OK... I've only read up on it a little so far, but I have to ask:
Most of those apps use mysql on the backend (at least WP and Drupal do... and those are two of the main apps touted). BUT! The platform only mentions SQL Server as far as I've read so far. Is MySQL quietly installed or is this some port of those apps that uses SQL Server? Some DB Abstraction Layer (find that hard to believe)?
Mod me down for not reading enough or being lazy if you want, but I an still trying to figure out how they include some of these apps without including MySQL
Exactly, the browser's history is not protected per tab, but is globally accessible by all tabs (and their js) AFAIK. The browser-maker has to figure out how to balance the security of the tab versus the convenience of a global history for the user. As I understand it, the only piece of info needed here is your history... nothing from your banking site tab itself. So... it's a question of whether or not the history can be "stove-piped" and protected as tab information as far as js is concerned.
For that matter though... I'd be fine with banning js from having access to browser history at all. I don't think the trade-off is worth it in the end. Would break a lot of stuff out there I'm sure (well... none of my stuff).
I am just so sick and tired of the sites using Flash for stuff that could easily and better be done with other things like a simple JPG.
On the surface, that's true... the thing is that jpg's can't quietly (at least from a visual perspective) chat with the server and your client without a page reload. Flash can do all the ajax-esque type calls (and could since some time back) in a self-contained little piece of binary object. If you're not going to click their ad, they might as well get what they can from you while you're viewing their adds, no?
If Adobe could figure out a way to 'kill' Flash (buy Macromedia out and make it their own, M$ style), why doesn't M$ just do Adobe the 'old fashioned way'... buy 'em!?!?!?! Then maybe the M$ product could get traction on some platform?
Really though... who needs/wants Silverlight? I'm behind the improved js engines 100%. Not remotely interesting in Silverlight on any platform.
>>15 million people are employed by, and have a vested interest in an the size and power of, the federal government, let alone state and local.
Indeed... probably not what was intended by "Government of, by and for the people", eh?
What real third parties are there now? I once almost leaned libertarian, but they crossed the line in a few areas for me.
I agree in principle at least. But geeessh... now I'm almost back to not voting at all.:-/
Unfortunately, the parent is mod'd as insightful and if there was a mod for 'thanks for reminding us of the obvious' and I had mod points, I would give that up instead of contributing (if you want to call it that) to this discussion (if you want to call it that).
Since I'm here and shooting my mouth off anyway... Although I tend to vote republican, I seriously have considered voting for Obama (picking Biden helped that along... Hillary would have killed the thought in any infancy it would have had). I spent several weeks very displeased that I had to pick between these two, period. Seriously considered not voting due to the feeling that I can't really 'endorse' either candidate. In the, I can't get myself to vote for Obama. Although, I don't think he can necessarily pull it off, I think he will lead the country further towards becoming a socialist state. My opinion/feeling (we all have 'em, they often stink to others).
As for the war, there's simply no good option there now and either candidate who wants to take a shot at handling that mess... more power to 'em. They both do and I don't doubt that both think they have a good answer based on their experience, etc. I do give Obama credit for being consistent on his stance. I would like to see some good criteria from either side.
Despite Biden's "steel in his spine" comment, my feeling is he'll pander our world independence away in the end.
Finally, we should all realize that (either) single party controlling the white house, senate and house of rep.'s is not necessarily a good idea. I think McCain could/would work to check but still get stuff done with the democrat-controlled congress.
So... once again, I find myself voting not 'for' a candidate, but 'not voting for' the other candidate.:-/
exactly... *was*... **is**... and will be able to do so even faster now.... and the organized crime folk probably didn't even have to fork over a penny.
As far as the music issue, seems like you're ahead of me on solving that problem. At least you're aware of some of the issues there. Otherwise, I personally am fine with buying a Yes/Genesis song or not (along with the restrictions that come with it). So for me... it's still 'take-it-or-leave-it'. Of course, I buy little music and pilfer/trade/'share' none.
>What is the Free alternative if I want a computer with predictable capabilities including SDTV output? How can I make this happen?
Not to be rude, but this sounds like your problem to solve, not anyone else's. Those who have solved the problem in a proprietary fashion, do not inherently owe you anything just for being proprietary. Taking it in an illegal fashion is still dishonest and illegal... plain and simple. If you want to pioneer a 'Free' (I assume you mean as in 'speech'), I doubt you'll be well rewarded (financially) for your efforts. You may get a lot of thank you emails (or more likely support requests from enthusiasts, from those building one based on your 'Free'/'Open' version), but I doubt you'll get much monetary assistance... unless you protect your risk/investments somehow.
> Which doesn't automatically make the ends justify the specific means, of course.
You'll have to elaborate on this one. It's a cute one-liner reply, but that's about all I see there. Are you really saying that you think that rewarding/protecting people for their risks and resources expended to innovate isn't justified as a means to fostering that innovation? Got a better/workable proposal?
>No, I'm not free to take "Leave It". Besides, the whole mindset of take-it-or-leave-it negotiation is what got us into this mess. I want to leave it; what should I take instead?
Do you mean, "What am I *entitled* to, because Yes or Genesis won't give me this or tell me what the free (beer or speech) alternative is?". I believe that in the open-source metaphor... you would go learn some instruments with your buddies and make your own music, no? So... 'take' up an instrument. If you don't think that's fair... then you've just found yourself with the rest of the non-software-engineer (or software-engineers-with-families-and-little-time) world out there, just on the music side of things.
Now... don't get me wrong, I'm an OSS fan/proponent., Have oft championed it at work in lieu of other solutions, but I'm also a pragmatist. Things need to work/get done. Sometimes, that means taking the lesser of evils or just dealing with what you have. Not every battle must be won to win a war.
(Maybe I'm reading this wrong.... but, if not....) As far as the consoles and 'cracking' existing 'oligopolist' boxes... Just as the GPL/FSF crowd wants others to provide credit and pass the source along as a matter of legality... reverse-engineering others' SW and HW that is legally proprietary is highly hypocritical at the least.
Keep in mind that as problematic as the patent/copyright system is, a number of innovations have come about due to the protection afforded from the systems (especially earlier on). And those systems did come about (as I understand it) to help foster innovation.
I would agree. At the same time, since botnet's and taking over zombie computers are all businesses now, it stands to reason that the Mac's growing popularity (especially amongst naive college students), there will be some 'investment' in 'future markets', if you will. I'm certain there's some organized crime crackers being paid to investigate cracks for the Mac that don't require at-the-console-with-an-admin-password type exploits.
I have long worked with Mac's and have been pleased to know that there are no known worm's etc. "in the wild" (Yes, that is a fact, although not proof of invincibility).
That all said... I still live with some paranoia, use a limited permissions user as my main account.. etc. etc.
And no one previously said anything (including Lieberman) about comedy central either...
Yes, someone who's not a terrorist could post a terrorist video (not the smartest thing to do IMO, but this is slashdot, so we posit such arguments here). Guess what though... terrorists or sympathizers/supporters might also post them too... imagine that! Either way, there are other factors other than the content posted to take into consideration.
=== "I've posted a single video to YouTube -- it was a usability news report that I posted as part of a class. Had my assignment involved propaganda, religious fundamentalism, or current trends in Islam, I might very well have posted a Muslim terrorist rant."
"According to at least 3 posters here, that means I *know* something." ===
And if you can do the math... you can figure out that the perception is that you potentially know something or potentially support those advocating blowing up themselves and innocents.
Anyone who posts the daily show likely (note, not guaranteed, but you're not gonna get that)
1) Watches (and maybe even likes) the daily show. 2) Works at comedy central or knows someone who does (or someone who knows someone who does)... *if* they're posting prior to it airing.
And... would the people posting terrorist material likely be posting for the same reasons as those posting daily show material?
You can't take it literally, but there is likely some trail there. not as simple as onion skinning... but I think more likely connection than not. of course, then you have compromised accounts to... but there's still some trail there.
At a surface level, that seems to be a decent argument... but....
From one angle... there is precedent of the Church having materials lost/acquired by others with the intent to falsify and undermine the church. Granted, we in the church... IaaMoTCoJCoLdS (I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)... believe at least one previous attempt cited was thwarted through divine inspiration (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/10). And while we seek that which is good/praiseworthy (http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,106-1-2-1,FF.html.. see #13), we do understand that there are those who operate with ill-intent. We understand that there are those who call good evil and evil good (http://scriptures.lds.org/isa/5#20 | http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/15/20#20).
With that all said... if the material is privately held, copyrighted and not intended for general consumption, what is wrong with asking that it be treated as such and legally defending that? These days, it seems at times that engaging in any legal practice, that is not taking down some hypocritical leader or big company (including defending legitimate copyrights) is "bad" or at least unnecessary. I do not say that to defend big companies with little hearts or people in positions of authority who "mislead", lie, employ prostitutes or what have you.
Just because we access to the "tubes on teh internets", does it mean we have to be able to view everything? It seems no one is allowed the courtesy of confidentiality or privacy anymore? If others blatantly overstep those boundaries (and copyright is involved), what is wrong with legal action sought to correct it?
That all said... I'm positive that there is no way to technically/practically reverse the leak with torrents etc. I'm also sure that at least two other things will happen: 1) Some people will see the lack of (otherwise expected) controversial or 'juicy' (as someone referred to it) items in it. They'll see that the church's operations and good will are genuinely Christian. 2) Some will pull things out of context from the manual and use them in anti-LDS propaganda. (again... nothing new to the church, but preferably, we could avoid it)
Maybe... and even if so... at least someone will come visit me after I get my poopy cleaned up. And I won't have contracted some STD from the retirement-funded loose woman (read 'whore').
Rule #1... college and a "job" doesn't make you successful, or happy.
--Agreed, but circumstances of the job you spend a considerable amount of time at can affect your outlook/demeanor at home. Granted, your parents were genius entrepreneurs, but I bet they still had great concern to keep up their 'subservient' relationship (or I like to think of it as provider & nurturer roles) to you and your siblings.
Rule #2... having a family is something to do when you are ready, not when you're horny.
--Agreed, although not for the same reasons probably. And what is the criteria for 'ready'? Obviously your criteria is different from mine. You simply cannot put an age on it and say people at age X shouldn't, but people at age Y can/should, just because you see your parents situation as a good solution. I've been plenty of 30+ that are not ready for the commitment of marriage. That's what's really missing in the equation of most marriages... commitment. If anything, I would say that younger kids are less responsible today, and that's the bigger issue. No idea of what commitment is or sticking something out. Why see it out with a woman you've committed to when you can pay off some 'loose woman' (as you put it... wouldn't your mom be proud!) to hang around with you for a while, right?
Rule #3... most people only get married because their lives are empty and they have nothing else to fill them with. Either that or they are afraid they'll die lonely.
--I call plain crap and immaturity on this one. Sorry, but you're really showing your lack of depth here. Besides, that's not a rule, it's conjecture. And you obviously lack sufficient life experience to speak on the subject or to contribute to the original discussion.
Rule #4... I have friends who are in their 70's, multiple strokes. Still walking around, without missing a beat. Reason? I call it "will to live". I've seen the same thing with deer, and have heard it from others also. There are animals and people that can be winged by a bullet, and drop dead. Other animals are struck and survive what is considered to be a killing wound. The only explanation for such a survival capacity is simple. Willpower. As for your question. I'm not worried about who'll change my diapers when I'm 90. I'm more concerned about what loose woman I'll be blowing my retirement on:)
--Not quite sure what the animal analogy has to do with anything (except a tangent to the 90's/diaper comment) or how this is a rule... ??? But as they say, "Be careful what you ask for... you may get it." Be sure to keep in mind the concern of how to pay for herpes medications or AIDS cocktails in light of your loose woman (I believe we call them prostitutes, whores or maybe 'escorts' is more diplomatic, right?).
I'm happy with my family... started well before 30. We do well enough meeting the needs on my single IT salary. I even put away decently for retirement and other savings. I understand the OP's concerns and situation. Hopefully you'll 'get it' at some point too. Maybe you could even contribute to the discussion with some valid points then. Ahhh... what am I thinking!!?!? I'm posting on slashdot, right?
Re:You've been working for 12 years, right?
on
Disillusioned With IT?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I may not say [quote]Sorry but I'm busy this weekend; I'll be on the ski slopes if you need me.[/quote]... but I am certainly going to require some justification and compensation for the last minute inconvenience. Any boss who cannot respect and compensate me for that sort of performance/committment/sacrifice, does not deserve to be my boss.
No kids, no house payment, no car payment, $250k in the bank = you do what you want, and if you need to find another job, you find another job.
And from a boss' perspective... I wouldn't miss that person (nor expect them to be around that long anyway). They bug off anytime they are asked to make some committment or sacrifice... 6-12 months at each job on the resume. Sure, hire them for some contract gig, but otherwise, no thanks. I've moved when I felt it was necessary. I've asked my employers to give back when I give my all. If they don't (and haven't), I move on.
Slashdot Mirror
OK ... I've only read up on it a little so far, but I have to ask:
Most of those apps use mysql on the backend (at least WP and Drupal do ... and those are two of the main apps touted). BUT! The platform only mentions SQL Server as far as I've read so far. Is MySQL quietly installed or is this some port of those apps that uses SQL Server? Some DB Abstraction Layer (find that hard to believe)?
Mod me down for not reading enough or being lazy if you want, but I an still trying to figure out how they include some of these apps without including MySQL
Anyone actually played with it yet?
If you're interested in the actual hacking (err ... cracking) side of things ... Web Application Hacker's Handbook came highly recommended by my SANS instructor.
http://www.bestwebbuys.com/The_Web_Application_Hacker's_Handbook-ISBN_9780470170779.html?isrc=b-search
Exactly, the browser's history is not protected per tab, but is globally accessible by all tabs (and their js) AFAIK. The browser-maker has to figure out how to balance the security of the tab versus the convenience of a global history for the user. As I understand it, the only piece of info needed here is your history ... nothing from your banking site tab itself. So ... it's a question of whether or not the history can be "stove-piped" and protected as tab information as far as js is concerned.
For that matter though ... I'd be fine with banning js from having access to browser history at all. I don't think the trade-off is worth it in the end. Would break a lot of stuff out there I'm sure (well ... none of my stuff).
Whispering at a very low volume in someone's ear with your hands cupped around your mouth.
If we're just going for worse ... how about virtualizing Windows ME?!?!
On the surface, that's true ... the thing is that jpg's can't quietly (at least from a visual perspective) chat with the server and your client without a page reload. Flash can do all the ajax-esque type calls (and could since some time back) in a self-contained little piece of binary object. If you're not going to click their ad, they might as well get what they can from you while you're viewing their adds, no?
If Adobe could figure out a way to 'kill' Flash (buy Macromedia out and make it their own, M$ style), why doesn't M$ just do Adobe the 'old fashioned way' ... buy 'em!?!?!?! Then maybe the M$ product could get traction on some platform?
Really though ... who needs/wants Silverlight? I'm behind the improved js engines 100%. Not remotely interesting in Silverlight on any platform.
Did /. get pwn3d? People are discussing exercise and even using phrases like "When I run" ... I better go check the INFOCon at SANS .... ;-)
>>15 million people are employed by, and have a vested interest in an the size and power of, the federal government, let alone state and local. Indeed ... probably not what was intended by "Government of, by and for the people", eh?
What real third parties are there now? I once almost leaned libertarian, but they crossed the line in a few areas for me. I agree in principle at least. But geeessh ... now I'm almost back to not voting at all. :-/
Unfortunately, the parent is mod'd as insightful and if there was a mod for 'thanks for reminding us of the obvious' and I had mod points, I would give that up instead of contributing (if you want to call it that) to this discussion (if you want to call it that).
Since I'm here and shooting my mouth off anyway ... ... Hillary would have killed the thought in any infancy it would have had). I spent several weeks very displeased that I had to pick between these two, period. Seriously considered not voting due to the feeling that I can't really 'endorse' either candidate. In the, I can't get myself to vote for Obama. Although, I don't think he can necessarily pull it off, I think he will lead the country further towards becoming a socialist state. My opinion/feeling (we all have 'em, they often stink to others).
Although I tend to vote republican, I seriously have considered voting for Obama (picking Biden helped that along
As for the war, there's simply no good option there now and either candidate who wants to take a shot at handling that mess ... more power to 'em. They both do and I don't doubt that both think they have a good answer based on their experience, etc. I do give Obama credit for being consistent on his stance. I would like to see some good criteria from either side.
Despite Biden's "steel in his spine" comment, my feeling is he'll pander our world independence away in the end.
Finally, we should all realize that (either) single party controlling the white house, senate and house of rep.'s is not necessarily a good idea. I think McCain could/would work to check but still get stuff done with the democrat-controlled congress.
So ... once again, I find myself voting not 'for' a candidate, but 'not voting for' the other candidate. :-/
exactly ... *was* ... **is** ... and will be able to do so even faster now. ... and the organized crime folk probably didn't even have to fork over a penny.
Instructors live in ivory towers ... sql injections can't climb up ivory yet, no? :p
As far as the music issue, seems like you're ahead of me on solving that problem. At least you're aware of some of the issues there. Otherwise, I personally am fine with buying a Yes/Genesis song or not (along with the restrictions that come with it). So for me ... it's still 'take-it-or-leave-it'. Of course, I buy little music and pilfer/trade/'share' none.
>What is the Free alternative if I want a computer with predictable capabilities including SDTV output? How can I make this happen?
Not to be rude, but this sounds like your problem to solve, not anyone else's. Those who have solved the problem in a proprietary fashion, do not inherently owe you anything just for being proprietary. Taking it in an illegal fashion is still dishonest and illegal ... plain and simple. If you want to pioneer a 'Free' (I assume you mean as in 'speech'), I doubt you'll be well rewarded (financially) for your efforts. You may get a lot of thank you emails (or more likely support requests from enthusiasts, from those building one based on your 'Free'/'Open' version), but I doubt you'll get much monetary assistance ... unless you protect your risk/investments somehow.
> Which doesn't automatically make the ends justify the specific means, of course.
You'll have to elaborate on this one. It's a cute one-liner reply, but that's about all I see there. Are you really saying that you think that rewarding/protecting people for their risks and resources expended to innovate isn't justified as a means to fostering that innovation? Got a better/workable proposal?
So ... Apple's move to get DRM-Free (at a slightly higher cost) was prompted by what, then?
>> you are free to take it or leave it.
>No, I'm not free to take "Leave It". Besides, the whole mindset of take-it-or-leave-it negotiation is what got us into this mess. I want to leave it; what should I take instead?
Do you mean, "What am I *entitled* to, because Yes or Genesis won't give me this or tell me what the free (beer or speech) alternative is?". I believe that in the open-source metaphor ... you would go learn some instruments with your buddies and make your own music, no? So ... 'take' up an instrument. If you don't think that's fair ... then you've just found yourself with the rest of the non-software-engineer (or software-engineers-with-families-and-little-time) world out there, just on the music side of things.
Now ... don't get me wrong, I'm an OSS fan/proponent., Have oft championed it at work in lieu of other solutions, but I'm also a pragmatist. Things need to work/get done. Sometimes, that means taking the lesser of evils or just dealing with what you have. Not every battle must be won to win a war.
(Maybe I'm reading this wrong .... but, if not ....) As far as the consoles and 'cracking' existing 'oligopolist' boxes ... Just as the GPL/FSF crowd wants others to provide credit and pass the source along as a matter of legality ... reverse-engineering others' SW and HW that is legally proprietary is highly hypocritical at the least.
Keep in mind that as problematic as the patent/copyright system is, a number of innovations have come about due to the protection afforded from the systems (especially earlier on). And those systems did come about (as I understand it) to help foster innovation.
I would agree. At the same time, since botnet's and taking over zombie computers are all businesses now, it stands to reason that the Mac's growing popularity (especially amongst naive college students), there will be some 'investment' in 'future markets', if you will. I'm certain there's some organized crime crackers being paid to investigate cracks for the Mac that don't require at-the-console-with-an-admin-password type exploits.
I have long worked with Mac's and have been pleased to know that there are no known worm's etc. "in the wild" (Yes, that is a fact, although not proof of invincibility).
That all said ... I still live with some paranoia, use a limited permissions user as my main account .. etc. etc.
Yep, we all know .... a project manager is the person who gets all the accountability with no authority ... TAG! Your'e it!
A single link to a single slanted book gets 5/informative?!?!? Oh yeah ... we're on slashdot ... I keep forgetting that
But one must admit your broad base of study is staggering (questionable if you've even read past the title of the book). But at least one item in your argument is semi-valid ... you admit 'conjecture'. But that's the most intelligent part of your post/argument.
A few more links in case you or others are willing to read more than one slanted title or account (likely, others than the pp could figure this out though)
http://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Smith-Rough-Stone-Rolling/dp/1400077532/
http://www.amazon.com/Book-Mormon-Another-Testament-Christ/dp/038551316X ("...by their fruits, ye shall know them" ... but you have to RTB first) ... or just query 'Joseph Smith' and look at more than one book (yep .. that's possible with today's technology)
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=joseph+smith&x=0&y=0
And no one previously said anything (including Lieberman) about comedy central either ...
... terrorists or sympathizers/supporters might also post them too ... imagine that! Either way, there are other factors other than the content posted to take into consideration.
... you can figure out that the perception is that you potentially know something or potentially support those advocating blowing up themselves and innocents.
Yes, someone who's not a terrorist could post a terrorist video (not the smartest thing to do IMO, but this is slashdot, so we posit such arguments here). Guess what though
===
"I've posted a single video to YouTube -- it was a usability news report that I posted as part of a class. Had my assignment involved propaganda, religious fundamentalism, or current trends in Islam, I might very well have posted a Muslim terrorist rant."
"According to at least 3 posters here, that means I *know* something."
===
And if you can do the math
Anyone who posts the daily show likely (note, not guaranteed, but you're not gonna get that)
... *if* they're posting prior to it airing.
... would the people posting terrorist material likely be posting for the same reasons as those posting daily show material?
... but I think more likely connection than not. of course, then you have compromised accounts to ... but there's still some trail there.
1) Watches (and maybe even likes) the daily show.
2) Works at comedy central or knows someone who does (or someone who knows someone who does)
And
You can't take it literally, but there is likely some trail there. not as simple as onion skinning
At a surface level, that seems to be a decent argument ... but ....
... there is precedent of the Church having materials lost/acquired by others with the intent to falsify and undermine the church. Granted, we in the church ... IaaMoTCoJCoLdS (I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) ... believe at least one previous attempt cited was thwarted through divine inspiration (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/10). And while we seek that which is good/praiseworthy (http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,106-1-2-1,FF.html .. see #13), we do understand that there are those who operate with ill-intent. We understand that there are those who call good evil and evil good (http://scriptures.lds.org/isa/5#20 | http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/15/20#20).
... if the material is privately held, copyrighted and not intended for general consumption, what is wrong with asking that it be treated as such and legally defending that? These days, it seems at times that engaging in any legal practice, that is not taking down some hypocritical leader or big company (including defending legitimate copyrights) is "bad" or at least unnecessary. I do not say that to defend big companies with little hearts or people in positions of authority who "mislead", lie, employ prostitutes or what have you.
... I'm positive that there is no way to technically/practically reverse the leak with torrents etc. I'm also sure that at least two other things will happen: ... nothing new to the church, but preferably, we could avoid it)
From one angle
With that all said
Just because we access to the "tubes on teh internets", does it mean we have to be able to view everything? It seems no one is allowed the courtesy of confidentiality or privacy anymore? If others blatantly overstep those boundaries (and copyright is involved), what is wrong with legal action sought to correct it?
That all said
1) Some people will see the lack of (otherwise expected) controversial or 'juicy' (as someone referred to it) items in it. They'll see that the church's operations and good will are genuinely Christian.
2) Some will pull things out of context from the manual and use them in anti-LDS propaganda. (again
Maybe ... and even if so ... at least someone will come visit me after I get my poopy cleaned up. And I won't have contracted some STD from the retirement-funded loose woman (read 'whore').
Rule #1... college and a "job" doesn't make you successful, or happy.
... commitment. If anything, I would say that younger kids are less responsible today, and that's the bigger issue. No idea of what commitment is or sticking something out. Why see it out with a woman you've committed to when you can pay off some 'loose woman' (as you put it ... wouldn't your mom be proud!) to hang around with you for a while, right?
:)
... ??? But as they say, "Be careful what you ask for ... you may get it." Be sure to keep in mind the concern of how to pay for herpes medications or AIDS cocktails in light of your loose woman (I believe we call them prostitutes, whores or maybe 'escorts' is more diplomatic, right?).
... started well before 30. We do well enough meeting the needs on my single IT salary. I even put away decently for retirement and other savings. I understand the OP's concerns and situation. Hopefully you'll 'get it' at some point too. Maybe you could even contribute to the discussion with some valid points then. Ahhh ... what am I thinking!!?!? I'm posting on slashdot, right?
--Agreed, but circumstances of the job you spend a considerable amount of time at can affect your outlook/demeanor at home. Granted, your parents were genius entrepreneurs, but I bet they still had great concern to keep up their 'subservient' relationship (or I like to think of it as provider & nurturer roles) to you and your siblings.
Rule #2... having a family is something to do when you are ready, not when you're horny.
--Agreed, although not for the same reasons probably. And what is the criteria for 'ready'? Obviously your criteria is different from mine. You simply cannot put an age on it and say people at age X shouldn't, but people at age Y can/should, just because you see your parents situation as a good solution. I've been plenty of 30+ that are not ready for the commitment of marriage. That's what's really missing in the equation of most marriages
Rule #3... most people only get married because their lives are empty and they have nothing else to fill them with. Either that or they are afraid they'll die lonely.
--I call plain crap and immaturity on this one. Sorry, but you're really showing your lack of depth here. Besides, that's not a rule, it's conjecture. And you obviously lack sufficient life experience to speak on the subject or to contribute to the original discussion.
Rule #4... I have friends who are in their 70's, multiple strokes. Still walking around, without missing a beat. Reason? I call it "will to live". I've seen the same thing with deer, and have heard it from others also. There are animals and people that can be winged by a bullet, and drop dead. Other animals are struck and survive what is considered to be a killing wound. The only explanation for such a survival capacity is simple. Willpower. As for your question. I'm not worried about who'll change my diapers when I'm 90. I'm more concerned about what loose woman I'll be blowing my retirement on
--Not quite sure what the animal analogy has to do with anything (except a tangent to the 90's/diaper comment) or how this is a rule
I'm happy with my family
No kids, no house payment, no car payment, $250k in the bank = you do what you want, and if you need to find another job, you find another job.
And from a boss' perspective ... I wouldn't miss that person (nor expect them to be around that long anyway). They bug off anytime they are asked to make some committment or sacrifice ... 6-12 months at each job on the resume. Sure, hire them for some contract gig, but otherwise, no thanks. I've moved when I felt it was necessary. I've asked my employers to give back when I give my all. If they don't (and haven't), I move on.