge benefit to capitalism. In addition to taking the place of welfare, it can replace unemployment insurance, and similar programs. People can take jobs, knowing that they can quit at any time, and find a new job, if their employer mistreats them; the way it is now, people are locked into their jobs, because they need the income and the benefits. And employers would also be more free to lay off workers, because they wouldn't need to provide severance (workers would still receive the check). The huge addition of flexibility into the labor market would mean that people never get stuck doing jobs they don't like, and there would be better jobs for everybody.

Now, tell me exactly how your family would have been harmed by this system...?

Re:Full disclosure:

[maxpug]

How is my family harmed? Because I am forced to pay.....

Currently, I pay part of Alaska's $1,000 per citizen every time I pull into a gas station. I did not vote for this, I did not volunteer it, I did not give it to charity, it was taken from me. If the oil company did not have to pay it, gas prices would be lower.

Wealth, i.e. money, must come from somewhere. In the end it comes from a consumer buying something, from taxes collected, or from money invested or given voluntarily.

For your guaranteed income at poverty level to work, you must collect significantly more in tax revenue. Why more, well gotta run the government as well as pay the citizens. Since 95% of the income taxes are paid by the top 10% (or maybe its top 20%) of wage earners, these would be the most affected.

You end up with three possible outcomes, you dis-incent people from becoming high-wage earners, you make lawyers and CPAs rich finding loopholes, or people flee. Why was there a huge influx of high-paid actors and musicians from England, because their social welfare system wanted 98% of their income. They ran.

In principle, your idea sounds good, but it doesn't work. Follow the money. As Alexander Tyler said, "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury." How does your proposal not fall into the category of largesse out of the public treasury?

Cheers!

Re:Full disclosure:

[psicE]

http://www.progress.org/cd24.htm

Alaska has petroleum. That's simply a natural fact. Unlike almost any other industry, an oil company can't just pack up and leave, and find a new home; there's a limited amount of oil in the world, and inevitably some companies will try to harvest oil in Alaska.

Now, in Alaska, the state owns the land the oil companies work on. So as part of the lease agreement, Alaska collects 25% of oil royalties from leasees. There is no danger of companies leaving Alaska as a result, because Alaska's got so much oil; if one company leaves, another will take its place. And companies extracting in Alaska are still tremendously rich, even though they have to give 25% of royalties to the government.

The government of Alaska owns land. Right now, they give all revenue generated from that land to Alaskans; last year, they gave each Alaskan almost $2,000. Alaskans did vote for this, of course; they voted for the program's enactment originally, and against its removal quite recently. You propose giving the money instead to the oil companies extracting in Alaska.

Theoretically the oil companies would lower prices. But those companies are already rolling in much more profit than they in any way need. If they don't lower prices with all the money sitting around now, why would they with the tiny (for them) amount of extra money they'd receive if Alaska collected 0% royalties? In effect, you're saying that the rich oil companies deserve public revenue more than the people themselves do. Not even the Alaska Libertarian Party says that (the AK-LP supports the oil dividend.)

Of course, the Alaska program is different from the program I propose, in the sense that mine would aim to provide much more money to residents. But I don't plan to do that by raising income taxes, or property taxes; both of which I want to eliminate. Rather, I simply want to increase the amount of money generated from public land, maybe collecting 50% or higher royalties from oil and mining companies, and the use of ER spectrum, and similar use. And then, I want to take all that money, and turn it into an endowment; and reinvest most of the interest (paying the rest out Alaska-style), and keep collecting more money, until interest payments alone are more than enough to cover the guaranteed minimum income. It will take a number of decades before nobody is in poverty, but people could still receive (reduced) checks every year, starting as soon as the program is implemented.

In effect, all I'm saying is that public revenue should be stored in a trust fund, and multiplied, until interest is sufficient to lift all people out of poverty, by paying everybody an annual check. To argue otherwise is to say that private oil companies deserve public revenue more than the citizens themselves.

Re:Full disclosure:

[maxpug]

You proposal ends up with a nasty feedback loop, for example:

1. Raise/Institute fees on mining and oil drilling (most environmentalist want to curtail/eliminate these anyway, but that's anther thread...)
2. The cost of raw materials(copper, iron, silver, gold, oil, coal, etc) increases because the mining/oil companies need to raise revenue to pay for the leases/fees.
3. The cost of refined materials (steel, wire, photo film, electronic components, etc) increases due to the increase in raw material prices.
4. The cost of energy increases because fuel costs increase.
5. The cost of consumer goods and machinery goes up because the cost of refined material and energy increases.
6. The cost of food increases because the cost of machinery and fuel increases.
7. The poverty level increases because food, energy and good prices increased.
8. The cost of labor increases because it costs more to live which then feedback on 3-7 also.
8. Goto 1 (i.e. raise fees again). Loop until the economy is destroyed.

The current US population (2000 census) is upwards of 280 million people. The poverty level (according to HHS) is $10,000 for a single person and $15,000 for a family of three. If you award $10,000 per individual, then you reward people for having children, much the way AFDC used to do.

This creates a burden of somewhere between $1.4 and $2.8 trillion dollar annually. The total proposed federal budget for 2002 is only $4 trillion. Some of what you want MAY be duplicated in the current budget, but you want to increase the revenue to governement by 33% to 66%.

If you are not planning to raise income taxes, then you are putting the burden for the majority of this income squarely on the people you want to give the money back to. Raising money through taxing business just gets passed onto the consumer. A rich person can only eat a certain amount, even if it is French cuisine at a 4-star restaurant. They can only drive one car at a time, just like me. This means that Bill Gates will not pay an abnormally larger share of this burden than me, even though there is a HUGE disparity in our wealth.

I just don't see how raising the money will not create a horrible feedback loop, such as the one I described above. This is one of the main reasons that people push for tax cuts. When taxes are cut, the price of goods and services drop because they are paying less taxes. The average Joe and Jane have more money to spend on cheaper goods. Tax cuts led to the prosperity we have enjoyed for the last few decades. Increasing taxes, rather than cutting spending, starting with George H. W. Bush tax increase, has contributed to our current economic meltdown. Don't give people money, let them keep it in the first place.

Re:Full disclosure:

[psicE]

Theories don't always describe the real situation perfectly. The fact is, Alaska's oil dividend has been hugely successful. It has contributed to the economy, not hurt it. Things like a different poverty level for having children are side issues, that distract from the main point; if it matters, I think that the poverty level should be for a single person, and that married people and children should each receive separate (full) checks.

Though your loop is true under peculiar circumstances, in practice it doesn't play out that way. Most importantly, oil companies will *not* raise prices, simply because they're already rolling in the dough, and if they face competition from other oil companies, they're going to lower prices; despite having monopolies on extraction, they don't have monopolies on distribution. If an oil company needs to eat the price of a lease, thereby reducing their revenues to $5.9 tril from $6 tril, the company will do it - the extra revenue they get from higher volume will more than make up for the reduced margins. Your loop would be correct if Standard Oil was still around, or another oil monopoly; but if they were, then its prices would be federally-set and regulated, meaning that an increase in prices wouldn't be allowed.

Either way, though 2-8a are correct, they're dependent on 1 - which, because of the wonders of the free market, is false. The state of Alaska is living proof of that.

Re:Full disclosure:

[maxpug]

The main reason that Alaska is living proff is that the oil companies actually pass on most of the lease costs to the Japanese. This is die to two main reasons. First, the oil is higher in sulfur than Middle Eastern oil and secondly, Alaska is much closer to Japan, and therefore cheaper to ship to. The same oil companies turn around and buy cheaper Middle eastern oil and ship it to the USA.

Also, contrary to current popular belief, corporations are not inherently evil. People are evil and hide in corporations. They hid in other large organization like government and the church as we have recently found out. I also dispute the statement that oil companies are "rich". While I am not happy paying $2 a gallon for gas, I don't just blame the oil companies. I blame my federal and state government for taxes, as well as the OPEC price-fixing cartel. For example, BP sales are down this year to $80 billion (Q1&Q2). BP will invest $13 billion in exploration. They declared a profit of $3.3 billion of which they returned $2.6 billion to shareholders as dividend. How many other comapanies return most of the profits to shareholders, not Microsoft, nor Cisco, nor Intel.

It's easy to point the finger at rich corporations. I encourage you to "look under the hood" at their financials. Tell me how many companies can take a 50% tax on their revenues and not either pass it on or significantly restucture (i.e. layoff) or both. I know of none, not even Bill Gates, Inc.

Re:Full disclosure:

[psicE]

If you notice, I'm not actually proposing to tax the companies at 50% of revenues. I only want to collect 50% royalties on extraction. All other business activities, and all revenues generated from other sources, are tax-free. Therefore, I'm not actually taxing the corporation; I'm taxing the land, and whoever owns that land, be it corporation, group, or individual, pays 50% of extraction royalties to the state.

The numbers you're throwing out don't prove anything. In the end, you're still saying that oil companies that lease public land, and pay royalties on it, would be better off if they could buy that land for cheap from the state, or better yet be given it for free, and can pass along the savings to shareholders, or maybe if we're really lucky pass a tiny bit onto consumers in the form of lower gas prices. These oil companies are using public land, with natural resources. Moreso, they have a monopoly on revenues from that source. Cars you can build anywhere, or microchips, or software; but oil you can only extract where it exists, and the oil companies have monopolies on the places it exists.

So by saying that companies should be entitled to free or one-time cost use of public land, you're saying that monopolies should be unregulated and allowed to do whatever they want. Right?

Re:Full disclosure:

[maxpug]

I'm sorry you think that I am "throwing numbers out". You're trying to create a Guaranteed Minimum Income" and I am trying to "follow the money" and show you who pays for it.

I suggest your read the following article the following article. It documents how the Swedish model, which your GMI seems to be loosely based upon, has failed. Those who are on the GMI have no incentive to take the "menial jobs", such as McDonalds, janitors, contruction laborers, etc.

The only option to fill those jobs is to increase the wages for the low-skill/no-skill positions to far enough above GMI to attract workers. Also, those who tend to be lazy will not have starvation and homelessness motivating them to find work. They'll just sit on their behinds watching Oprah and WWF all day.

But let's get back to the money. So, you want to institute a "royalty" on the local copper mine. Let's say that the local mining company sells the copper it mines for one dollar a pound.

With your GMI requirements copper prices just shot up to two dollars a pound so that 50% can be put in the GMI fund. Everything that uses copper, electronics, cookware, metal alloys, etc, just had their raw material costs double. They can't absorb that increase in cost without raising the price of their products. This will follow the same model I used in my previous posting, ending with labor costs increasing becuase the cost of living just increased.

You made the point earlier that oil/mining companies "choose" to raise prices, they don't "have" to. Look at the company's financial statements. There is only a certain amount of money received from their customers. They have to pay for their products (the raw material), the people to mine/drill for it, the supervisors and support personell, etc. The left over is profit. Yes, most executives are over-paid, but solving that problem will not double a company's profit. Especially one as big as most oil/mining companies.

If you use my model from above (copper form $1 to $2 per pound), the mining company is left with a problem. They probably ran on 20%-30% gross margin. That means that 30 cents of every dollar paid for overhead and profit, and sevnty cents went for raw material and extraction labor. If you add a $1 royalty, this means that the thei cost of good just went from 70 cents to $1.70. If the company does not raise prices, it will be selling $1.70 copper for $1, but not for long. So, they have no choice but to raise prices. If they raise prices to $2 a pound, their gross margin is cut in half (to 15%), but they have the same number of dollars to spend on overhead, IF they can sell the same number of pounds of copper.

What happens to your scenario if an African or South American nation offers our companies copper at $1.50 a pound, or less. Our companies would either jump at it or the copper lobby would get a tarrif act passed to even the playing field. Then the US companies look at relocating to Mexico or Canada so that they can avoid US tariffs and still access the US market.

If I were King of the World and looking for ways to use royalties from mining, I would rather use them to find new sources of minerals, say in space, rather than in subsidizing lazy people. Limited supplies of raw materials is a VERY good point, but lets solve that problem.

I had a idea once

[ealar dlanvuli]

It was a jump to conclusions mat. See, one would stand at one end, and there would be conclusions writen all over it. You would then jump, and land on a conclusion. Get it?

Thats what I'd do if I didn't have to worry about money.

Re:I had a idea once

[Anonymous Coward]

That's...the worst idea I've ever heard.

Re:I had a idea once

[Chuq]

Yes, this is horrible, this idea.

If I repent of anything, it's my good behaviour

[Kirruth]

I'd probably do a master's degree in the liberal arts at St John's in Anapolis, before buying a farm in Iceland and raising ponies, from which I'd launch my campaign for high political office.

Hell - I might just do those things anyway...

Work some more, sorta

[Sandman1971]

If let's say I won something like 20$ million at the lottery.

I'd quit my current job (I don't hate it, in fact I love my job. But I'd still quit).

After getting a house built as I want it, furnished, get a finincial advisor and invest (aka the usual)

I'd then travel the world for 6-12 months, going to every place I've ever wanted to go.

I'd probably go back to school and get study something related to my next point.

I'd start my own bar. This was a dream of mine when I was in my teenage years. Totally unrelated to the tech industry I work in. Plus, you can hire people to do the day to day management. So if you take off for a 2-4 week trip somewhere, you're not totally foobared (I know a few trustworthy ppl already that I would hire). And owning a bar would fit my lifestyle. Stay up late and wake up late.

and of course, give money to charities and such and volunteer some of my time with local children (IE: sports coach, etc..)

If I had unlimited cash

[scrytch]

I just might then be able to afford to live in San Francisco. Probably need more than that though.

Toys

[SofaMan]

I would spend time making toys. Not just wooden toys, but learn how to vacuum cast resin as well, just to make things interesting. Maybe learn some electronics for them too. I think I could have a lifetime of fun just making all sorts of toys, vehicles, action figures, plushies, you name it, out of all sorts of things.

And after a long, tiring but satisfying day in my workshop, I would sit on my porch and play my banjo. I need to practice more anyway. :)

Kill Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

duh.

Two cases...

[fok]

There are two different situatins here:

Do I have a shitload of money
or

Do I have just enough to keep on a good life

Didn't need money or earned same amount?

[fireserver]

If I didn't need money it would be great.. but that would also imply i would get the things that i wanted (such as new computer parts, new books and lots of new stuff in general) Life would be great. I would get fat(or fatter). I would spend most of my time reading (learning about various things that interest me and trying to learn about lots of things in general(not doctor though i don't have stomach).Oh and I would also play lots of PC games. As for if I earned the same amount that I do now... I would prolly still do the same things at first... then I would prolly go insane because I would soon realize that I will NEVER get my credit cards paid off....ARGGGHHHH!!!!!

Aaron the Moor (OT)?

[Anonymous Coward]

If so, that makes two people who thought Titus Andronicus rocked...

mod WAY up

[Anonymous Coward]

Propz to Office Space

Two Women at the Same Time

[alatesystems]

I tell you what I'd do man. Two women at the same time.

Two women at the same time?

Two women at the same time.

Go into Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Work for charity
Get a Body Overhaul
Adopt
Buy Huge House with Huge Yard
Donate to Good Causes
Be more Religous
Spend more time Loving my Lover
Begin Building a Castle, yes I am in the SCA

Really good movie about this: "About a Boy"

[[Rainer]]

There's a really good movie (based on a best-selling novel) which talks about this: About a Boy (2002).

Plot: Hugh Grant plays a rich selfish layabout, Will, who cruises through life on the royalties from a song his deceased father penned years ago. He finds a great way to meet women who don't want to get involved through a single mother's group - which is where he meets the strange twelve year old boy Marcus (Nicholas Hoult), who lives with his depressed, suicidal mother Fiona (Toni Collette). A tragic event sees Marcus seeking comfort with the indifferent Will who begins to realise that there's more to life than sitting around at home all day.

My need no money dreams

[haplo21112]

1. I would program for fun whatever little thing I thought might be useful to the world....
2. I would write books, scifi books, and since I don't need money who cares if anyone ever reads them I wrote them because I had Ideas and I wanted too.
3. Travel, Lots of places I want to see....
4. I would not donate my time to some worthy cause, honestly I see doing such as a way of gicving time to something I believe in as an escape from the things I have to do....If I have to do nothing then donating my time would feel like work instead....so I wouldn't want to do it...call it selfish if you like but thta my opinion....

I think I'd mostly keep on going

[jht]

I'm a network manager. I like the work, for the most part. If I had enough money to not care about working, I'd still work - but I'd probably cut back my hours a little and perhaps go off and do more fun stuff. I'd play a little more golf. Spend more time on my bicycle. I'd definitely spend a lot more time with my newborn son.

My all-time favorite job was when I worked as a bicycle mechanic (about 16 years ago), though it did not exactly pay the bills. But it was a lot of fun, and I was pretty good at it. If that wasn't a concern, I might well give thought to going back into it. But maybe as a sideline.

I think, ultimately, work should be fun, at least to a degree. If you enjoy what you do, there's no reason to not work even if you don't need to. In fact, it might be more fun then because all the financial pressure is off.

I'd probably write books.

[Maul]

Seriously. I think someone else said this, but I'd probably work on writing a book. I've always wanted to do that. ^_^

Learn

[jjwahl]

Study/learn all those things that I learned in college/high school but never deeply understood. Like Calculus. I learned it, knew when to use what method to solve an equation at what time and subsequently got A's.
The problem is that I never deeply understood it.
I would learn more about physics, electricity and chemistry.
I would learn COBOL just for the hell of it.
I would take a classes on ADA and APL (if I could find any...).
I would learn to write a compiler.
I would learn more about XML.
I would learn .NET.
I would become really really good at security - taking classes on white hat hacking.
Why don't I just do that now you ask? Because I have a family and financial and time commitments that dictate that I spend my time and resources on more practical pursuits.

When it comes down to it, learning is what really, truly turns me on.

Oh and two chicks at the same time does quite a bit for me too...

Ah, Ms Garst!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice to see you.

Hire artists, and explore nature

[bluGill]

I have ideas. Lots of good ideas. I have no interest in actualy following through with them though, I'd rather come up with the next idea. Therefore I would hire a lot of things. I would have 10 artists (mostly stone carvers) on my payroll at any time, carving statues, plaques (thoughtful sayings), and sculptures. I would turn my yard (and my neighbor's yard after I bought their house) into a large sculpture garden. Romantic areas, thoughtful areas, concert areas, maybe a zoo... I don't know exactly. Essentially a large park that is all mine, but you are welcome to visit.

I'd also spend a lot of time exploring nature. Alaska has always interested me, I'd go. Utah has the most amazing geography, I'd have to spend a lot of time there. Fishing, hiking, hunting, camping. I like living in tents for short times. Watch lions kill, visit the pryamids (Egyption and Myan), explore castles.

And as a rich person I would also have a few less useful things. The world's longest brige, streching 100 miles in the ocean, and then ending, with the plan from the start to never cross. Or maybe a life size replica of flood control dam #3. (underground of course)

How fucking stupid are you, moderator???

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you two fucking stupid to tell a fucking joke when you see one???!! What the fuck is wrong with you idiots?

Now this post could be considered a troll, you fucking asswipe. Mod down accoringly you humorless sack of shit.

Hike & Projects

[waldoj]

I've thought about this lots. :) I imagine I'd spend six months out of each year backpacking (AT again, PCT, ADT, CDT, JMT, LT...there are so many!) and the remaining six months divided into six one-month projects. One month to start a new voter-registration project in Charlottesville, one month to volunteer full-time on the city's free bicycle program, one month to work on a free software project... And then I could clear my head from April - October backpacking. Repeat as necessary. :)

-Waldo Jaquith

I'd buy iD

[Anonymous Coward]

And then make John Carmack be a MS SQL Server Administrator.

Either that or I'd hipe up Thumb Wars like Robot Wars is.

Everquest

[Wanker]

Lots of Everquest. ;-)

I could tell you...

[msouth]

...but it's already there under "URL".

actually, that's not all that informative. I think you can look at old_index.html to get to the underlying ideas.

The inevitable...

[Shwag]

Overcoming the acheivement of money is the same as fullfilling our survival need, its just a higher level need. But what happens after those needs are fulfilled, and then the needs after that, and then maybe all of them ? Once results have been acheived, then we can start to understand the causes.

"The practical study of concentration opens to us the world not only of results, but also of causes, and lifts us beyond the slavery of uncontrolled feelings and thoughts." - Mouni Sadhu

"What is needed, rather than running away or controlling or suppressing or any other resistance, is understanding fear; that means, watch it, learn about it, come directly into contact with it. We are to learn about fear, not how to escape from it." - Krishnamurti

"When all the units of mankind are finally Awakened, will the values of the subject-object consciousness be abanoned in every sense?" - Franklin Merrell-Wolff

Re:The inevitable...

[Shwag]

more on Franklin Merrell-Wolff

http://www.integralscience.org/gsc/

Why am I asking?

[permaculture]

The girl that originally put this question to me was moving from UNIX sysadminning to teaching the Alexander Method. Look it up on Google if you don't know it already.

I asked my Mum, and a few months later she'd sold the school she was running and retired. So she really *has* stopped working for money. Now, I always thought she'd keep working until she keeled over.

The answer to that question, if truthful rather than flippant, can be life changing for the person who's answering. Which is cool. Plus, I wanted to get an article on \. :-)

Fisherman story

[rastos1]

Guy: Hey, I'm watching you for two hours already and you just sit there with one fishing line ... can't you think of something better?
Fisherman: What do you mean?
Guy: Well, if you had 2 or 3 fishing lines you could get more fishes...
Fisherman: And than?
Guy: You could go to the market and sell them!
Fisherman: And than?
Guy: You could earn some money!
Fisherman: What would I do with that?
Guy: You could by a small boat and a net and fish more!
Fisherman: And than?
Guy: You sell the fishes and earn even more!
Fisherman: And than?
Guy: You could by a big boat and hire a crew and they could fish for you! You could be a milionare, you could just sit here all day and ... oh wait ...

Anti-lobbying.

[fishnuts]

I'd lobby AGAINST the big companies with special interests. Effectively bid against them with their favorite politicians.
Imagine the shock on the faces of the CEOs of [insert evil companies here] when their efforts to get their representative in office to sign bills in their selfish anti-consumer interests fail miserably, because one person happened to have the money (and the balls) to counter them and stand up for the people who don't have such fortune.

The first organizations I'd "bid" against are certainly the MPAA and RIAA, and their member media companies.

And on the lighter side of things, with a very substantial (er, $100B USD) sum of money, I'd love to just forcibly buy out Microsoft, fire gates and balmer (or at least delegate them to head the Minesweeper and Solitaire development teams), and relicense Windows under the BSD terms and open it to the world.

The Big Evil Companies with special interests have used their ill-gained money to slap the consumers around long enough, using politicians as their puppets. They really need to be taught a hard lesson in checks and balances, and this is precisely what I'd do.

My two Euros' worth

[twilight30]

* Schedule annual months of hallucinogen intake
* Finally get that electronic music thing together
* Polish up my languages (foreign and computer)
* Get some land and learn -- very slowly -- how to farm it
* Go to university again (See no. 2)

er, that's it for now....

Work on research projects, more outdoors

[KjetilK]

I would be working on research projects that I found interesting. I've got a degree in astrophysics, but there are many other interesting things to do as well, in any science. Then I would work on scientific publishing, there are huge potentials there.

Also, I would be spending more time travelling around the world, and spending more time doing expeditions in strange places.

I'd

[oval_pants]

1.) Start a small website dedicated to nerds and current technology.
2.) ????
3.) Profit.

Teach

[Zerth]

Teach primitive skills(firemaking, meat drying, etc) and computer programming(perhaps even at the same time:)

Sail

Bike

Get at least a minor in every dept of the nearest university.

I would...

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck every Slashdotter in the ass. No matter who.

Open a flower shop which also sells coffee

[Corporate Gadfly]

My wife and I are both in IT. Her lifelong dream (I'm skeptical about the idea) is to ditch programming all together and open up a flower shop.

Who needs the stress of programming jobs these days? BTW, the flower shop would also have a coffee shop inside where people could sit and enjoy.

So, in the real world, the idea seems a little risky. However, given the current question, I would do that in a heartbeat.

Book

[tsa]

I think I would write a book. A novel about weird things going on just beyond the possibility border. I already know that it's very difficult to write a good novel (from experience) but that's even more reason to try.

Travel around dispensing vigilante justice!

[Anonymous Coward]

With enough money, I'd be able to operate above the law, killing vermin who got off on technicalities, etc.

Just basically trying to improve the quality of life for my fellow Americans.

I don't _need_ money now

[MasTRE]

Title is the caveat emptor. I can probably survive w/o working for money. A few of us are heroic enough to do it. We do not need all this crap we buy every day. The only thing that I respect and would work in order to be able to purchase (assuming I was not working, which unfortunately I am) is a computer with an Internet connection. Of course, I would have to do something for food and sex, but that's not all that difficult - I could harvest my own and humans are humans (sometimes). I would probably still do what I do now, namely be involved with technology, but most likely in a more exciting area. Think of it as a redistribution of my time. Fuck money.

What would I do....

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Play with my son more
2. Do a lot more music/multimedia work
3. Play some video games once in a while. Right now I don't have time at all for this activity.
4. Learn how to tie trout flies and learn to fly fish effectively.
5. go to Europe for 6 months.
6. Get a philosophy degree.

VR

[BakedBeans]

I like working. But I work at something that doesn't make a difference.

I liked bitgeek's thoughts on running your own business.. something I desperately want to achieve - for the sake of doing a job well and reaping the rewards financial or otherwise.

If I could put in a full working day, I would get a team together to work on a community/open virtual environment system.

I'm thinking of VR done right. A team developing these kinds of technologies:
- 3D display and rendering in real-time
- advanced facial expresssion interfaces
- community based environments

The idea isn't to make the next killer first-person shooter, but an environent where groups of people can interact NATURALLY in the virtual environment.

Everyone has postulated about this, but people seem to tend to develop quirky toy-like characters that jolt around and need a keyboard.

My focus would be on spending those CPU cycles on presenting a realistic environment for face-to-face communication.. not smoke-trails on rockets.

Imagine the business benefits of realistic on-line meetings where you can see an accurate rendering of your correspondant's facial expression.

Just a thought.

Hmm ... I'll post to /.

[dsb3]

I think I have to post to Slashdot for ideas on how to use all this free time I seem to have on my hands.

Obvious

[yelligsc]

Two Chicks at the same time.

Work out, join the WWE

[RailGunner]

And put Triple H through a table.

Obviously...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would do what those in that situation currently do for sport: Obtain power.

Of course, I'd try to use the power thus obtained to obtain more power, eventually amassing enough to pull back the curtain and expose the sham for the world to see.

Corner the market on software

[Grapes4Buddha]

If I had unlimited funds, I'd hire a bunch of programmers, throw together a bunch of feature-laden crap and market it ruthlessly until people have no choice but to use my software. Then I'd slowly tighten the screws on my licensing agreements until I RULED THE WORLD!!!!! BWAAAHAAAHAHAAHAAA!!!!!

Or I'd buy a nice little house on the coast in Maine, become a massage therapist, go on tour with my wife (she's a musician), and raise a couple of kids.

Hmm... I might do that anyway if I ever have no choice but to use XP at work.

I know!

[Josh Booth]

I know what I would be doing if I didn't need money. I'd be programming! I know that it's not as glamorous as building a racetrack, but I'm a very boring guy who is easily amused. So, that's what I would do.

Jeez, what would be fun?

[kaladorn]

I work as a computer consultant dude on large scale projects in public sector, defense, policing, and telco/dotcomm stuff. Pretty darn fun. I have money so I can pretty much do most of what I want now. Seems to me the things I'm a bit short for:

• Spending time with friends (but I'd need to be able to "hire" them so they too had the free time and some have families so even then I wouldn't get full time presence)
• Travel - lots yet to see and visit and only finite money and more finite time while working
• Read - can't keep up with the great books of the past few thousand years... so more time would be nice
• Ponder - sit on my ass in a hammock, on a white sandy beach, in 27C, thinking or just plain being - something modern life makes tough as any amount of unalloted time seems like a "waste" - whereas in fact time to ponder would probably lead to wonderful discoveries about the self, friends, the world at large, or just the insides of the eyelids as one fell asleep... but that's the risk of just being... :)
• Do something relatively meaningful for others - already do charity organizing/work, just like to do more

And, of course, I'd like to hang out with wonderful women (met lots, many more yet to meet, and more appearing every day!) and carouse.

I would still contract, but reading & music

[wessman]

If I had all the money I needed to be happy, I would probably still do small web development contract work, cause I have fun doing it. And I would work a small public relations firm for music artists.

But for fun, I would attend a lot of concerts and arts shows, plus sports events. I would rent a lot of movies at first, but then go back to reading a lot of sci-fi, non-fiction, and poetry books and magazines.

I would try writing a couple books, but definitely publish some poetry and start a little rock band.

I would watch a lot of ESPN adn Sunday football, something that I haven't done in a long, long time.

And I would go back to school to get a masters and phd.

And, in my boredom (?!), I'd probably become a hacker!

Nothing Different

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd keep going to work everyday (I like my job), only I'd pretend that I can't stand my job, and people would constantly wonder why I'm at a job that I hate when I don't need to be. Then one day, after putting on an act of being particularly stressed out over insignificant things, I'd knock my laptop to the floor and shout "that's it! I've had it!", and storm out.

Then I'd giggle to myself for a while, and look for another job to start the process all over again.

What I'd do (sigh)

[elvisoft]

1. Work on artificial intelligence
research, on figuring out emotions,
communication computer-to-human with
deep understanding of motivations, concerns,
states of knowledge and belief, inconsistencies
in beliefs and values etc.

2. Work on a website and graphics technology
and organization dedicated to allowing people
to visualize ecosystems and biodiversity
and what we do and don't know about them
and what is happening to them, over long
time periods (historical to future.)
(As part of this, come up with quantitative
metrics for biodiversity and ecosystem
complexity, and ways of representing and
illustrating differences in ecosystem
structure, robustness etc.)

3. Relax in warm, ocean-front places now and
then with good friends (and frequently go
diving to see the fishes).

4. Fly a motorized sailplane.

5. Get into politics more.

6. Maybe dabble with bad writing and poetry.

Yeah, that's about it.

Travel.

[LazyBoy]

Travel, travel, travel.

Move to a college town, take the occasional
liberal arts class. (Stuff I mised out on.)

Travel some more. Fly first class all the time.

*Maybe* some open source stuff. Maybe not.

My dreams

[hether]

Like everyone I'd invest in a nice home and more computer equipment. I'd continue doing web development work for some of my small clients, quit my day job, and continue taking classes. I'd start sinking money into the campaigns of my favorite Libertarian candidates and organizations such as the EFF. I'd learn to be a better sailor. I'd fund the animal shelter for the rescue group I currently volunteer for. I'd travel wherever and whenever I wanted to and perhaps have a second home in Scotland. I'd further develop my language skills - both types. I'd support the whims and habits of my husband, and in general try to develop a life where I am much less stressed.

anything!

[billions and billion]

I would sleep for 12 hours straight.
I would spend endless hours at the library.
I would borrow all the books I could and not worry about all those darn late fees :(
I would travel the world, first of all to USA and Canada.
I would buy a ticket to space, when that's possible.
I would design homepages for free, for fun and for money.
I would code and hack all day.
I would sit in front of the TV and watch sitcoms, documentaries and action all day.
I would sign up for any courses that might be fun.
I would have philosophical, political and other discussions with that nice smart chick I know ;)
I would do two chicks at once ;)

In other words, as the restless soul that I am, I would do anything.

$2 a gallon is expensive?

[Malcolm MacArthur]

$2 a gallon? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! You think THAT's expensive?

Currently, here in the UK, it's 73p a litre or thereabouts. 4.5 litres/gallon = £3.28, or at current exchange rates, $5.12. Most of that is tax.

Diesel is slightly more expensive, which is a perfect example of free market forces at work: the tax on diesel is lower, so the petrol companies increase the base price that the tax is applied to so that they get more money :)

If I recall correctly, untaxed diesel (also known as Rebated Fuel Oil, dyed red, available to farmers and people operating things like generators, etc. - basically, non-road vehicle engines) is about 40p a litre, or £1.80 ($2.81) a gallon. Woe betide you if you get caught using it on the road though...

Re:$2 a gallon is expensive?

[maxpug]

Yes, I call $2 a gallon expensive. I have traveled and driven extensively in Europe. I realize that compared to the rest of the world we have "cheap" gas.

Isn't it interesting how gasoline (or petrol) is such a fine target to tax. The common argument on our side of the pond is that taxing gas is the best way of making the people who use the transportation infrastructure pay for it personally. Fine, but the car that gets 50 miles per gallon is paying less taxes than the truck getting 10 miles per gallon on a per mile of transportation infrastructure used.

But our government wants to get cars built that improve gas mileage to reduce pollution. But if we improve gas mileage by 20%, then the revenues to support the roads will drop by 20%, which will cause lawmakers to increase taxes to bring up revenues. Then the gas prices go up again.

What do the politicians use as the excuse for the gas taxes over there?

Almost the same...

[Anonymous Coward]

The same type of work I am doing now, but with different co-workers.

Wow! You read Rand.

[Anonymous Coward]

And you're an asshole. What a surprise.