Actually, low-sec has a fair amount of action. It's not 0.0, but there's a certain amount of risk. The real carebears are those who war-dec new corporation who operate in Empire and think they're hot stuff.
I would like to point out this article from David Byrne which I found highly instructive on different record contract structures. It's an older article, but still very good from someone who has been there, on both sides of the equation.
While some bands may chose the megastar option (at risk of loss of other things), a great many other musicians would likely do well on a number of different levels.
Y'know though, the labels and record companies are really just middlemen and the artists make their money from concert tours and very little from actual CD sales.
For one, it's not the entire agency who is throwing up their hands, it's the head of the EPA. He is a Bush appointee, not necessarily there because of his commitment to the environment. This is the same guy who went against all of his scientists and advisers to turn down California's request to have stricter emissions controls. This is the same guy who doesn't want the EPA to regulate greenhouse gasses when everyone else under him is telling him that the EPA should take action.
Congress did take action. They created the EPA and passed the Clean Air Act to handle these things. I don't believe (though I could be mistaken) that the EPA should enforce items only if it is economically feasible.
Besides, what about necessity being the mother of invention? Not that we can invent our way out of emissions problems, but I'm sure that if we enforce stricter regulations, someone will figure out a way to make a buck out of it.
I hate to burst any patriotic shaped bubbles on this, but without the help of the French Navy eliminating the power of the British fleet and providing blockades and needed sea power (not to mention significant troop support), our guerrilla war may have ended a bit differently.
Fantastic. So is my wife. I have discussions like this all the time and I now know what I'm dealing with. Let's continue.
BDS, you say. You're putting up so many strawmen here, I do believe you are trying to grow corn. But let me clarify if I hadn't before. You are delusional if you think this one decision by SCOTUS excuses this sorry excuse of an executive branch. I don't hate him, I just think he's incompetent or malicious, maybe both.
By the way, nice phrasing about Miller being the only 20th century case about the 2nd amendment. I really don't have the time to point out the previous challenges, most of them being state challenges, granted, but all of them affirming the fact when Madison drew up the 2nd Amendment, he was referring to a collective and not a individual right. So in that sense, the so-called originalists are rejecting the earlier rulings found over the course of the last 200 years.
Oh, seeing the whole activism bug has got you in a tizzy, please note that a state of war can only be declared by Congress, which I'm pretty sure is in the Constitution somewhere. That would classify the whole Iraq thing as a military conflict of some sort or another.
But all in all, I think I'm just upset that you see this so black and white. It's not. That's why it's confusing. But gosh, sure is fun to have this pleasant discussions on a well moderated web-site.
Wait a minute...are you suggesting that this one decision, this one moment in time, exonerates the current administration from all of the countless fuck-ups they've committed over the last seven years?
You, sir, are full of shit. I don't agree with this decision (mainly on principal, but also on the fact that the so-called "originalists" on the court basically reversed about a centuries worth of decisions previously decided), but that doesn't matter. Just take your strawman and go home.
Get out of your echo chamber. Not sure what I have to say about a long extended quote from an op-ed article.
But in the interests of clarity, I'll offer up this link which, although from a blog, pretty much tears apart your strawman by actually quoting directly from the actual report rather than by leaving out much by omission. FUN FACT: that's exactly what Freddie Hiatt, whom you quote at length, seems to do himself!
While I would normally agree with you on the copyright schemes and such, but with it being available to so many systems at launch...what's the big deal about popping your CD in the tray?
Seriously, if you are going to buy it for console, that's what you have to do to play it anyway. How is this any worse on a PC?
Don't get me wrong, I can be as lazy as any other PC gamer and I hate having to pop in a CD just to have it run it's verification check, but if I had this game on a PS3 or X-box, I still have to put the stupid thing in the machine anyway.
Next time, just don't talk about games you've never played. It's just embarrassing.
That's not very nice. Also, parent poster said, basically, PVP in MMORPGs is flawed because it takes into account things like level imbalance. You come back and say that Eve does not have any of those issues, but then you say. Now, an older player has an advantage over a younger player. Give a younger player the biggest baddest ship he can fly against a seasoned pro in a less capable ship, the pro will come out ahead almost every time.
Sure sounds a lot like levels to me, except that your level is associated with time youve spent in game...
I'm not trying to be nice. I'm trying to point out how ridiculous the OP sounded when he talks about balance in PvP when he's never played the game. You've not played EVE either I take it. So, I'll be nice on this.
There are no levels in EVE. There are skills. There are so many skills, it would be impossible to master them all. However, a new player can come into the game, train a few skills and be an important part of a group, perhaps the most vital part of that group. As a player, you can spread around your skills, be a jack of all trades, or you can focus and master a few things relatively quickly. Hate them or love them, Goonswarm proved that a bunch of cheap ships flown well can usually be devastating against large, well-armed ships. Actually, other responses to this are more eloquent than I'm being about the skill system, so I will refer you to them.
Now how does an older player have an advantage? Is it because he has a large ship or because he has the experience to use the skills he has? How is this much different than an FPS in that sense? An older player in an FPS knows each weapon, knows the maps, knows where to go and what to do. It's almost as if you are suggesting that I discount experience for the sake of some weird "balance". The OP was talking about how FPS was the only true measure of PvP skill because the weapons were all the same. I make the point that it's a rather narrow definition because 1) he's never played EVE and 2) there are other types of PvP other than simple pew-pew.
My example that I gave is that even though a player has a bigger and possibly better ship and weapons, it does not mean that they will win the fight, plain and simple. I do not see any other arguments to the other points I made, so I'll assume you agree with those.
Y'know, if you haven't played the game, you can just say so. You don't have to post this and try to convince people that twitch gaming is what you think is the best measure for PvP.
I cannot say anything about Conan, although it sounds like it would be a laugh. EVE online, though, I can talk about.
Gear matters in FPS play too, don't say that it doesn't. You try to bring the right weapon to get the job done. Sure, there's some skill there, but chances are the right choice of weapon for the job helps more.
EVE online has a steep learning curve. It's a brutal game. Wander into the wrong star system and you will kiss your ship and likely your pod goodbye. But, even a new player can make an impact with a team. It's less about who has the bigger gun because there is no BFG that has endless bullets, there is no power-up that gives you invulnerability. It's just you, your teammates and the strategy you have. Cruisers can take out battleships if the pilot doesn't know what he's doing or is fitted wrong. Now, an older player has an advantage over a younger player. Give a younger player the biggest baddest ship he can fly against a seasoned pro in a less capable ship, the pro will come out ahead almost every time.
EVE's PvP isn't just about pew-pew either. It can also involve territorial disputes, wars between corporations, political positioning and negotiation, economic in-fighting, material and production disruption, to name a few. Does your FPS have that?
Next time, just don't talk about games you've never played. It's just embarrassing.
Can you imagine? Instead of concentrating on what will make a good game, they will essentially drive game mechanics to boost ratings, decisions made by some corporate marketing "genius" who thinks they know what makes good TV. Pair this with the hordes of people desperate for their 15 minutes of fame and that's a recipe for one of two things.
One, it could be the worst possible TV stunt ever produced, one that could leave some gamers in a lurch when they pull the plug on the show (which they eventually will do) and shut down the game. Or Two, it could be the biggest sensation this side of American Idol that plays down to the lowest common denominator.
I always wanted to work at a place you would see in the movies of the "typical" high-tech work area. Lot's of screens, overflowing with gadgets hooked up in arcane ways, sitting in your command chair of awsomeness in dark rooms with moody, dramatic lighting that would reflect part of the display into your face if you gazed into it a certain way.
Working in tech, you realize what a load of bullshit that is. I schlep my three year old Compaq laptop loaded with Xubuntu to my clients who have their servers stuck in closets or storage rooms. I have my one screen, dirty from use and abuse, I sit on folding chairs and bathed in florescent light, surrounded by boxes filled with office supplies.
*sigh* BOTH lawyers have to approve of the jury members, not just one side. What you suggest is that the prosecution picked twelve easily swayed jurors while the defense ate a peanut-butter sandwich, which is a funny thought but really wrong.
Too much TV court room drama has clouded your vision. There are a lot of people who think that if there is nothing but circumstantial evidence that you cannot convict because of "reasonable doubt". It's simply not the case (no pun intended). Think of it this way; if all it took was disposing the body for good, there would likely be a lot more murderers on the streets. Much of the evidence against him is circumstantial, but if you put it all together, it looks pretty damning.
The reason for that box was actually an attempt to lessen the influence of money in the political process. How it is supposed to work is the FEC determines who are "serious" candidates and then distribute the money evenly amongst them. It is fairly tipped and a damn shame though as it strongly favors Republicans and Democrats over third parties.
It can't get you everything, but it can give you freedom. With enough money in the bank, you never have to work as a corporate slave again.
Really? That question comes down to how much is enough. Working my corporate job was a means to an end, which was simply earning money. To me, that seems a poor life indeed. And how many IT people who you know earn enough money to throw off the shackles of their job early enough to not be a corporate slave? I'm guessing one or none. I certainly don't know anyone who has that kind of income. And exactly what kind of freedom do you speak? I have lots of freedom...the freedom to choose my job and work for something I care about instead of being a slave to my paycheck.
This is pure foolishness. Either because you are naive, young, or both. The jobs where you can make double what you are making now won't be there forever. What you should be doing is taking one of those corporate jobs and living well below your means. This way, you can save half of your money in the bank.
Well I'm not young anymore, but I don't consider myself naive, either. Let me put it to you this way (seeing that we've gone off of the parent poster and now talking about financial plans). An average person is going to spend around 10,000 hours a year at their job. What's that worth to you? How is that time spent during your year? If you enjoy working in a corporate environment, then that may not be that bad for you. Good for you. For me, all of my corporate jobs were about bottom line and IT is usually a cost generator, not a revenue maker. You are looked upon by the accounting types as a cost, and those are the people who are always looking to trim the bottom line. With the exception of the people I worked with, the job itself was a drag. In my current job, I am valued and I love going to work. I can't see anything I'm doing wrong here.
Plus you miss the whole point of that paragraph! Money is not an issue for me. I like to do work I enjoy. That, to me, is worth more than getting paid more money. To illustrate this point further, I received the offer for my current job on the same day that I received a different job which I eventually turned down. The other job paid almost twice as much money, I would be doing less work, but none of that mattered to me. Please read that carefully as I make the point several times that some people think differently than what is supposed to be the norm of earning a bunch of money.
You need to look out for yourself, or you will find yourself old and broke.
Corporate jobs aren't all bad. I am currently working a job that generally cares about its customers and is making a profit at the same time. You just need to find something that suits you.
Thanks for your concern, but I'm doing just fine, thank you. And I'm glad you like your corporate job. Just know that it's not for everyone. Plus, and this may come as a shock to you, but I don't intend on retiring early. I have enough time for my hobbies already and I can't imagine at this point not working, especially if I like what I do. Why would I quit?
Not everyone wants to bike to work or has the time to volunteer. Many people have families and need the money to support them.
Again, reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit. It was just the point that my boss isn't socking the money away for himself, nor is he someone that talks without action. Plus, he also supports a family. I'm not sure what point you make in any of that. You must have some sort of disconnection from reality with the belief that people who work for non-profits or less for what they could get in an open market don't support families or volunteer for worthy causes, or both for that matter.
If you are just looking out for yourself and how much money you have, then maybe that kind of life is for you. But you must know, you have to know that a life like that is not for everyone.
Wrong. Your ignorance here is shining through. Just because you don't see how it's possible doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, doesn't mean that there are people and businesses out there who are doing just such a thing and succeeding. There are businesses that do not solely have a profit goal and they do just fine, thank you very much. I just happen to work for one of them.
You see there are people out there where the job and the social mission are more important than earning as much money as possible. I could go on here and wax poetic about how money can't get you everything and such, but let me stick to the point at hand of companies who do good as well as financially paying the bills and keeping the lights on. I work with non-profit organizations all day, people dedicated to making things better for other people. They often don't understand technology and need help because their focus is somewhere else. That's where people like me come it, help them out and help them do their mission. And we do this at under-market rates because tech budgets for non-profits are usually pretty tiny. And it is possible to run a company on thin margins to provide this service to these people. It's difficult, not for everyone, but very possible.
We've gotten some strange idea in our heads that making money is the most important thing in our lives and without gobs of money, there's no way that you can survive. Horseshit. You just have to have a good plan and be fortunate to have people who have the same desire to do good work for less money. The upside to this is you get people who are dedicated to their work, who do this work because it's what they want to do, not some nebulous monetary goal. Any profits into a venture like this gets reinvested to provide the future of the company and to grow the company steadily and slowly. Careful reinvestment is the key here.
If I were working corporate (which I did at one point), I'd be getting paid probably twice what I'm getting now for less work. But I'd be under the thumb of some accounting knob who decides that my training is a risk of me leaving. If I strictly went consulting, I could earn up to three times as much. But then I'd be doing zombie work, not really caring about making someone else rich. Neither of those jobs give any type of appreciation from your employers. None of that matters to me. I have a great job, my clients are great people who really appreciate what I do, I work with brilliant people who are passionate about their jobs and life and I get paid a living wage, which allows me to live modestly and within my means.
Oh and you may ask or wonder about our company owner/president. You might think he drives a fancy car and socks all the money away. Actually, he often bikes to work, volunteers a lot of his time and is a fantastic guy to boot.
The point I'm trying to make is that one way people involved in technology can help is by doing things like this for people who need this help. There are all sorts of motivations for businesses, not all of them are monetary. The good ones are those who are doing what they love to do for people who are doing good work and who appreciate the work you do.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, low-sec has a fair amount of action. It's not 0.0, but there's a certain amount of risk. The real carebears are those who war-dec new corporation who operate in Empire and think they're hot stuff.
I would like to point out this article from David Byrne which I found highly instructive on different record contract structures. It's an older article, but still very good from someone who has been there, on both sides of the equation.
While some bands may chose the megastar option (at risk of loss of other things), a great many other musicians would likely do well on a number of different levels.
Y'know though, the labels and record companies are really just middlemen and the artists make their money from concert tours and very little from actual CD sales.
So why are we paying for the middleman?
What would be funny if someone found out where their "undisclosed location" would be and published it.
The Pwnies got PWNED!
Gah. Spoilsport.
Can't wait to see it fire up and have the screen print out: It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
I believe you are framing this in the wrong way.
For one, it's not the entire agency who is throwing up their hands, it's the head of the EPA. He is a Bush appointee, not necessarily there because of his commitment to the environment. This is the same guy who went against all of his scientists and advisers to turn down California's request to have stricter emissions controls. This is the same guy who doesn't want the EPA to regulate greenhouse gasses when everyone else under him is telling him that the EPA should take action.
Congress did take action. They created the EPA and passed the Clean Air Act to handle these things. I don't believe (though I could be mistaken) that the EPA should enforce items only if it is economically feasible.
Besides, what about necessity being the mother of invention? Not that we can invent our way out of emissions problems, but I'm sure that if we enforce stricter regulations, someone will figure out a way to make a buck out of it.
I hate to burst any patriotic shaped bubbles on this, but without the help of the French Navy eliminating the power of the British fleet and providing blockades and needed sea power (not to mention significant troop support), our guerrilla war may have ended a bit differently.
AND NOW, IN THIS CORNER, THE LAW PROFESSOR!
Fantastic. So is my wife. I have discussions like this all the time and I now know what I'm dealing with. Let's continue.
BDS, you say. You're putting up so many strawmen here, I do believe you are trying to grow corn. But let me clarify if I hadn't before. You are delusional if you think this one decision by SCOTUS excuses this sorry excuse of an executive branch. I don't hate him, I just think he's incompetent or malicious, maybe both.
By the way, nice phrasing about Miller being the only 20th century case about the 2nd amendment. I really don't have the time to point out the previous challenges, most of them being state challenges, granted, but all of them affirming the fact when Madison drew up the 2nd Amendment, he was referring to a collective and not a individual right. So in that sense, the so-called originalists are rejecting the earlier rulings found over the course of the last 200 years.
Oh, seeing the whole activism bug has got you in a tizzy, please note that a state of war can only be declared by Congress, which I'm pretty sure is in the Constitution somewhere. That would classify the whole Iraq thing as a military conflict of some sort or another.
But all in all, I think I'm just upset that you see this so black and white. It's not. That's why it's confusing. But gosh, sure is fun to have this pleasant discussions on a well moderated web-site.
Wait a minute...are you suggesting that this one decision, this one moment in time, exonerates the current administration from all of the countless fuck-ups they've committed over the last seven years?
You, sir, are full of shit. I don't agree with this decision (mainly on principal, but also on the fact that the so-called "originalists" on the court basically reversed about a centuries worth of decisions previously decided), but that doesn't matter. Just take your strawman and go home.
Get out of your echo chamber. Not sure what I have to say about a long extended quote from an op-ed article.
But in the interests of clarity, I'll offer up this link which, although from a blog, pretty much tears apart your strawman by actually quoting directly from the actual report rather than by leaving out much by omission. FUN FACT: that's exactly what Freddie Hiatt, whom you quote at length, seems to do himself!
While I would normally agree with you on the copyright schemes and such, but with it being available to so many systems at launch...what's the big deal about popping your CD in the tray?
Seriously, if you are going to buy it for console, that's what you have to do to play it anyway. How is this any worse on a PC?
Don't get me wrong, I can be as lazy as any other PC gamer and I hate having to pop in a CD just to have it run it's verification check, but if I had this game on a PS3 or X-box, I still have to put the stupid thing in the machine anyway.
Heh, it's hard to encapsulate the game in a short post between things you're doing at work. :D
I'm not trying to be nice. I'm trying to point out how ridiculous the OP sounded when he talks about balance in PvP when he's never played the game. You've not played EVE either I take it. So, I'll be nice on this.
There are no levels in EVE. There are skills. There are so many skills, it would be impossible to master them all. However, a new player can come into the game, train a few skills and be an important part of a group, perhaps the most vital part of that group. As a player, you can spread around your skills, be a jack of all trades, or you can focus and master a few things relatively quickly. Hate them or love them, Goonswarm proved that a bunch of cheap ships flown well can usually be devastating against large, well-armed ships. Actually, other responses to this are more eloquent than I'm being about the skill system, so I will refer you to them.
Now how does an older player have an advantage? Is it because he has a large ship or because he has the experience to use the skills he has? How is this much different than an FPS in that sense? An older player in an FPS knows each weapon, knows the maps, knows where to go and what to do. It's almost as if you are suggesting that I discount experience for the sake of some weird "balance". The OP was talking about how FPS was the only true measure of PvP skill because the weapons were all the same. I make the point that it's a rather narrow definition because 1) he's never played EVE and 2) there are other types of PvP other than simple pew-pew.
My example that I gave is that even though a player has a bigger and possibly better ship and weapons, it does not mean that they will win the fight, plain and simple. I do not see any other arguments to the other points I made, so I'll assume you agree with those.
Y'know, if you haven't played the game, you can just say so. You don't have to post this and try to convince people that twitch gaming is what you think is the best measure for PvP.
I cannot say anything about Conan, although it sounds like it would be a laugh. EVE online, though, I can talk about.
Gear matters in FPS play too, don't say that it doesn't. You try to bring the right weapon to get the job done. Sure, there's some skill there, but chances are the right choice of weapon for the job helps more.
EVE online has a steep learning curve. It's a brutal game. Wander into the wrong star system and you will kiss your ship and likely your pod goodbye. But, even a new player can make an impact with a team. It's less about who has the bigger gun because there is no BFG that has endless bullets, there is no power-up that gives you invulnerability. It's just you, your teammates and the strategy you have. Cruisers can take out battleships if the pilot doesn't know what he's doing or is fitted wrong. Now, an older player has an advantage over a younger player. Give a younger player the biggest baddest ship he can fly against a seasoned pro in a less capable ship, the pro will come out ahead almost every time.
EVE's PvP isn't just about pew-pew either. It can also involve territorial disputes, wars between corporations, political positioning and negotiation, economic in-fighting, material and production disruption, to name a few. Does your FPS have that?
Next time, just don't talk about games you've never played. It's just embarrassing.
This has epic fail written all over it.
Can you imagine? Instead of concentrating on what will make a good game, they will essentially drive game mechanics to boost ratings, decisions made by some corporate marketing "genius" who thinks they know what makes good TV. Pair this with the hordes of people desperate for their 15 minutes of fame and that's a recipe for one of two things.
One, it could be the worst possible TV stunt ever produced, one that could leave some gamers in a lurch when they pull the plug on the show (which they eventually will do) and shut down the game. Or Two, it could be the biggest sensation this side of American Idol that plays down to the lowest common denominator.
If you had read the article, the original, version 1 of the OLPC laptop will be $100. This new version has no price set in it's unveiling.
It took you five hours to play Portal? Either you suck at playing that game or SP3 just created a HUGE performance hit. :)
I always wanted to work at a place you would see in the movies of the "typical" high-tech work area. Lot's of screens, overflowing with gadgets hooked up in arcane ways, sitting in your command chair of awsomeness in dark rooms with moody, dramatic lighting that would reflect part of the display into your face if you gazed into it a certain way.
Working in tech, you realize what a load of bullshit that is. I schlep my three year old Compaq laptop loaded with Xubuntu to my clients who have their servers stuck in closets or storage rooms. I have my one screen, dirty from use and abuse, I sit on folding chairs and bathed in florescent light, surrounded by boxes filled with office supplies.
*sigh* BOTH lawyers have to approve of the jury members, not just one side. What you suggest is that the prosecution picked twelve easily swayed jurors while the defense ate a peanut-butter sandwich, which is a funny thought but really wrong.
Too much TV court room drama has clouded your vision. There are a lot of people who think that if there is nothing but circumstantial evidence that you cannot convict because of "reasonable doubt". It's simply not the case (no pun intended). Think of it this way; if all it took was disposing the body for good, there would likely be a lot more murderers on the streets. Much of the evidence against him is circumstantial, but if you put it all together, it looks pretty damning.
The reason for that box was actually an attempt to lessen the influence of money in the political process. How it is supposed to work is the FEC determines who are "serious" candidates and then distribute the money evenly amongst them. It is fairly tipped and a damn shame though as it strongly favors Republicans and Democrats over third parties.
More info here at the FEC website.
Really? That question comes down to how much is enough. Working my corporate job was a means to an end, which was simply earning money. To me, that seems a poor life indeed. And how many IT people who you know earn enough money to throw off the shackles of their job early enough to not be a corporate slave? I'm guessing one or none. I certainly don't know anyone who has that kind of income. And exactly what kind of freedom do you speak? I have lots of freedom...the freedom to choose my job and work for something I care about instead of being a slave to my paycheck.
This is pure foolishness. Either because you are naive, young, or both. The jobs where you can make double what you are making now won't be there forever. What you should be doing is taking one of those corporate jobs and living well below your means. This way, you can save half of your money in the bank.
Well I'm not young anymore, but I don't consider myself naive, either. Let me put it to you this way (seeing that we've gone off of the parent poster and now talking about financial plans). An average person is going to spend around 10,000 hours a year at their job. What's that worth to you? How is that time spent during your year? If you enjoy working in a corporate environment, then that may not be that bad for you. Good for you. For me, all of my corporate jobs were about bottom line and IT is usually a cost generator, not a revenue maker. You are looked upon by the accounting types as a cost, and those are the people who are always looking to trim the bottom line. With the exception of the people I worked with, the job itself was a drag. In my current job, I am valued and I love going to work. I can't see anything I'm doing wrong here.
Plus you miss the whole point of that paragraph! Money is not an issue for me. I like to do work I enjoy. That, to me, is worth more than getting paid more money. To illustrate this point further, I received the offer for my current job on the same day that I received a different job which I eventually turned down. The other job paid almost twice as much money, I would be doing less work, but none of that mattered to me. Please read that carefully as I make the point several times that some people think differently than what is supposed to be the norm of earning a bunch of money.
You need to look out for yourself, or you will find yourself old and broke.
Corporate jobs aren't all bad. I am currently working a job that generally cares about its customers and is making a profit at the same time. You just need to find something that suits you.
Thanks for your concern, but I'm doing just fine, thank you. And I'm glad you like your corporate job. Just know that it's not for everyone. Plus, and this may come as a shock to you, but I don't intend on retiring early. I have enough time for my hobbies already and I can't imagine at this point not working, especially if I like what I do. Why would I quit?
Not everyone wants to bike to work or has the time to volunteer. Many people have families and need the money to support them.
Again, reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit. It was just the point that my boss isn't socking the money away for himself, nor is he someone that talks without action. Plus, he also supports a family. I'm not sure what point you make in any of that. You must have some sort of disconnection from reality with the belief that people who work for non-profits or less for what they could get in an open market don't support families or volunteer for worthy causes, or both for that matter.
If you are just looking out for yourself and how much money you have, then maybe that kind of life is for you. But you must know, you have to know that a life like that is not for everyone.
Wrong. Your ignorance here is shining through. Just because you don't see how it's possible doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, doesn't mean that there are people and businesses out there who are doing just such a thing and succeeding. There are businesses that do not solely have a profit goal and they do just fine, thank you very much. I just happen to work for one of them.
You see there are people out there where the job and the social mission are more important than earning as much money as possible. I could go on here and wax poetic about how money can't get you everything and such, but let me stick to the point at hand of companies who do good as well as financially paying the bills and keeping the lights on. I work with non-profit organizations all day, people dedicated to making things better for other people. They often don't understand technology and need help because their focus is somewhere else. That's where people like me come it, help them out and help them do their mission. And we do this at under-market rates because tech budgets for non-profits are usually pretty tiny. And it is possible to run a company on thin margins to provide this service to these people. It's difficult, not for everyone, but very possible.
We've gotten some strange idea in our heads that making money is the most important thing in our lives and without gobs of money, there's no way that you can survive. Horseshit. You just have to have a good plan and be fortunate to have people who have the same desire to do good work for less money. The upside to this is you get people who are dedicated to their work, who do this work because it's what they want to do, not some nebulous monetary goal. Any profits into a venture like this gets reinvested to provide the future of the company and to grow the company steadily and slowly. Careful reinvestment is the key here.
If I were working corporate (which I did at one point), I'd be getting paid probably twice what I'm getting now for less work. But I'd be under the thumb of some accounting knob who decides that my training is a risk of me leaving. If I strictly went consulting, I could earn up to three times as much. But then I'd be doing zombie work, not really caring about making someone else rich. Neither of those jobs give any type of appreciation from your employers. None of that matters to me. I have a great job, my clients are great people who really appreciate what I do, I work with brilliant people who are passionate about their jobs and life and I get paid a living wage, which allows me to live modestly and within my means.
Oh and you may ask or wonder about our company owner/president. You might think he drives a fancy car and socks all the money away. Actually, he often bikes to work, volunteers a lot of his time and is a fantastic guy to boot.
The point I'm trying to make is that one way people involved in technology can help is by doing things like this for people who need this help. There are all sorts of motivations for businesses, not all of them are monetary. The good ones are those who are doing what they love to do for people who are doing good work and who appreciate the work you do.
This is what they should do:
Windows 7 with Wine. How's THAT for backwards compatibility and strange bedfellows?